What is faith? What is the relationship between faith and reason? The skeptic’s definition is that faith is belief without reason. Faith means succumbing to the first belief system that comes along, and subsequently never understanding why you believe it. On the other hand, I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard a concise definition of faith from a believer.
Passages like Hebrews 11:1 don’t do much to clear things up either. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Perhaps it’s a badly-translated Greek linguical construct, but that sounds self-contradictory. Other passages add to the confusion: “not by works” versus “faith without works is dead.” No wonder the concept is so indefinite. If you make a concrete assertion, someone can (and usually will) contradict you with a Bible verse.
“Well,” theologians say, “faith is a difficult concept. You have to grow in your understanding of it.” Or possibly, “The mind of a skeptic is incapable of understanding faith.” Such evasions bother be. Valid concepts, to the extent they affect our actions in the real world, should be describable with concise language and clear examples. Why should the concept of faith be exempt?
February 13, 2007 at 9:12 am
Greg – Thanks for giving us an opportunity to respond. I don’t know how much space the ‘comments’ portion has for comments. If there’s a larger volume of something we want to say or to forward, what would you suggest we do? I have something I found on a website that I have come to deeply appreciate – http://www.str.org – that I would challenge you to include in your web browsings. Here it is, if it will fit:
Faith and Facts
Gregory Koukl
Can you give a good definition of biblical faith? How does it relate to science?
I don’t like the word “faith.” Not because faith isn’t valuable, but because it’s often deeply misunderstood. “Faith” in this twisted sense is what you use when all reason is against you. It’s religious wishful thinking, in which one squeezes out spiritual hope by intense acts of sheer will. People of “faith” believe the impossible. People of “faith” believe that which is contrary to fact. People of “faith” believe that which is contrary to evidence. People of “faith” ignore reality.
I think part of the confusion is because Christians are often told to ignore circumstances, meaning that we’re not to get overwhelmed or discouraged by them because God is bigger than our troubles. “Have faith in God,” we’re told. I think that’s good counsel as far as it goes, but sometimes it breeds misunderstanding, implying that faith is a blind leap that has no relationship to fact.
Some suggest we cannot find facts to support our faith, nor is it preferable to try. Faith is not the kind of thing that has anything to do with facts, they say. If we have evidence to prove what we believe, then that takes away from real faith.
Somehow these people think that genuine faith is eviscerated by knowledge and evidence. We’ve made a virtue out of believing against the evidence, as if that’s what God has in mind for us. This is all wrong.
Think about it for a moment. J.P. Moreland has suggested that if this is really the Christian view of faith, the best thing that could happen to Christianity is for the bones of Jesus to be discovered. Finding His bones would prove He didn’t rise from the dead. When Christians continue to believe that He did, then, they would be demonstrating the most laudable faith, believing something that all the evidence proved was false.
This is silly. We’re enjoined to have faith in part because we have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. If we’re encouraged to believe because of the resurrection, then that proves this other view of faith is false. It may be the view Christians hold in many cases, but it is not the view of the Bible. It is not the view of Christianity.
Frankly, if religion is merely an exercise in wishful thinking for me, I wouldn’t wish up Christianity. It’s far too inconvenient. Indeed, it seems that’s part of the reason people hold many of the ludicrous religious views they do. They’re appealing. They wish God was impersonal, because an impersonal God can’t make the kind of demands on them that a holy God can. An impersonal divine force doesn’t cramp their style on Saturday night. Eastern religions are high on individual liberty and low on individual responsibility. That’s appealing.
No, biblical faith isn’t believing against the evidence. Instead, faith is a kind of knowing that results in action. Let me explain what I mean.
If we want to exercise biblical faith–Christian faith–then we ought first to find out how the Bible defines faith. The clearest definition comes from Hebrews 11:1. This verse says, “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Now, there’s something very important in these words. We see the word “hope,” we see the word “assurance,” and we see the word “conviction”–that is, confidence. Now, what gives us confidence?
If you buy a lottery ticket, do you hope you’ll win the lottery? Yes, of course you do. Do you have any assurance you’ll win the lottery? Absolutely not. You have no way of knowing that your ticket is any better than the millions of other lottery tickets out there competing for the same pot.
But what if you had x-ray vision, and you could see through the gray scratch-off coating on the lottery tickets you buy at the supermarket? You’d know if you had a $100, $200 or a $1,000 winner, wouldn’t you? In that case, would you merely hope you’d win? No, you’d have assurance , wouldn’t you? You’d have assurance of those things you previously only hoped for. It would be hope with conviction, not a mere hoped, but a hope buttressed by facts and evidence.
That’s why the Christian faith cares about the evidence, friends. For the biblical Christian, the facts matter. You can’t have assurance for something you don’t know you’re going to get. You can only hope for it.
This is why the resurrection of Jesus is so important. It gives assurance to the hope. Because of a Christian view of faith, Paul is able to say in 1 Corinthians 15 that when it comes to the resurrection, if we have only hope, but no assurance–if Jesus didn’t indeed rise from the dead in time/space history–then we are of most men to be pitied. That’s what he says: We are of most men to be pitied .
This confidence Paul is talking about is not a confidence in a mere “faith” resurrection, a mythical resurrection, a story-telling resurrection. Instead, it’s a belief in a real resurrection. If the real resurrection didn’t happen, then we’re in trouble.
The Bible knows nothing of a bold leap-in-the-dark faith, a hope-against-hope faith, a faith with no evidence. Rather, if the evidence doesn’t correspond to the hope, then the faith is in vain, as even Paul has said.
So, faith is knowing, and that knowledge is based on evidence leading to confidence or conviction. But biblical faith is more than that. There’s another element. Faith is not just knowing. Faith is also acting. Biblical faith is a confidence so strong that it results in action. You’re willing to act based on that belief, that faith.
Many of you know that my engineer, Bobby the Bouncer, got married today. Bobby has believed in marriage for a long time, but Bobby never exercised faith in marriage until he walked down the aisle and said “I do” to Jennifer. That’s when he put his life on the line for what he believed to be true. He exercised faith.
It’s the same way with biblical faith. It’s not just intellectual assent. It’s not just acknowledging that certain facts about Jesus, the Bible, the resurrection, or whatever, happen to be true. It’s taking your life and putting it on the line based on your confidence in those facts.
Consider a guy who pushes a wheelbarrow across Niagara Falls on a tightrope every day. You’ve seen him do it so many times it doesn’t even occur to you he won’t make it. You believe with all your heart he can do it.
One day he comes up to you and asks, “Do you believe I can push this wheelbarrow across the tightrope without falling?” And you say, “Of course I do. I’ve seen you do it hundreds of times.” “All right,” he says, “get in the wheelbarrow.”
Well, now we’re talking about a whole different kind of thing, aren’t we? The first is an intellectual belief, an acknowledgment of certain facts. The second is active faith, converting your knowledge to action. When you climb into the wheelbarrow, your belief in facts is converted into active trust.
Faith is knowledge in action. It is active trust in the truth. You go to the airport. You say, “This plane goes to New York. I believe it. I’ll get on the plane. I’ll invest myself in the things I believe to be true.” That is biblical faith.
So, when someone asks me the question, Are faith and science compatible?, I’m going to immediately ask for a clarification. What do you mean by faith? If you think faith is mere fantasy and science is complete fact, well then, fantasy conflicts with fact, doesn’t it? If faith is a blind leap in the dark, if faith has no concern for the facts, you’re in trouble.
If, however, your faith is an intelligent trust in what can’t be seen that’s inferred from evidence that can be seen–if your faith is a commitment to reality, to acting on what you have good reason to believe is true–well then, there doesn’t need to be any conflict at all.
Friends, Christianity is not denying reality. Some people think it is. I’m sympathetic to them because some Christians act as if faith is a kind of sanctified denial. But that isn’t what biblical Christianity is about. Biblical Christians don’t deny reality, they discover reality. And once they’ve discovered it, they act on what they’ve learned.
Indeed, if Christianity is true, in the deepest sense of the word, then it must fit the facts of the real world. So, when we discover the facts of the real world, they can only support Christianity– if Christianity is true–given that you’ve interpreted the facts of the world correctly and you’ve interpreted the scriptural teaching correctly.
Christianity does comport with the facts. If science and religion both have truth as their ultimate goal, then there’s no inherent conflict between the two.
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show “Stand to Reason,” with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1996 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 http://www.str.org
February 13, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I believe the Lord welcomes a “fair” degree of skepticism, wanting us to test and see that He is good (1 Peter 2:3).
Some say faith is “is spiritualized imagination” or the “the willful abdication of reason”. Rather, faith is simply the next reasonable course of action, absolute active trust and confidence in something or someone, that follows established rational observations. (from Hebrews 11:1 – “being sure” and “being convicted” – active)
Consider a wooden bar stool: You look at it closely. You examine its design and conclude that it is structurally sound. You believe it sufficiently engineered. You trust that the materials chosen by the manufacturer will support your weight. Perhaps you did some testing on the wood. Everything up to this point is applied logic. You use knowledge and experience to make an informed intellectual decision.
Next, you sit on that stool. That is faith!
What makes you trust that the stool will support your weight as you sit? Intellectual assent only takes you so far. True living requires that we put our beliefs into action.
While Christian faith is not based purely on evidence, it is definitely supported by evidence. As someone once said “Belief beyond proof is faith. Belief in spite of proof is folly.” True Christian faith is not about checking the brain at the door, merely relying on the heart, or the warm fuzzies of emotion – it is calculated, based on a preponderance of the evidence.
Here is another illustration you may have heard that may help:
There once was a tight-rope walker who could walk a rope across Niagara Falls. Many people watched him do it day after day. To them he asked, “Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls?” They all replied, “Yes.” They had already seen him do it many times.
Then he pushed a wheel barrow on a tight rope across Niagara Falls. When he completed the feat, he asked the onlookers, “Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls pushing a wheel barrow?” To that they replied unanimously, “Yes.” Because they saw him do that too.
Finally, a friend of the tight rope walker climbs into the wheel barrow and the tight rope walker pushes him across the Falls. The crowd was amazed at the daring feat! When the tight-rope walker had finished, he asked the crowd, “Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls pushing a wheel barrow with a person in it?” To that they exclaimed, “Yes!” For now they were believers in the tight-rope walker’s abilities.
Then he looked at the crowd and asked, “Who’s next?”
In this way we gaze at Jesus, what we know about him, what we can learn from the Bible, from history, from testimonies of others having the same “faith,” etc. For those who agree with the historical reliability of both the Bible and accounts/letters of the early church, etc. Jesus asks us to trust Him, that He will carry us into Heaven if we only give our lives to Him, to serve and obey Him. We need not do so blindly.
“The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap.” (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 622)
Jesus is that greatest discovery (Matthew 13:44).
Thor Lundberg
Called by Grace Ministries
http://www.calledbygrace.org
February 13, 2007 at 9:14 pm
What I’m hearing from both of these comments is that faith *is* reason. Is the term “faith” merely archaic? “For it is by grace you have been saved, through coming to the best possible conclusion based on available evidence…” It just doesn’t roll off the tongue when you say it that way :)
“While Christian faith is not based purely on evidence, it is definitely supported by evidence.”
This seems to imply that there’s a small bit of unjustified, baseless belief mixed in. Which beliefs, exactly, are unjustified? Shouldn’t we jettison the unjustified portion and move forward using only fully justified beliefs?
Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to wrap my head around this concept.
February 14, 2007 at 10:37 am
Thank you for your commentary.
— quote
What I’m hearing from both of these comments is that faith *is* reason. Is the term “faith” merely archaic?
— end quote
Not quite. Faith is (can be) reasonable, but it is not reason. Reason takes you so far, after which you must take a step of faith.
Going back to what I originally wrote – the context would be in consideration of the relationship between faith and reason, faith being the “absolute active trust and confidence in something or someone, that follows established rational observations”. Actually, you can remove the part “that follows established rational observations” without affecting my attempt at providing a contextual definition, as it exists only to provide a relationship of reason in how it may lead to faith.
Faith is more than “intellectual assent,” more than mere “belief”. It is active. Imperatively, it must be lived. For a chair, you believe it may hold your weight, but until you attempt to sit down, you only have intellectual assent, simple belief. Only until you actively move to sit down on the chair do you demonstrate your faith in the chair – that it will support you.
— quote
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through coming to the best possible conclusion based on available evidence…” It just doesn’t roll off the tongue when you say it that way :)
— end quote
Let’s revisit this:
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8)
Grace is the gift that saves you, the gift of Jesus Christ. Jesus has given himself for us and to us, and asks us to trust him. It is faith “in Jesus” that saves us – we trust Him to save us.
Jesus says “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:29-30)
One can believe in Jesus Christ without having true faith. Mere belief does not save that person. Those who do have faith in Jesus Christ demonstrate that faith, learning from and obeying Jesus in everything. This is what saves the person.How does one come to the decision that Jesus is worthy to be trusted? For some, it can be done blindly (I admire them the most). For others, it takes more, using rational thought to be brought to the place where faith must take over.
Consider the disciple Thomas who said “unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” (John 20:25). He could neither believe in nor place his faith in Jesus, for to him Jesus was still in the tomb, he saw the crucifixion.
Jesus didn’t criticize his skepticism, but rather entertained it. Jesus said to Thomas “put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe” (John 20:27) – only then did Thomas drop to his knees in worship exclaiming “My Lord and my God!”. Not only did he believe that Jesus was alive, he put his complete confidence and trust in the risen Lord, obeying the Lord through carrying out the Great Commission (Matthew 28). Thomas faithfully preached the Gospel in Parthia and India, where he ended up being martyred by pagan priests.
ALL but one of the disciples were martyred, John only being a Roman prisoner for the Gospel, died in exile. This is quite a change from “and they all left him and fled.” (Mark 14:50) at his arrest in the garden of Gethsemane.
Jesus said the greatest command is to “‘Love the Lord your God with all your HEART and with all your SOUL and with all your STRENGTH and with all your MIND’ ; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Luke 10:27)
How effective of a worshipper can a person be if they are not fully engaged? Again, some seem to be able to trust Jesus completely more easily. Yet, Jesus is alive, Jesus is reasonable, and Jesus wants us completely.
—– quote
“While Christian faith is not based purely on evidence, it is definitely supported by evidence.”
This seems to imply that there’s a small bit of unjustified, baseless belief mixed in.
Which beliefs, exactly, are unjustified? Shouldn’t we jettison the unjustified portion and move forward using only fully justified beliefs?
Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to wrap my head around this concept.
–— end quote
No problem. If I may entertain your use of the word “baseless”.
Going back to faith, for most, yes there is a certain degree of “baselessness”. Preponderance of evidence that leads to faith does not mean absolute evidence. Even “beyond a reasonable doubt” still implies the possibility that there may be something (albeit unreasonable) to cause doubt. Faith does have, by nature, a degree of uncertainty.
For the apostles, I’d say they are, perhaps, the only exemption. There likely was no baselessness (they saw the trials, the scourging, the via dolorosa, the crucifixion, the spear through the heart, the tomb, yet after all that they saw the risen Lord, touching His body – only happened ONCE in all of human history). They KNEW they could place their full trust and confidence in Jesus. From the testimony of the apostles, people believed their word about the risen Lord simply from the testimony from the “eyewitnesses” (apostles), not necessarily seeing the body (some baselessness). Only a generation later, no one saw either the body of the risen Lord or the apostles but some still believe based on the testimony they left to us (New Testament, testimony of early church fathers). So with each generation since the resurrection, baselessness increases. With each generation’s skeptics, baselessness increases all the more.
However, the mere possibility of baselessness does not change the fact that what happened did so as it was recorded in the Bible. Sure, in every generation, there are plenty who have so-called information that allegedly repudiates what the Bible says happened. This seems to me to be almost necessary. The question is, whom do you listen to, whom do you believe?
“But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:14)
Today, we have the disadvantage of history, being separated from the event and person in history on whom we are to place our faith by 2000 years. We have the skeptics, reinventors of the historical record, heretics who introduce destructive teachings, so forth and so on, all only to mislead and obscure, serving as overgrowth to hide that road that leads to life.
However, we do have a good record – the Bible. Further, the road is still there and has been for 2000 years. It will always be there, waiting patiently for the brave to begin their walk.
Jesus calls us to come. He is reasonable.
February 17, 2007 at 12:41 am
Okay, i’m going to succumb to peer pressure and use the “— quote” notation everybody else is using.
— quote
Going back to faith, for most, yes there is a certain degree of “baselessness”. Preponderance of evidence that leads to faith does not mean absolute evidence. Even “beyond a reasonable doubt” still implies the possibility that there may be something (albeit unreasonable) to cause doubt. Faith does have, by nature, a degree of uncertainty.
— end quote
You’re talking about playing the odds. Basing your actions on favorable probability falls within the realm of reason. In fact, reason only ever deals in degrees of certainty, not absolute certainty. It’s only when the odds become unfavorable that an action becomes baseless. So by saying that faith contains a baseless component, you imply that the odds favor your beliefs being wrong in some way. On the other hand, by saying that faith is essentially a safe bet, you imply that faith reduces entirely to reason.
February 17, 2007 at 11:34 am
–quote
So by saying that faith contains a baseless component, you imply that the odds favor your beliefs being wrong in some way. On the other hand, by saying that faith is essentially a safe bet, you imply that faith reduces entirely to reason.
–end quote
Saying that “faith contains a baseless component” simply is this – there is an action in true faith that that cannot be explained by reason. It does not imply at all either way whether or not there is reasonable basis for the action – step of faith.
If one relies on reason to lead to faith, reason can only take you so far but at some point, you must take a step that otherwise might seem unreasonable. As for “favoring being wrong,” I do not agree – this confuses the nature of what faith is.
An example and illustration of this – consider the movie “Indiana Jones and Last Crusade” where the main character (Indiana Jones – played by Harrison Ford) engages a search for the Holy Grail. Here is a tenacious intelligent scientist traveling the world for an artifact – the alleged chalice used at the Last Supper. There comes a point after all his collection of facts, maps, navigating of traps, competitors, so forth, where he is faced with a cliff, and a very deep dark chasm below.
He is absolutely lost at what to do. He sees a cliff edge across the chasm that could support him, but it is too far to jump, and there is nothing for his whip to grab onto so he can swing across.
Everything he has in his hands, all his experiences, what he knows, what he empirically believes, all that and more at that point comes to a climax. The journal in his hands tell him – walk over the cliff. It is the only thing telling him to do so.
Everything he KNOWS about cliffs tells him it is a bad idea. But he looks across the dark cave and sees an opening into a cave where it appears his journey could continue.
At that point, reason has taken him so far, to the edge of the cliff. Reason tells him that there is something else to consider – taking a step of faith, but reason also tells him that walking off edges of cliffs is a bad idea. From that vantage point however, he has nothing else to support his conclusion – and so he allows reason to let him abandon reason.
It is then he discovers an invisible bridge. Faith brought to light something otherwise hidden from plain view.
— quote
On the other hand, by saying that faith is essentially a safe bet, you imply that faith reduces entirely to reason.
— end quote
Reason may “support” faith, but does not serve as an inherent basis. For example, if you were to prove to me reasonably that Jesus “did not rise from the dead,” then I would have to have a long pause. However, for me, reason points to the fact that Jesus “is” alive and hence permits me to make that step of faith – obeying His commands, serving Him in love.
To have “faith” does not require reason at all. I can think of plenty who do not peruse over the ancient manuscripts, or examine evidences to the resurrection, etc. These people simply believe and have faith, not based on reason.
So faith may have a “reasonable” component, but it is NOT REQUIRED:
Jesus said – “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)
There is a chasm in this life that separates us from God. We cannot see it with our human eyes, reason can not point to it. But it is there, waiting to lead us to Hell.
We are born enemies of God, sinful creatures. Jesus came to fix that, stretching out His arms to provide us that bridge that leads us to heaven. His death cleanses us so that we may become friends with and children of the living God.
Reason points us to Jesus. And it is through Jesus ALONE, we may safely cross that great chasm into eternal life. He proved that, through His resurrection.
He is worthy to be trusted.
February 17, 2007 at 3:15 pm
— quote
…and so he allows reason to let him abandon reason.
— end quote
Paradox.
February 17, 2007 at 10:42 pm
— quote
— quote
…and so he allows reason to let him abandon reason.
— end quote
Paradox.
— end quote
A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that seems to lead to a contradiction or to a situation that defies intuition. Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction; or the puzzling result is not really a contradiction.
Contradiction if walking off the edge of a cliff if a reasonable thing to do – consider the context :)
Reason (the evidences, the discoveries, his father’s journal, etc.) told Indy to do something unreasonable.
Reason says Jesus is alive. It is not necessary to place faith in Jesus Christ because of reason, however, but simply to say reason does point to Jesus Christ for those who need reason to have faith.
February 18, 2007 at 10:20 pm
— quote from Wikipedia
A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition. Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together. The word paradox is often used interchangeably and wrongly with contradiction; but whereas a contradiction asserts its own opposite, many paradoxes do allow for resolution of some kind.
— end quote
Oops, I should have used the word “contradiction.” :P
— quote
Reason says Jesus is alive. It is not necessary to place faith in Jesus Christ because of reason, however, but simply to say reason does point to Jesus Christ for those who need reason to have faith.
— end quote
So you’re saying fideism (belief without reason) is okay, as long as one is lucky enough to stumble blindly into the correct religion. But those who feel so inclined can arrive at the correct religion using reason alone.
February 19, 2007 at 12:32 am
— quote
Oops, I should have used the word “contradiction.” :P
— end quote
Yes, using the word may have been more specific, and in doing so still would have been mistaken.
— quote
So you’re saying fideism (belief without reason) is okay, as long as one is lucky enough to stumble blindly into the correct religion.
— end quote
Fideism is quite valid.
“Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give reasons for their beliefs, since they profess belief in a religion which they cannot explain? They declare, when they expound it to the world, that it is foolishness, stultitiam; and then you complain because they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is through their lack of proofs that they show they are not lacking in sense.” (Pensees, no, 233).
Further, Jesus had no problem with it, nor do I.
“Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)
— quote
But those who feel so inclined can arrive at the correct religion using reason alone.
— end quote
Almost. Luck may be involved in part (depending on how you define “luck”) since the human mind has been negatively affected by sin, thereby affecting reason. Suffice to say, while it is certainly possible for reason to take a person to a point in the correct direction, one still has to make that leap – in faith – into a correct relationship with the living Lord Jesus Christ.
Borrowing from Koukl – well said:
You go to the airport. You say, “This plane goes to New York. I see it on the flight schedule. I know where my gate is. I believe it.” THIS IS REASON.
Then you say “I’ll get on the plane. I’ll invest myself in the things I believe to be true… (you get on the plane)” THIS IS BIBLICAL FAITH.
Reason takes you to the airport, takes you to the gate, and takes you to the plane door. But reason stops when you step onto the plane (remember the baseless topic – that plane may end up factually in Hawaii though the schedule says New York). Faith puts you on that plane.
Reason “can” tell you that Jesus lived, was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again, but one still has to give up everything they are to Him – in faith.
So reason is valid, with a caveat. Reason “encourages” us to have faith. It is not causal.
Feel free to contact me off-blog (additionally) if you need further discussion or clarification.
Thor Lundberg
Called By Grace Ministries
http://www.calledbygrace.org
February 19, 2007 at 11:48 am
I don’t mind saying I have faith in the plane, but that’s not baseless, it’s just a calculated risk.
Baselessness isn’t the same thing as statistical uncertainty. As soon as baselessness enters the picture, you shouldn’t step on the plane. That’s all I’m saying.
February 19, 2007 at 12:47 pm
The difficult thing when borrowing the quote from Koukl is that both the reason and the faith were grounded in things which are material. There is a tangible “reason for reason” and a tangible “reason for faith.”
Ultimately faith ends up being fideism. There are many immaterial reasons [i.e., circumstances, culture, emotions, perceptions] to lead someone to the conclusion of taking a “step of faith” but not in the same way that faith in God for salvation computes.
The product of believing on and exercising faith in a plane is the result of being moved from point A to point B. The greatest product of exercising faith for salvation is hope. Didn’t the Apostle Paul say that “for what reason would there be to hope for that which we already see?”
Greg, that is an interesting observation about the “reason” that also causes many to deconvert from the faith. [sorry if that one is in another thread that this one.]
I have just spent a few days listening to a series of debates between a Calvinist who views the future and God as being “Settled” and an Arminian (who is from your neck of the woods) who is an Open Theist that believes that the future and God are “Open.” Both of them are using the same source, the Bible, but they both have very different ways of reasoning.
In all of my studies of Christianity and the Bible over the last 12 years I have come to find that the view of God that has the most consistency is that of the Reformed Calvinistic view [though it still has its share of problems]. And the structure that it now sits on is primarily that of what is called the “Presuppositional” and “Transcendental Argument for God.”
The difficulty with both of these is that they serve to be wonderful tools for those who hold to its primary beliefs; such as Biblical Inerrancy, Infalibility, and Inspiration. However, when one steps outside of those realms the argumentation is lost; not that it doesn’t “win” as much as it just becomes a new game with different rules.
With Presup and TAG, the idea of “reason” starts in the Bible. Therefore, if one does not start with the Bible as their own presupposition then it is impossible to have complete and correct reason. It is also simultaneously believed that God has already predestined those unto himself who He will open their eyes of understanding. So if one is not “called” then they cannot understand…and yet those that hold this view still think that they can “lord it over” someone who is not “saved” according to their definition and therefore cannot properly use reason.
I don’t know Thor. I don’t know what his theology is apart from the calledbygrace.org website. What I do know about some of his arguments though is that unless someone is willing to come to the table with equal presuppositional views about the Bible then many of his references from it don’t have their full effect that he desires.
So back to the original question, which I think is a good one-
–quote
What is faith? What is the relationship between faith and reason? The skeptic’s definition is that faith is belief without reason. Faith means succumbing to the first belief system that comes along, and subsequently never understanding why you believe it. On the other hand, I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard a concise definition of faith from a believer.
–end quote
I think that faith is the product of what consistent reason produces. Very similar to the way that scientific experiments that have similar consistent results will produce a hypothesis. Then the best of the consistent hypothesis compile to produce the theory. Each have been tried, observed and calculated. That is why on this one point I will have to slightly disagree that faith to the skeptic is belief without reason, but that is just my own personal take. I.E., I have faith that my car will start when I put invoke the ignition because of all of the times that it’s worked before. My faith is based on observation and experience; both of which can be ruled as immaterial though.
As far as the definition of faith from a believer, I believe that Thor addressed that in his response about getting on a plane…but like I said, I don’t know that it can be fully quantified in a spiritual sense.
–quote
Passages like Hebrews 11:1 don’t do much to clear things up either. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Perhaps it’s a badly-translated Greek linguical construct, but that sounds self-contradictory. Other passages add to the confusion: “not by works” versus “faith without works is dead.” No wonder the concept is so indefinite. If you make a concrete assertion, someone can (and usually will) contradict you with a Bible verse.
–quote
Unfortunately this is true. It is very easy for a non-Christian to argue against the Christian using his “non-Christian” interpretation of the apparent contradictions. However, it makes it even more difficult when 2 Christians who are supposedly filled and enlightened by the same Spirit of Truth come to differing conclusions after reading the same source.
We have to remember that from a historical standpoint, the Bible never existed as a combined work and used the way that it is today. Each writing was a separate work that was to be interpreted as it was originally written. Not to mention that it even references writings within itself that are no longer included or held with the same regard as they once were.
So today, Christians are looking at their religion [in spite of what they think] in a very different way than others before them did. Each generation has evolved more in some way or another.
–quote
“Well,” theologians say, “faith is a difficult concept. You have to grow in your understanding of it.” Or possibly, “The mind of a skeptic is incapable of understanding faith.” Such evasions bother be. Valid concepts, to the extent they affect our actions in the real world, should be describable with concise language and clear examples. Why should the concept of faith be exempt?
–end quote
I don’t think that faith should be exempt but I believe that it will always remain a mystery.
Man will always be in a power struggle with himself as to who has the best and most knowledge. Those with less will be lower on the totem pole than those who have more. It has always been that way and always will. No matter how much to the contrary that they argue this, it is still true.
February 19, 2007 at 2:28 pm
—quote R.P.
Ultimately faith ends up being fideism.
—end quote
Belief without reason galls me, as you’ve no doubt guessed. :)
Here’s a thinker. What if faith doesn’t entail belief? Or at least certainty? What if the best one can do is pray to Jesus, if he exists, to save him, and meanwhile pursue the most reasonable course of action in life? What if saving faith is simply a moment of stepping outside of reason, not the permanent, life-consuming belief system most people think it is? It certainly jibes with the concept of the mustard seed.
February 19, 2007 at 2:43 pm
—quote
I don’t know Thor. I don’t know what his theology is apart from the calledbygrace.org website. What I do know about some of his arguments though is that unless someone is willing to come to the table with equal presuppositional views about the Bible then many of his references from it don’t have their full effect that he desires.
—end quote
I won’t speak for you Thor, because I’ll probably misconstrue you. :) Do Bible verses prove anything? Of course. They prove that the Bible says X. I don’t necessarily want this thread to delve into whether the Bible (Biblical inerrancy, rather) should be a presupposition, so I’ll let Bible verses slide, but I’m nevertheless coming from a position that doesn’t necessarily assume Biblical inerrancy, as it’s typically understood.
February 19, 2007 at 2:56 pm
—quote
So today, Christians are looking at their religion [in spite of what they think] in a very different way than others before them did. Each generation has evolved more in some way or another.
—end quote
Radically so, even. The Hebrews of Moses’s day were quite removed from our beliefs today. You see a progression from all people, righteous and unrighteous, going to “sheol” (the grave) to the transitional concept of “Abraham’s bosom,” all the way to modern concepts of heaven and hell, the lake of fire, temporary holding tanks for souls, etc. Just one example of a long overall conceptual evolution.
February 19, 2007 at 3:26 pm
–quote
Radically so, even. The Hebrews of Moses’s day were quite removed from our beliefs today. You see a progression from all people, righteous and unrighteous, going to “sheol” (the grave) to the transitional concept of “Abraham’s bosom,” all the way to modern concepts of heaven and hell, the lake of fire, temporary holding tanks for souls, etc. Just one example of a long overall conceptual evolution.
–end quote
:) It’s nice to see that I have not been alone in my observations.
Perhaps you could do a new thread on biblical inerrancy. That would be interesting.
[off topic] What does your wife think of this path on your journey? For, against, neutral? Just curious.
February 19, 2007 at 3:48 pm
– quote (g)
I won’t speak for you Thor, because I’ll probably misconstrue you. :) Do Bible verses prove anything?
Of course. They prove that the Bible says X.
– end quote (g)
The Bible, like any other book, tells us what the authors said, experienced, and heard.
– quote (g)
You see a progression from all people, righteous and unrighteous, going to “sheol” (the grave) to the
transitional concept of “Abraham’s bosom,” all the way to modern concepts of heaven and hell,
the lake of fire, temporary holding tanks for souls, etc. Just one example of a long overall
conceptual evolution.
– end quote (g)
Yes, we call this progressive revelation.
God does not reveal everything at once, nor does He lay down the same conditions for every period of history. Some of His later revelations simply supersede (not contradict) His earlier statements.
– quote (g)
Here’s a thinker. What if faith doesn’t entail belief?
– end quote (g)
Interesting question – faith follows belief.
Ie. I believe something to be true, but I do not show that I have faith unless I act on what I believe to be true.
Curious though. If faith did not entail belief, what would it entail?
– quote (g)
Or at least certainty?
– end quote (g)
Many have faith without reason. Many believe something without reason. Many believe something supported by reason. Many believe something with reason that is unreasonable. Many others have a faith based on reasonable presuppositions. etc. etc.
– quote (g)
What if the best one can do is pray to Jesus, if he exists, to save him, and meanwhile pursue the most reasonable course of action in life?
– end quote (g)
It would be a start. How much would that one “mean what they ask for?”
– quote (g)
What if saving faith is simply a moment of stepping outside of reason, not the permanent, life-consuming belief system most people think it is?
– end quote (g)
“In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2:17)
Saving faith shows itself in doing what Jesus asks us to do. That is, living to do what HE wants, not what WE want.
Christian faith is not a religion, it is a relationship.
February 19, 2007 at 3:50 pm
– quote (rp)
Perhaps you could do a new thread on biblical inerrancy.
– end quote (rp)
Here you go
http://www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=784441&ct=1247765
February 19, 2007 at 4:42 pm
— quote (rp)
The product of believing on and exercising faith in a plane is the result of being moved from point A to point B. The greatest product of exercising faith for salvation is hope. Didn’t the Apostle Paul say that “for what reason would there be to hope for that which we already see?”
— end quote (rp)
I think you are referring to (Romans 8:24) which essentially belongs to a section of scripture that tells believers that we hope for the same thing in what was seen of the Lord Jesus – his resurrected incorruptible body. We do not have it now, but we “hope” to be like Him. See the whole chapter 8, specifically verse 23 with respect to this.
We are as we are now (point A). We are told of the destination, the redemption of our bodies and the being with the Lord Jesus forever (point B). Very much like the airplane analogy in that one “hopes” that they get to New York if the schedule says “New York”, but of course with more serious consequences.
— quote (rp)
I have just spent a few days listening to a series of debates between a Calvinist who views the future and God as being “Settled” and an Arminian (who is from your neck of the woods) who is an Open Theist that believes that the future and God are “Open.” Both of them are using the same source, the Bible, but they both have very different ways of reasoning.
— end quote (rp)
Open Theism only proves that while using the Bible as its source, it does not understand it nor the God who wrote it.
With incorrect reading, anyone can use the Bible to support all kinds of ideas. :)
— quote (rp)
I think that faith is the product of what consistent reason produces.
— end quote (rp)
In consideration of the relationship between faith and reason, perhaps. However, as a stand alone definition, I do not believe it functions. For example – while faith can be “reasonable,” I also know it is possible for a person to have authentic faith without any “obvious” reason behind it (ie. blind faith, taking a “hunch”, etc.).
— quote (rp)
However, it makes it even more difficult when 2 Christians who are supposedly filled and enlightened by the same Spirit of Truth come to differing conclusions after reading the same source.
— end quote (rp)
Ah! Your use of the word “supposedly” is right on!
Keep in mind, however, those things that are considered foundational, and those that are secondary. Ie. is it appropriate to have instrumental music for worship, or wine for communion, (both secondary), etc. vs. Jesus is the only way to salvation (primary).
Foundationally, there is widespread agreement by all who do “have the Spirit of Truth” on what is considered essential.
On what we call the non-essentials, there is grace and liberty. Quite honestly, I am very glad for the diversity. It is perhaps the best teacher of how to love. Further, if everyone looked exactly the same, the picture of the End of Days with people from every tribe, tongue, language, and nation before the Throne of God might look pretty boring (Revelation 7:9).
— quote (rp)
Each writing was a separate work that was to be interpreted as it was originally written. Not to mention that it even references writings within itself that are no longer included or held with the same regard as they once were.
— end quote (rp)
Actually, history shows us that since the time of Moses, there was a conscious effort to consider each separate work for addition to others, as it became available, to make a collected whole. By the time of Jesus, it was the totality of the Old Testament (Law and the Prophets – 39 books but not in the same “form” we have today). Before 100 AD, the letters and documents that were being circulated that now make up the New Testament writings were already being distinguished as “scripture” (that is – equal authority with and belonging to the whole of the Old Testament). While already being accepted years earlier as authoritative, it took to 367 AD for the 27 books of the New Testament to become formally documented.
Walking “with” and “serving” the Lord Jesus for 22 years.
Thor Lundberg
Called By Grace Ministries
http://www.calledbygrace.org
February 19, 2007 at 4:46 pm
– quote (g)
I don’t mind saying I have faith in the plane, but that’s not baseless, it’s just a calculated risk.
Baselessness isn’t the same thing as statistical uncertainty. As soon as baselessness enters the picture, you shouldn’t step on the plane. That’s all I’m saying.
– end quote (g)
Granted.
So, “if” reason is needed to lead to faith, then casting one’s full confidence in the Lord Jesus is the best bet.
Thor Lundberg
Called By Grace Ministries
http://www.calledbygrace.org
February 19, 2007 at 5:03 pm
–quote (thor)
Yes, we call this progressive revelation.
God does not reveal everything at once, nor does He lay down the same conditions for every period of history. Some of His later revelations simply supersede (not contradict) His earlier statements.
–end quote
So then in the supposed progressive revelation it was OK for God to refer to death as just that; death…but then for the next generation death took on a new dimension…and then another for the next generation…
So from man’s perspective the events of death happened in this order-
Sheol- the grave, that’s it, you’re done.
Abraham’s Bosom- you die, but you go hang around in a holding tank with a divider between you and those on the other side.
Heaven or Hell- after you die then you go right to either of these places and that is your final fate
The Lake of Fire or the New Jerusalem- After you are done in either Heaven or Hell then you go to either proceeding destinations.
That doesn’t sound to me as much like progressive revelation as much as it sounds like adding more complexity to the mystery that only the more enlightened ones can achieve. This is a typical process in the evolution of religion.
– quote (g)
What if the best one can do is pray to Jesus, if he exists, to save him, and meanwhile pursue the most reasonable course of action in life?
– end quote (g)
–quote (thor)It would be a start. How much would that one “mean what they ask for?”
–end quote (thor)
Many evangelicals or Orthodox Christians would usually reply with how it doesn’t matter if they prayed to Jesus or not. It matters more that they are praying to the “right” Jesus; but the Jesus of a Calvinist is different from the Jesus of an Arminian. The Jesus of a Methodist is different from the Jesus of a Catholic.
–quote (thor)
Christian faith is not a religion, it is a relationship.
–end quote (thor)
With as reasonable as I’m trying to be here, I just cannot let this one go by. Christian faith is just as much a religion as anything else…no matter how it is presented. No ifs, ands or buts about it. While the ultimate goal of American Evangelical Christianity is a “relationship” with God/Jesus, the mode to achieve that requires all of the same components as being a devout Sufi Muslim
Webster’s definition of religion- “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”
In order for a “relationship” with Jesus to occur most Evangelicals agree that the following components are necessary-
Faith
Commitment
Prayer/Meditation
Bible Study
Worship
Fellowship
Evangelization
Whenever someone talks about “not feeling close to God” almost always without fail they are directed back by spiritual “leaders” to do the above and it will restore them.
Christianity it just as much of a religion as anything else.
February 20, 2007 at 12:04 am
– quote (rp)
Christian faith is just as much a religion as anything else…no matter how it is presented.
No ifs, ands or buts about it.
– end quote (rp)
Ok.. prove to me that I am in a “religion”. Feel free to take this off-blog.
While interaction may be different, my relationship with Jesus Christ is as definable as my marriage with my wife, my children, my relatives or my friends.
– quote (rp)
Webster’s definition of religion- “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”
– end quote (rp)
I rest my case. :)
February 20, 2007 at 12:19 am
– quote (rp)
So then in the supposed progressive revelation it was OK for God to refer to death as just that; death…but then for the next generation death took on a new dimension…and then another for the next generation…
– end quote (rp)
A sovereign God reveals what He chooses to reveal to mankind. The authors of scripture only wrote down what God wanted them to write down.
But you might want to read more carefully as both Daniel (605-536 BC) and Isaiah (740 – 680 BC.) write about an eternal punishment that you seem to suggest only exists in the New Testament.
February 20, 2007 at 10:21 am
– quote (rp)
Christian faith is just as much a religion as anything else…no matter how it is presented.
No ifs, ands or buts about it.
– end quote (rp)
To be fair, certainly Christanity can be perceived and lived like a religion. The truth of the matter is, the religious aspect is very much on the surface. True Christian faith is a very personal walk with a living person, the risen Lord Jesus Christ.
Living this way is more than following a proscribed standard or set of rules. It is lived willingly, out of love for Jesus, wanting to do His will, wanting to be “like Him”. Believers who follow and serve Jesus are “led,” have their “prayers answered,” are “given comfort,” and much more. there’s a two-way interaction of a different sort of the human experience.
“Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.” (1 Corinthians 13:12)
This is why those who have been walking with the Lord Jesus for a considerable amount of time may give a compassionately cross-eyed look to anyone saying Jesus was a myth, or did not rise from the dead, etc.
For to us the Hymn is true:
“And he walks with me
And he talks with me
And he tells me I am His own
And the joy we share as we tarry there
None other has ever known”
So, with the blog being: Observations on Faith
Def: Observation (Webster) “an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence ”
This is the experience of True Christian Faith.
February 20, 2007 at 11:52 am
Well said, Thor.
And this walking and talking with Jesus every day is what is so wonderful and sets Christianity apart from every other “religion.” Others call it a religion but when you have experienced walking with the Living God, you call it a relationship. Non-Christians cannot understand this so of course they categorize it as a religion. It’s like marriage. Until you have experienced it, it’s hard to explain how wonderful it is.
The following is my testimony and your Dad’s favorite hymn (Greg).
My faith has found a resting place,
Not in a man-made creed;
I trust the ever living One,
That He for me will plead.
I need no other evidence,
I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died
And rose again for me.
Enough for me that Jesus saves,
This ends my fear and doubt;
A sinful soul I come to Him,
He will not cast me out.
My soul is resting on the Word,
The living Word of God:
Salvation in my Savior’s name,
Salvation through His blood.
The great Physician heals the sick,
The lost He came to save;
For me His precious blood He shed,
For me His life He gave.
I need no other evidence,
I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died
And rose again for me.
February 20, 2007 at 11:54 am
“Your Mom” = Greg’s Mom
February 21, 2007 at 5:46 pm
His wife has shed many tears these past few weeks. But she still loves him very much and prays for him daily.
I know we all have doubts about our faith and that isn’t a shameful thing to admit, but I am still very saddened by the path that these doubts seem to be taking. At the same time, I am thankful that G is open to dialogue and being honest with me and his family about his thoughts.
Speaking of wives, how is your wife doing in regards to your thoughts? I have been meaning to email her for awhile to see how you all are doing. :-)
February 21, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Amber,
I am glad to hear that you are still being supportive of Greg. I’m sure that it is a huge comfort to him.
I must admit that I have not really shared any of my thoughts with anyone outside of my blogs, and so few people read them. I don’t know that the Mrs. has really looked at my blog in quite some time.
I went through a phase kind of like this when she and I were first married but at that time I had my mind set on being an atheist. Not so this time. I do believe in God, I am just not sure about all of the details that I’ve learned along the way. Unfortunately, even when I did consider myself to be “walking with God” spiritual issues had always been a point of tension with us. We were never able to really see eye to eye on much.
So for now I just choose not to talk about it with her and try not to outright do anything to purposely discourage her. she seems to be wherever she needs to be right now and I don’t want to bother that.
Ironically, in light of our past with each other, I find that since I have backed away from a lot of this we get along better more frequently because I’m not concerned with trying to make her see things my way or getting her frustrated with my deep spirit talk.
I would never want to purposely do anything to discourage anyone who was committed, sincere, honest and humble. I only have problems with those who feel that they possess the truth exclusively and have a very small club.
It is a hard road though. If Greg feels anything like I do, some days are very lonely. We want something so badly to cling on to for hope and guidance…but we also want something that we KNOW is safe and secure…unfortunately Greg and I both suffer from the curse of technicality. Our minds think in deeper more philosophical ways. That doesn’t make us better than anyone…if anything it just makes it harder for us to be communicated to and to communicate. Things take longer for us.
We may come around….I hope that we do….to a truth that we can’t let go of. Unfortunately it just takes a lot of time.
Good to hear from you. I’m sure that Anja would be happy to hear from you too.
April 4, 2007 at 2:36 pm
An interesting article relevant to this discussion:
“But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.”
Remaining article URL below (not sure how long it will stay online however)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
Thor Lundberg
Called by Grace Ministries
http://www.calledbygrace.org