Christianity Promotes Rational (and Evidential) Exploration

Anais Nin, the avant-garde author and diarist, once said, “When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow.” I couldn’t agree more. As a detective and evidentialist, the last thing I want a jury to do is adopt a position blindly. Many people seem to think that Christians do this very thing, however, when they adopt the view that Christianity is true. This is largely due to the fact that the term, “faith” is largely misunderstood. For some (even for some Christians), faith is best defined as “believing in something that lacks supporting evidence.” But this is not the definition of faith that is presented on the pages of Christian Scripture. Instead, the Biblical notion of faith is more akin to “trusting in the best inference from the evidence” (more on this in my post on Friday).

The Biblical authors repeatedly encouraged their readers to search the evidence to investigate the claims of Christianity (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 and 1 John 4:1) so they could be convinced of the truth of these claims (Romans 14:5, 2 Timothy 1:8-12 and 2 Timothy 3:14). This encouragement is consistent with the notion that the evidence will lead us to a rational conclusion about the nature of Jesus. In fact, Jesus also encouraged his followers to consider the evidence he provided about his deity (John 14:11 and Acts 1:2-3). Christian faith is not blind. Instead, the Christian faith encourages investigation related to Jesus and to the world around us. Christians ought to understand the distinctions between unreasonable, blind and reasonable faith:

Unreasonable Faith
Believing in something IN SPITE of the evidence. We hold an unreasonable faith when we refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that exists, is easily accessible and clearly refutes what we believe

Blind Faith
Believing in something WITHOUT any evidence. We hold a blind faith when we accept something even though there is no evidence to support our beliefs. We don’t search for ANY evidence that either supports or refutes what we are determined to believe

Reasonable Faith
Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.

The pages of Scripture support the notion of “reasonable faith”. Perhaps this is why so many Christians are evidentialists and have applied this evidential view of the world to their professional investigations (I’ve assembled a partial list of some of these Christian investigators in a variety of fields). Christianity has not stunted the intellectual growth of these men and women (as Anais Nin seemed to insinuate), but has instead provided the foundation for their exploration. For these investigators, the evidential nature of the Christian Worldview was entirely consistent (and even foundational) to their investigative pursuits in every aspect of God’s creation. Christianity did not cause them to “cease to grow” but, instead, provided the philosophical foundation for their investigations.

Comments

[Brett Strong]

To my friend J Warner

J Warner, you are an awesome guy (I TRULY DO MEAN THAT!), but belief in the New Testament Jesus is BLIND FAITH!!!! for sure

…for we have sonar, X ray vision, infrared vision, heat vision, night goggles, satellites in the cosmos, radio wave technology, sub atomic micro scopes, technology advanced telescopes, jets, submarines, the world’s most advanced militaries, etc, etc, etc to the 9th power—but yet no one is able to locate this alleged flesh and bone 5’3, 110 pound 2,000 year old man with superhero powers who supposedly has stab wounds in his hands, feet and side….hmmmm

And worse yet J Warner, this superhero character comes to us from virtually entirely from the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)—writings that are all scandalously these 7 things…

1…ANONYMOUS (huge red flags because we don’t know who wrote these books, it’s all a guessing game)

2…WRITTEN IN THE 3RD PERSON (huge red flag)

3…they blatantly “PLAGIARIZED” each other (huge Red flag…for why would supposed eyewitness need to copy large portions from other works—be it Mark or the alleged Q, L, or M),

4…the gospels also preposterously contain stuff IMPOSSIBLE to eyewitness (like Jesus praying in the garden while his disciples slept, etc, etc, etc—Hmmmm, huge red flags)

5….and the gospels are cram packed with what we call SCI-FI material (like a Marvel Comic Book or a Hollywood Superman movie) (a man with superhero powers controlling the weather, people walking on water, zombies invading Jerusalem, etc, etc, etc—more huge red flags)

6…not to mention we have NOTHING CLOSE TO AN ORIGINAL WRITING from these unknown writers from ancient times (huge red flag)

7…Note, no court in America (be it Federal Court, Civil Court or State court) would accept such scandalous documents as evidence for anything—and that’s a fact my friend, even you J Warner must 100% back me! Another huge red flag!!!

Not to mention the Dead Sea Scrolls knows nothing of the NT Jesus or his disciples—huge red flag

And worse yet the entire 1st century (far as what we have in our hands [minus one fragment—per Dan Wallace]) is void of the NT Jesus

Etc, etc, etc one can go on J Warner showing that faith in the NT Jesus character (an alleged flesh and bone 5’3 110 pound man with superhero powers) as being real is pure blind faith at best!

Brett Strong

But like your dad said J Warner (and I totally agree/100%): blind faith such as in the NT Jesus is beneficial to many believers in many ways so by all means, Christians who are benefiting from such NT Jesus belief please keep the faith just like its beneficial for little kids to believe in Santa Clause…and I mean all this with sincerity no sarcasm whatsoever

…e.g.: as everyone knows, I love listening to Christian pop music like Chris Tomlin, M W Smith, 3rd day, Matthew West, News Boys, L Brewster, Hill song, etc, etc, etc…you see the NT Jesus benefits even me in a beautiful way—such loving nonjudgmental loving kind emotional music!!!!

…anyways have a great day J Warner and your disciples and everyone else too, especially Amy Hall—Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year!!!!

[k]

@Brett,

belief in the New Testament Jesus is BLIND FAITH!!!! for sure

…for we have sonar, X ray vision, infrared vision, heat vision, night goggles, satellites in the cosmos, radio wave technology, sub atomic micro scopes, technology advanced telescopes, jets, submarines, the world’s most advanced militaries, etc, etc, etc to the 9th power—but yet no one is able to locate this alleged flesh and bone 5’3, 110 pound 2,000 year old man with superhero powers who supposedly has stab wounds in his hands, feet and side….hmmmm

Not sure you're quite mentally there with this one...the 7 things you list are so far off base, not sure if you just made them up or where you are getting your info, but it's egregiously erroneous...

I think maybe you're writing stuff like this because, a) you just want to be antagonistic, or b) are delusional enough to think that what you've written is somehow true, or c) both.

Either way, I pray God opens your eyes and heals you...

[Louis Kuhelj]

Brett

I see a lot more bold claims than bold evidence to support your conclusions. I think you are a bit top-heavy when it comes to your claims/evidence stack.

[WisdomLover]

Ahh! I see that the B.Strong troll is back.

If you engage with him, be prepared to see his 7 ridiculous points over and over without much in the way of actual argument.

My advice is DNFTT.

[Amy]

Brett, looking back over your comments, it does seem you've copied and pasted the same thing over and over. You're welcome to have conversations with people, but posting the same seven things doesn't fall under that category. I'll leave this comment up because conversation has already happened around it, but future comments like this one will be removed. Thanks for understanding.

[ArthurK]

Weren't the Dead Sea Scrolls mostly written prior to Jesus? Aren't you also assuming our library of their writing is complete?

[k]

He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself. - Proverbs 9:7

Well, shame on me.

[Jim Pemberton]

I think there is a strong place for evidence in Christian apologetics. God has given us evidence from the beginning. This evidence is used many times to reason with his people in the pages of scripture. Josh 24:17 is one of many examples.

But evidence must be properly understood. Evidence itself is neutral. Each of us brings presuppositions to the table in analyzing evidence. Given that the Red Sea was parted for the Hebrews to cross, some deny the evidence that it was written of and require further evidence. Some accept that it happened and attribute it not to some miracle, but to a strong wind. Some attribute it to aliens from outer space. If our presupposition is that God's influence is possible, then that is the most likely explanation. If someone intends to deny God, any evidence of his work in the world can be attributed to other things.

I have never been able to convince a non-believer of God's existence based on evidence. But I have been able to demonstrate to non-believers that their understanding of the evidence is due to what they already believe, although most want to deny it and change the subject. The reason is because if God is allowed as a possibility, the evidence will always point to Him and some people adamantly don't want that conclusion.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Isn't it amazing how even after we know that Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp (disciple of John) personally, identifies all four gospel authors by name, we continue to have this silly nonsense about "nobody knows the authors"? It's amazing. No wonder we listen to a president complaining about shooting 6 year-old kids when he voted to have newborns neglected to death and never call him on it. America is getting dumber and dumber.

[scblhrm]

Evidence floods in from all vectors:

M-Theory’s mathematically incomprehensible Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscience seems to emerge as Omni’s Triune Topography emerges. Epistemology seems to be of a Triune Topography as our friend Ben describes quite well, though perhaps unintentionally. Ontology seems to be of a Triune Topography within Being’s singular and pleural I and You and I-You. Self-Evident Free Lunches seem to emerge as necessary. Logic seems to regress to Self-Evidence as well and such is housed within Epistemology’s Triune Topography. Through all these windows an everlasting Free Lunch emerges atop a sort of terrain that has multiple yet perfect fronts all of which comprise a singular whole. All available evidence points towards the Immaterial as the source of that Free Lunch. We find in all this that there are strong vectors emerging from the Other and Outer which echo a staunchly Triune, Immaterial, Eternal, Uncaused Cause. There are patterns of such a Triune Topography mechanized within the immutable semantics of a perpetual one-way incline in an eternal language comprised of Word’s material manifest wherein truth precedes corporeal. In all these things Love’s own Triune Topography casually ebbs and flows quite unobstructed and buoys up illumination of what Necessarily Exists. From Timelessness and into Time and back again into Timelessness these self-evident triune patterns swallow up whole all of our formulas of infinities, all of our equations of pain, all of our rules of suffering, all of our blueprints of the purely human, all of our diagrams of multi-verses, and all of our prescriptions of the purely inhuman, and in all these the Triune holds fast to the satisfaction of coherence as it houses multiple perfect distincts which effortlessly furnish us with their singular reality laced with ports and bays saturated with Ships that easily set sail and satisfy the demands of all these equations and serenely traverse all ad infinitums. In this set of patterns all things merge unhindered and in all these things we find that odd Eternally Sacrificed Self where both Logic and Love confirm the Triune Topography of Epistemology and of Ontology, of Will and of Love, and even of Perfection itself and thereby bring us to our Necessary End of Ad Infinitum comprised of those immutable semantics of that eternal language of the Everywhere and Always. There just is no other set of patterns of a singular whole freely self-manifesting in this fashion which fully accounts for all that we see, all that we observe, all that we perceive, all that we feel, all that we cry, and all that we scream out.

[RonH]

Louis Kuhelj,

It sounds like you think that the one piece of evidence is sufficient to settle the matter. Do you think that?

RonH

[RonH]

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.

WLC

[RonH]

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.

- the man from reasonable faith

[scblhrm]

RonH,

That is a good expression of our Two Eyes, both of which see to that Hard Stop beyond which Truth Statements have no further appeal: Logic and Love.

The Half-Man is all Logic. Like you.
The Half-Man is all Love. Like Billy-Bubba-Bob.

A good example is this: You have no logical reason to call the murder of 20 1st graders wrong "in and of it self". Intrinsically and this even should all men will it. In other words this is true: there is a law which transcends all that Man can be or do, ever.

That is all logic on your end.

No Love.

One-Eyed.

Now, where All-Logic is based in belief and argument, the Spirit other Eye which is Love, and which is Love Himself speaking to us, tells us that that argumentation must take a back seat to what the Spirit is saying here.

Logic and Love, that is the ticket.....

[scblhrm]

RonH,

Or maybe this: both sides choose their presupositions and where Love contradicts yours you will have none of it, for Logic's sake you will say, and, where Naturalism's Logic and Evidence contradicts Love we will have none of it, for God's sake we will say.

And this pattern spills over into all sorts of arenas. If you claim to be innocent from presuppositions, well, I won't grant you that verdict.

As it turns out, the Two-Eyed Man that is Logic-And-Love accounts for all of reality as we actually find it, whereas, either eye in isolation leads to all sorts of superficial and silly zealots shaking their fist at just nothing at all.

Have you ever seen the All-Love Zealot out there dancing in the street? Well, invert that image and you have the All-Logic folks who cannot, or will not, listen to His Spirit.

[scblhrm]

RonH,

Or maybe this:

"A Moral Law exists which transcends all that Man can ever be, or do, or will. The defintion of evil is not 51% of the vote. It is not even 100% of the vote. It transcendes man. We cannot vote slavery into 'goodness' merely because it fosters survival and the common 'good'."

If pure logic does not get you there, then I will offer that there is a whole half of reality which you really do believe (as evidenced by your statements) but which all your toying with 'logic and evidence' will not wholly give to you. Now, you have two choices here: go with all the evidence which you can touch, or, listen to His Spirit, which you cannot touch.

[Louis Kuhelj]

RonH

"It sounds like you think that the one piece of evidence is sufficient to settle the matter. Do you think that?"

Depends on the nature of that evidence and if there is any comparable evidence to discredit it.

[RonH]

True that, Louis, true that.

So you regard this as pretty strong evidence - Irenaeus and Polycarp. There's pretty much no explanation for it but that it's true. None?

And, there's no evidence contradicting traditional attribution.

None, at any rate, that poses any threat to the Irenaeus and Polycarp line?

So, why then, does any NT scholar say that the gospel authors are unknown, do you think?

They do say that. It seems you need to explain why they do.

RonH

[scblhrm]

Regarding evidence, we've yet to hear an answer to Louis' question about "evil" and mass murder in general. Lot's of ugly, ugly things can futher the common good of the species. It seems some things make nonsense of all our felt, and expressed, 'in-here' fairy tales. I mean, well, Brainstem.... Other/Outer.. Sinking ship and all that..... Ugly things seem to be, in the end, quite helpful to us as a species.