Does reason leave no room for faith in Christianity?
Comments
Thank you so much for this, Greg. I was incredibly frustrated by my uncle this weekend when he was telling me that he only "hoped" he was saved. I was telling him that I "know" I am. After showing him multiple bible verses where God says if you do this and this, then you will be saved, have eternal life, etc., then the conversation developed into "we walk by faith and not by sight."
Since this was the first time I'd ever come up against this argument, I spent my time then trying to explain to him that we have evidences for the assurance of the things that we hope for. I think blind faith is ludicrious and reminds me of the Morman woman I talked to. I told her that there was no evidence that anything that Joseph Smith said really happened. She told me that she didn't care what I said about him, Joseph Smith was a good man and a prophet. Now, that's blind faith.
I'm not going to believe something just because someone tells me to. And actually, that's what kept me away from Christianity for so long. As a child, when I would question my mother about God and want answers, she'd say "You just have to have faith." Granted she isn't a Christian but I couldn't folow God until I had truthful answers. God gave us a mind and He expects us to use it or we will be duped by everyone who comes along.
I have more empathy for you now because it looks like to me that this conversation comes up for you often. I had it once with my Christian uncle and it drove me crazy. Thank you for sharing your wisdom in how to discuss this with others.
I think I read in Total Truth that American evangelicalism spawned this idea of "blind faith" during the westward expansion, when most people were uneducated except the preacher, who knew his Bible and little else.
It's amazing that in this age where information is so readily available and most people well-educated, so many believers have put their faith in blind faith.
Thank you for this. I was so happy to hear you say right from the start that this is an issue you deal with all the time, and even from Christians! It's good to know it's not just me. It drives me nuts - *especially* from the Christians, who you'd think should know better.
Well said, Greg Koukl. The early Christians had a belief system that involved evidential concepts such as fulfilled prophecy and eyewitness testimony. See, for example, Richard Bauckham's Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006). The highest church office, that of apostle, consisted only of eyewitnesses, and the churches that had a historical relationship with the apostles were the most prominent in the second century (Rome, Smyrna, Ephesus, etc.). Robert Wilken wrote, concerning the early post-apostolic Christians:
"Once it is recognized that what Galen says of the Christians could just as well be said of other schools, it must also be said that Christians had already developed a reputation among the Greeks and Romans for appealing to faith. Celsus, another critic of Christianity whom we will consider in the next chapter, complained that Christians sought out uneducated and gullible people because they were unable to give reasons or arguments for their beliefs. They asked people to accept what they said solely on faith (c. Cels. 1.9). What Galen and Celsus said about the Christian movement no doubt fitted the kind of Christianity that most people met with in the cities of the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, precisely at the time that Galen and Celsus were writing against Christian fideism a number of Christian thinkers had begun to revise and correct this view of Christianity. Among the defenders of the reasonableness of the Christian tradition were such early Christian apologists as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras...Though Celsus might make rhetorical points against Christian reliance on faith instead of reason, his more serious arguments assume that Christian thinkers wished to be judged by the same standards as others....The question of the mythological and legendary character of the Gospels did not first arise in modern times. The historical reliability of the accounts of Jesus' life was already an issue for Christian thinkers in the second century....What Porphyry wrote about Daniel [dating it to the second century B.C.] was so revolutionary, and so disturbing to Christian interpreters, that his critics sought to refute him in detail and at length....Pagan critics realized that the Christian claims about Jesus could not be based simply on the unexamined statements of Christians...The question of faith and history, so much a part of modern theological discourse since the Enlightenment, was also a significant part of the debate between pagans and Christians in the ancient world....Christians and pagans met each other on the same turf. No one can read Celsus's True Doctrine and Origen's Contra Celsum and come away with the impression that Celsus, a pagan philosopher, appealed to reason and argument, whereas Origen based his case on faith and authority....Pagan critics realized that the claims of the new movement [Christianity] rested upon a credible historical portrait of Jesus. Christian theologians in the early church, in contrast to medieval thinkers who began their investigations on the basis of what they received from authoritative tradition, were forced to defend the historical claims they made about the person of Jesus. What was said about Jesus could not be based solely on the memory of the Christian community or its own self-understanding....When one observes how much Christians shared with their critics, and how much they learned from them, it is tempting to say that Hellenism laid out the path for Christian thinkers. In fact, one might convincingly argue the reverse. Christianity set a new agenda for philosophers. The distinctive traits of the new religion and the tenacity of Christian apologists in defending their faith opened up new horizons for Greco-Roman culture and breathed new life into the spiritual and intellectual traditions of the ancient world." (The Christians As The Romans Saw Them [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984], pp. 77-78, 101, 112, 138, 147, 200-201, 203, 205)
[S, Melinda took it down for a while because it was advertising an interview Greg was going to do on the radio show, but the interview got postponed. When they reschedule the interview, she'll put the post up again. All the comments that were posted should still be there when she does.]
Hey, Greg! Keep up the good work, big brother. The philosophy of religion class I'm taking just went over this faith "versus" reason issue and I read your post from a while back having to do with this. Thankfully, I only get into this debate when among my non-Christian friends.
I'm a seminary student doing a philosophy paper on how to avoid self-deception. Any resources to recommend? Have you written anything regarding a way to test your faith or doubt your doubts? In other words, how do we know we haven't deceived ourselves into believing we have the truth (by misinterpreting evidences)? I'm a dedicated ambassador, and have recently been striving with this concept over talks with some of my non-Christian co-workers and family.
Thank you so much for this, Greg. I was incredibly frustrated by my uncle this weekend when he was telling me that he only "hoped" he was saved. I was telling him that I "know" I am. After showing him multiple bible verses where God says if you do this and this, then you will be saved, have eternal life, etc., then the conversation developed into "we walk by faith and not by sight."
Since this was the first time I'd ever come up against this argument, I spent my time then trying to explain to him that we have evidences for the assurance of the things that we hope for. I think blind faith is ludicrious and reminds me of the Morman woman I talked to. I told her that there was no evidence that anything that Joseph Smith said really happened. She told me that she didn't care what I said about him, Joseph Smith was a good man and a prophet. Now, that's blind faith.
I'm not going to believe something just because someone tells me to. And actually, that's what kept me away from Christianity for so long. As a child, when I would question my mother about God and want answers, she'd say "You just have to have faith." Granted she isn't a Christian but I couldn't folow God until I had truthful answers. God gave us a mind and He expects us to use it or we will be duped by everyone who comes along.
I have more empathy for you now because it looks like to me that this conversation comes up for you often. I had it once with my Christian uncle and it drove me crazy. Thank you for sharing your wisdom in how to discuss this with others.
May God continue to bless you and your ministry.
Posted by: Dona | October 12, 2009 at 04:31 AM
I think I read in Total Truth that American evangelicalism spawned this idea of "blind faith" during the westward expansion, when most people were uneducated except the preacher, who knew his Bible and little else.
It's amazing that in this age where information is so readily available and most people well-educated, so many believers have put their faith in blind faith.
Posted by: Dan | October 12, 2009 at 08:05 AM
Thank you for this. I was so happy to hear you say right from the start that this is an issue you deal with all the time, and even from Christians! It's good to know it's not just me. It drives me nuts - *especially* from the Christians, who you'd think should know better.
Posted by: Mo | October 12, 2009 at 01:06 PM
Well said, Greg Koukl. The early Christians had a belief system that involved evidential concepts such as fulfilled prophecy and eyewitness testimony. See, for example, Richard Bauckham's Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006). The highest church office, that of apostle, consisted only of eyewitnesses, and the churches that had a historical relationship with the apostles were the most prominent in the second century (Rome, Smyrna, Ephesus, etc.). Robert Wilken wrote, concerning the early post-apostolic Christians:
"Once it is recognized that what Galen says of the Christians could just as well be said of other schools, it must also be said that Christians had already developed a reputation among the Greeks and Romans for appealing to faith. Celsus, another critic of Christianity whom we will consider in the next chapter, complained that Christians sought out uneducated and gullible people because they were unable to give reasons or arguments for their beliefs. They asked people to accept what they said solely on faith (c. Cels. 1.9). What Galen and Celsus said about the Christian movement no doubt fitted the kind of Christianity that most people met with in the cities of the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, precisely at the time that Galen and Celsus were writing against Christian fideism a number of Christian thinkers had begun to revise and correct this view of Christianity. Among the defenders of the reasonableness of the Christian tradition were such early Christian apologists as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras...Though Celsus might make rhetorical points against Christian reliance on faith instead of reason, his more serious arguments assume that Christian thinkers wished to be judged by the same standards as others....The question of the mythological and legendary character of the Gospels did not first arise in modern times. The historical reliability of the accounts of Jesus' life was already an issue for Christian thinkers in the second century....What Porphyry wrote about Daniel [dating it to the second century B.C.] was so revolutionary, and so disturbing to Christian interpreters, that his critics sought to refute him in detail and at length....Pagan critics realized that the Christian claims about Jesus could not be based simply on the unexamined statements of Christians...The question of faith and history, so much a part of modern theological discourse since the Enlightenment, was also a significant part of the debate between pagans and Christians in the ancient world....Christians and pagans met each other on the same turf. No one can read Celsus's True Doctrine and Origen's Contra Celsum and come away with the impression that Celsus, a pagan philosopher, appealed to reason and argument, whereas Origen based his case on faith and authority....Pagan critics realized that the claims of the new movement [Christianity] rested upon a credible historical portrait of Jesus. Christian theologians in the early church, in contrast to medieval thinkers who began their investigations on the basis of what they received from authoritative tradition, were forced to defend the historical claims they made about the person of Jesus. What was said about Jesus could not be based solely on the memory of the Christian community or its own self-understanding....When one observes how much Christians shared with their critics, and how much they learned from them, it is tempting to say that Hellenism laid out the path for Christian thinkers. In fact, one might convincingly argue the reverse. Christianity set a new agenda for philosophers. The distinctive traits of the new religion and the tenacity of Christian apologists in defending their faith opened up new horizons for Greco-Roman culture and breathed new life into the spiritual and intellectual traditions of the ancient world." (The Christians As The Romans Saw Them [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984], pp. 77-78, 101, 112, 138, 147, 200-201, 203, 205)
Posted by: Jason Engwer | October 12, 2009 at 03:53 PM
I hope reason and faith can coincide...or I am in deep trouble.
Posted by: Societyvs | October 13, 2009 at 02:49 PM
what happened to the recent Licona thread? (cached by Google here)
Posted by: S | October 13, 2009 at 05:39 PM
[S, Melinda took it down for a while because it was advertising an interview Greg was going to do on the radio show, but the interview got postponed. When they reschedule the interview, she'll put the post up again. All the comments that were posted should still be there when she does.]
Posted by: Amy | October 13, 2009 at 06:32 PM
Thanks! Look forward to the interview!
Posted by: S | October 14, 2009 at 03:27 AM
Hey, Greg! Keep up the good work, big brother. The philosophy of religion class I'm taking just went over this faith "versus" reason issue and I read your post from a while back having to do with this. Thankfully, I only get into this debate when among my non-Christian friends.
I'm a seminary student doing a philosophy paper on how to avoid self-deception. Any resources to recommend? Have you written anything regarding a way to test your faith or doubt your doubts? In other words, how do we know we haven't deceived ourselves into believing we have the truth (by misinterpreting evidences)? I'm a dedicated ambassador, and have recently been striving with this concept over talks with some of my non-Christian co-workers and family.
Posted by: Erik | October 15, 2009 at 06:39 PM