Reason To Stand

Faith strengthened through evidence.

Feb 10

The nature of faith according to CS Lewis

apologetics, doctrine, general, polemics No Comments »

I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of evidence is against it. That is not the point at which faith comes in. But supposing a man’s reason once decides that the weight of the evidence is for it. I can tell that man what is going to happen to him in the next few weeks. There will come a moment when there is bad news, or he is in trouble, or is living among a lot of other people who do not believe it, and all at once his emotions will rise up and carry out a sort of blitz on his belief. Or else there will come a moment when he wants a woman, or wants to tell a lie, or feels very pleased with himself, or sees a chance of making a little money in some way that is not perfectly fair; some moment, in fact, at which it would be very convenient if Christianity were not true. -CS Lewis, Mere Christianity

Faith is not opposed to reason. True Biblical faith, the kind Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 15, is based squarely in truth, facts, logic, and reason and not in blind flights of fancy based in emotions and wish-fulfillment. Not that our faith is devoid of emotion or that our life in Christ is detachable from powerful experiences. However we must remember that our faith is first of all grounded in truth which is both rational and testable.

Tagged with: epistemology • faith • reason

Feb 03

Quote: Where scientific inquiry leads

philosophy, science, theology 1 Comment »

Here’s a quote by Robert Jastro that I’ve heard in several debates around the compatibility of science and religion.

[HT Brian]

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

- Robert Jastrow

(God and the Astronomers, W.W. Norton, New York, 1978, p. 116)

Tagged with: cosmology • epistemology • faith • religion • science

Jan 27

Wordy Wednesday: Philosophical presuppositions

general, philosophy No Comments »

Philosophical presuppositions are ideas and beliefs we hold, consciously or unconsciously, which affect the way we interpret facts and evidence. In short, our philosophical presuppositions affect how we reason.

Many people are completely unaware of their philosophical presuppositions which is unfortunate since awareness of our philosophical presuppositions helps us better understand the arguments made by others who are often approaching a topic or subject from a completely different philosophical presupposition. Being aware of our presuppositions also helps us address the root of our differences with others rather than the outlying branches or surface issues.

Without addressing the fundamental differences in our world views what we end up managing to produce is more confusion and hard feelings than meaningful communication with others who hold fundamentally different presuppositions than we do.

Tagged with: belief • epistemology • faith • knowledge • presuppositions • reason

Jan 11

On the De-conversions of “True believers”

apologetics, general, musings, philosophy, polemics, theology 8 Comments »

I read a lot of blogs. Shocking, I know. However, you may be surprised to find a section on my reading list that is quite unlike the rest. This section I have labeled “Anti-theology” (yes, it comes right after the “Theology” section) and it’s filled with sites like exChristian.net, De-Conversion.com, and What God Has Made Crooked.

Why? Because I learned a long time ago that the people worth listening to the most are generally your harshest critics because their criticisms usually contain some bit of truth worth pondering.

However, one of the most recurring themes I’ve run across when listening to and reading “de-conversion testimonies” has been the notion that the person who “de-converted” was, at one time, a “true believer”.

I’ve heard this more times than I can count so, in an effort to consolidate an answer to this oft-used phrase I want to spend some time on the whole notion that someone could be a “true” or “devout” believer in Christ one day (after years, decades in some cases. I’ve even read many testimonies from former deacons, pastors, even apologists!) and a “died again” heathen the next.

So here’s my simple response to those who claim to have been true believers:

No you weren’t.

Lets back up a second and examine why you claim to have been a “true believer” in the first place.

My guess is that your beliefs weren’t based on intellectual conviction of facts. My guess is that they were shaped more by your environment and the influence of those around you more than they were by your sincere efforts to study and understand what Christianity teaches and what the alternatives are (such as the paradox of infinite regression).

Whatever it was, your beliefs probably weren’t based on facts, since facts are required for a belief to have warrant (among a few other factors). In short, this is simply an epistemological issue, not a theological one in the vein of the “no true Scotsman fallacy“.

Oh you can choose to accept or reject Christ all you want. You can even claim to have been a Christian at one point and not at another point. In fact, I claim to have been a proponent of several incompatible religious and philosophical systems at one point or another in my past. I am merely taking exception with your assertion that you were a “true believer” or that “true believers” require blind faith as opposed to evidence¹.

For example, you are obviously a “true believer” now in the theory of Darwinian evolution² and I imagine you base your belief on what you deem as credible facts and evidence, not blind faith.

Some people³ do base their beliefs on blind faith, however we wouldn’t call them “true believers” no matter what they claimed to believe. We may call them fanatics and passionate, but we all know that fanaticism and passion can only get you so far before you are forced to rationalize and harmonize your belief with the rest of your life.

“True belief” requires much more than intense feelings, a deep desire, encouragement from others, a conducive environment, etc. “True belief” can only come from evidence, argument, and clear reasoning on a subject. That’s why “true belief” endures even when everything else (environment, people, etc.) is against it.

Or, as John so eloquently put it:

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. -1 John 2:19

now, whether that evidence is, itself, true is another story [↩]
Don’t get sidetracked with the mention of the topic of Darwinian evolution right now, I merely use it as an illustration. [↩]
Theist and atheist alike. [↩]

Tagged with: de-conversion • endurance • epistemology • exchristian • faith • perserverence

Dec 21

What it means to place your faith in something, and why you can’t do it

doctrine, philosophy, theology 1 Comment »

I love the field of study known as epistemology or the study of knowledge. Basically answering the question, “How do you know what you think you know?” Especially in a culture that tends to deny objective reality, particularly as it pertains to non-material objects/ideas, I find it helpful to be able to answer the skeptic’s critique of faith in metaphysical realities as being intellectually vacuous or as many like to claim, a “leap of faith”.

What is faith?

In Bruce Little’s lecture What is faith? Does belief require Warrant?, he asserts that faith is, in a nutshell, a conclusion one makes based on reason and evidence. Hebrews 11:1 tells us that:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Notice this verse tells us that faith is the certainty of things we do not see, not the things not known. The difference between the two is a rather large leap. Consequently we are told in Romans 10:14-15:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

Faith, then, requires knowledge. Or, to put it the way Paul did in the preceding verse: “How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?”

How are beliefs formed?

One of the most common misconceptions today is the notion that we can directly and causally will ourselves to believe something. A favorite thought experiment I like to use is this: Imagine I offered you a suitcase with a million dollars if you would believe that the moon were made of cheese. You would certainly have the incentive and desire to believe that the moon is made of cheese but until you were able to amass enough evidence¹ you would not be able to form the belief that the moon were made of cheese.

The point is this: We can’t directly control our beliefs.

So then, how are beliefs actually formed?

Drawing sources

In another lecture by Bruce Little titled The Formation of Belief, he argues that beliefs, while not formed directly as we’ve seen above, are formed indirectly by what we choose to accept as credible evidence. This lends itself to the wisdom found in Proverbs where we read that wisdom is gained through a plurality of counselors². While we cannot directly control our beliefs, we can choose what we will and won’t allow ourselves to be persuaded by. What we allow ourselves to be persuaded by indirectly determines what we place our faith in and shows what we value the most.

This also lends itself to the repeated assertion in Scripture that what one feeds on (that is, information and influences) is what one will eventually start resembling. This is also why Proverbs again warns us that those around us have a profound influence on us either for good or for ill.

Conclusion: The nature of faith

Faith is built on evidence, real or imagined.

Faith is not an object, it is a conclusion drawn given evidence.

Faith is only as strong as the evidence it is built on.

Faith is only valid insofar as the conclusion is true.

In short, everyone has faith. And while we cannot directly will ourselves to believe anything, we can choose what we will and won’t accept as evidence which indirectly determines what we will and won’t have a foundation to place future beliefs on.

Consequently, most people are afraid of questioning certain central beliefs they hold out of fear that if their prior beliefs are shown to be invalid their subsequent beliefs will change. Regardless of this danger, if we are honest in our pursuit of truth we ought to be willing to objectively³ examine all forms of evidence, both physical as well as metaphysical. We also ought to fight to maintain consistency among the beliefs we hold as we grow which means we must constantly be willing to re-examine our beliefs from time to time.

The missing link of a Great Commission Resurgence: Apologetics

apologetics, general, musings No Comments »

The Southern Baptist Convention, of which I am a member, has undertaken a challenge recently laid down by Southeastern Theological Seminary president Dr. Danny Akin in his sermon “12 Axioms for a Great Commission Resurgence”. This challenge, in a nutshell, is to get back to our Biblical roots and primary mission of telling the world about Jesus.

While the axioms that make up the core of this movement are quite sound, I believe we are missing one key to actually bringing about a resurgence or making ourselves as Southern Baptists agents of change in our culture. Specifically, how we do evangelism.

I’m not talking about methods or programs, I’m talking about how we prepare and train for engaging a culture that is increasingly hostile to the objective claims of the gospel. The risks we run rushing unprepared into a world that, as Francis Schaeffer once said, is unable to even process the epistemic notion that there could be such a thing as objective truth and that we as mere mortals could dare to know it.

In short, we need to step back and make sure we do some serious preparation among our own members before we send them out. We need to encourage an intentional investment by local churches into apologetic training. Learning both the tactics and the information necessary to stand firm on the rock solid foundation of the faith that many throughout history have died defending.

Interestingly enough, the North American Mission Board has a program well-suited to the task of assisting local churches in their efforts to train and equip their members to “contend for the faith” as Paul encouraged Jude¹ . This is known as the Certified Apologetics Instructors program directed by Mike Licona, a well known and respected defender of the faith.

If churches are serious about taking up the Great Commission Resurgence challenge and truly wish to engage the world around them, to storm the gates of Hell as it were² , I hope they make use of the fine apologists who belong to this program and who are ready, willing, and able to serve their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in equipping them with sound training.