Editing Reason (section)

===Reason versus faith or tradition===
{{Main|Faith|Religion|Tradition}}
There are many religious traditions, some of which are explicitly [[Fideism|fideist]] and others of which claim varying degrees of [[rationalism]]. Secular critics sometimes accuse all religious adherents of irrationality; they claim such adherents are guilty of ignoring, suppressing, or forbidding some kinds of reasoning concerning some subjects (such as religious dogmas, moral taboos, etc.).<ref>{{Cite book|title=The God Delusion|last=Dawkins|first=Richard|year=2008|publisher=Mariner Books|isbn=978-0618918249|edition=Reprint|language=en|quote=Scientists... see the fight for evolution as only one battle in a larger war: a looming war between supernaturalism on the one side and rationality on the other.|url=https://archive.org/details/goddelusion00dawk_0}}</ref> Though [[theology|theologies]] and [[religion]]s such as [[Monotheism|classical monotheism]] typically do not admit to being [[irrationality|irrational]], there is often a perceived conflict or tension between [[faith]] and [[tradition]] on the one hand, and reason on the other, as potentially competing sources of [[wisdom]], [[law]], and [[truth]].{{r|StraussProgress}}<ref>{{cite book|first=John|last=Locke|chapter=Of Faith and Reason, and their distinct provinces|year=1689|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.223061/page/n601/mode/2up|title=An Essay concerning Human Understanding|volume=IV}}</ref>

Religious adherents sometimes respond by arguing that faith and reason can be reconciled, or have different non-overlapping domains, or that critics engage in a similar kind of irrationalism:
; Reconciliation : Philosopher [[Alvin Plantinga]] argues that there is no real conflict between reason and [[classical theism]] because classical theism explains (among other things) why the universe is intelligible and why reason can successfully grasp it.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite book|title=Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism|last=Plantinga|first=Alvin|year=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0199812097|edition=1|language=en}}
|2={{Cite book|title=Natural Signs and Knowledge of God: A New Look at Theistic Arguments|year=2012|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0199661077|edition=Reprint|location=Oxford|language=en}}
}}</ref>
; Non-overlapping magisteria : Evolutionary biologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]] argues that there need not be conflict between reason and religious belief because they are each authoritative in their own domain (or "magisterium").<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite web|url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html|url-status=usurped|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160425013318/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html|archive-date=2016-04-25|title=Nonoverlapping Magisteria|author=[[Stephen Jay Gould]] |date=1997|website=www.stephenjaygould.org|access-date=2016-04-06|quote=To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.}}
|2={{Cite book|title=The God Delusion|last=Dawkins|first=Richard|year=2008|publisher=Mariner Books|isbn=978-0618918249|edition=Reprint|language=en|chapter=4|quote=This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis—by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/goddelusion00dawk_0|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/goddelusion00dawk_0}}
}}</ref> If so, reason can work on those problems over which it has authority while other sources of knowledge or opinion can have authority on the big questions.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=philo&id=philo_2009_0012_0001_0005_0023|url-access=subscription|title=The Meaning of Life as Narrative: A New Proposal for Interpreting Philosophy's 'Primary' Question|first=Joshua W.|last=Seachris|journal=Philo|access-date=2016-04-06|date=April 2009|volume=12|issue=1|pages=5–23|doi=10.5840/philo20091211}}</ref>
; {{lang|la|[[Tu quoque]]}} : Philosophers [[Alasdair MacIntyre]] and [[Charles Taylor (philosopher)|Charles Taylor]] argue that those critics of traditional religion who are adherents of [[Secularity|secular]] [[liberalism]] are also sometimes guilty of ignoring, suppressing, and forbidding some kinds of reasoning about subjects.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite book|title=Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition|year=1991|publisher=University of Notre Dame Press|isbn=978-0268018771|edition=60067th|language=en}}
|2={{Cite book|title=A Secular Age|last=Taylor|first=Charles|year=2007|publisher=The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0674026766|edition=1st|language=en}}
}}</ref> Similarly, philosophers of science such as [[Paul Feyerabend|Paul Feyarabend]] argue that scientists sometimes ignore or suppress evidence contrary to the dominant [[paradigm]].
; Unification : Theologian Joseph Ratzinger, later [[Benedict XVI]], asserted that "Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos, as the religion according to reason," referring to {{Bibleverse|John|1}} {{lang|la|Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος}}, usually translated as "In the beginning was the Word (Logos)." Thus, he said that the Christian faith is "open to all that is truly rational", and that the rationality of Western Enlightenment "is of Christian origin".<ref>{{Cite web | first=Joseph|last=Ratzinger|url=http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/cardinal-ratzinger-on-europe-s-crisis-of-culture.html | title=Cardinal Ratzinger on Europe's Crisis of Culture|year=2005}}</ref>

Some commentators have claimed that [[Western culture|Western civilization]] can be almost defined by its serious testing of the limits of tension between "unaided" reason and [[faith]] in "[[revelation|revealed]]" truths—figuratively summarized as [[Athens]] and [[Jerusalem]], respectively.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite book|last=Reynolds |first=John Mark|title=When Athens Met Jerusalem: An Introduction to Classical and Christian Thought|year=2009|publisher=IVP Academic|isbn=978-0830829231|publication-place=Downers Grove, Ill.|language=en}}
|2={{Cite journal|title=Athens and/or Jerusalem|journal=Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences|volume=950|issue=1|page=17|last=Pelikan|first=Jaroslav|year=2001|bibcode=2001NYASA.950...17P|doi=10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb02124.x|s2cid=21347905}}
}}</ref> [[Leo Strauss]] spoke of a "Greater [[Western world|West]]" that included all areas under the influence of the tension between Greek rationalism and [[Abrahamic]] revelation, including the [[Muslim]] lands. He was particularly influenced by the [[Islamic philosophy|Muslim philosopher]] [[Farabi|Al-Farabi]]. To consider to what extent [[Eastern philosophy]] might have partaken of these important tensions, Strauss thought it best to consider whether [[dharma]] or [[tao]] may be equivalent to [[Nature (philosophy)|Nature]] ({{transliteration|grc|[[physis]]}} in Greek). According to Strauss the beginning of philosophy involved the "discovery or invention of nature" and the "pre-philosophical equivalent of nature" was supplied by "such notions as 'custom' or 'ways{{'"}}, which appear to be really universal in all times and places. The philosophical concept of nature or natures as a way of understanding {{transliteration|grc|archai}} (first principles of knowledge) brought about a peculiar tension between reasoning on the one hand, and tradition or faith on the other.{{r|StraussProgress}}