On the Nature of Faith
Is faith the unconditional, unquestioning acceptance of dogma in the complete absence of substantiating evidence? Absolutely not!
Is faith simply the acceptance of a fact objectively and unequivocally proven true? Again, no!
Ambiguity is a necessary precondition of faith. Faith involves deciding affirmatively about a certain claim in the absence of absolute, objective certainty, but with the aid of a preponderance of evidence leading to probability. Faith weighs the probability of a claim, and then embraces the truth which is shown to be most probable. If the object of one's faith is indeed most probable, then there is no reason to doubt that it is true. Hence, faith is the certainty that what is most probable is actually true.
"Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).
"For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7).
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).
Is faith simply the acceptance of a fact objectively and unequivocally proven true? Again, no!
Ambiguity is a necessary precondition of faith. Faith involves deciding affirmatively about a certain claim in the absence of absolute, objective certainty, but with the aid of a preponderance of evidence leading to probability. Faith weighs the probability of a claim, and then embraces the truth which is shown to be most probable. If the object of one's faith is indeed most probable, then there is no reason to doubt that it is true. Hence, faith is the certainty that what is most probable is actually true.
"Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).
"For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7).
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).
I have a few comments to make on the series, but I'll try to distribute them amongst the appropriate headings.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Christianity is simply not the most probable answer for many who have looked at the evidence. While, both as Christians and non-Christians, have thought so, many others, both Christians and non-Christians, have not. At best, it seems like you have a 50-50 shot; why is God a divine gambler?
Second, and tied into that last statement, why should faith based in ambiguity of evidence be counted as a virtue? It may be a necessary evil, given other factors, but it would seem that the important thing about having faith is trusting God, something which could be done well enough even with perfect evidence. Faith in believing the Christian message, though, must be made before one knows enough about God to have this trust; one must trust God already (in that one, very particular, fashion; that is, the Christian God as opposed to the Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu monotheist God) in order to trust God.
Third, why isn't such faith, especially when the preponderance of evidence isn't so prepondering, just another work, sometimes a harder one than living a God-honoring life?
Hi again!
ReplyDeleteI'm certainly aware of the fact that not every thinking person has arrived at the conclusion that Christianity makes the most rational sense out of all worldviews. :) What I am saying is that whatever worldview a person ends up staking his or her life upon has been attained by means of assessing what is most probable and then choosing that--that is, by faith. The point is that everyone chooses to live by faith in something, even if it is the perceived absence of something. Since it is literally impossible to objectively prove God's non-existence, then those who choose to deny his existence do so on the basis of faith. Likewise, proving His existence--and moreso, the truth of the Christian faith--is impossible. No one in history, not even Jesus' disciples, has believed the Gospel on account of absolute proof. The only circumstance in which proof of any kind exists lies still in the future, at the consummation of all things (God's existence and Christ's dominion will be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, and it will never be questioned again for all of eternity).
Knowing this, then, we all must accept the rules of the game of life, namely, that we are responsible to make and act upon judgments based on evidence. Because proof does not exist in finite space and time, we are both able (praise God!), and therefore required, to decide what is True by means of weighing evidence. The alternative is complete agnosticism. A halfway agnosticism will not suffice. It is disingenuous. Since Christianity is by definition a faith, one cannot be an agnostic Christian. It is a contradiction in terms. One may claim a particular aspect of the Christian worldview, be it Christian morality or ethics or wisdom, but that does not make them a Christian. It is the very thing that distinguishes Christianity from all other faiths that qualifies one to be a member of Christ.
There are millions of people who attend church services and activities because of the attractiveness (and frankly, the benefits) of the Christian ethical and moral system (in spite of numerous others--though relatively minuscule in number--who are repulsed by it!). But they are at best seekers, and at worst leeches sucking life from the Body of Christ. Their faith is still the faith that their adherence to this ethical-moral code will be enough to justify them at the day of judgment, by whomever that may be, if it comes at all.
An option that is becoming increasingly popular in the Western world is that of nihilism (this side of death) and anticipated annihilation, the Buddhist way. I would say that the majority of Westerners are functional nihilist-annihilationists (remember my post on "practical atheism"?). In fact, the number of unconscious N-As surely dwarfs the number of committed agnostics (i.e. the thinking types). The Now is all that matters to them, because it is all that is perceived as certain. But Pascal's wager unignorable, if forced to come to terms with it.
I do not share your cynicism regarding "God's gamble" (which I take you to mean our gamble concerning God, but correct me if I'm wrong). I'm incredibly grateful for the fact that God does not judge us as if proof were required for faith! You know what? The closest thing I've found to proof in life is this: that the evidence God has provided for us by which to know Him has been sufficient for the faith of countless millions throughout the annals of human history--faith that has led saint after saint to joyfully surrender their lives (and not just in death!) to the loving rule and mission of God. While radical Muslims (I admire them, on one level, for not being lukewarm in their faith!) are sacrificing themselves at the altar of Allah, blowing themselves up and countless others, in his name, Christians are sacrificing their lives (and no one else's!) in Yahweh's name for the sake of their fellow man.
Again, shalom. :)
Hey Matt,
ReplyDeleteI've never liked Pascal's Wager; it seems to lead me to God by asking me to ignore truth, and I've determined that any view which tells me to divorce the love of truth from the love of God is at best worthless. It would seem better to sacrifice a potential eternal gain for the love of reality than to selfishly maneuver for my own best reward.
But at any rate, it seems like you're narrowing down the options for faith far too much, and therein lies my problem. There are many, many options out there, and it is impossible to reduce them enough once one realizes that they are there. "Radical" Muslims are as common as abortion-clinic-bombing Christians, and are far from the standard for Islam; there are many Muslims, and Buddhists (who are rather different from Western pop-nihilism in important ways), and I'm sure Hindus and Jews who champion love, compassion, and grace as much as any Christian, with the evidence from reason and experience supporting their own views far above our own. So, while you can say that "the evidence God has provided for us by which to know Him has been sufficient for the faith of countless millions throughout the annals of human history," it has been insufficient for billions while almost everyone else can claim the same thing for their own religion, which effectively negates the evidence in question (unless it is really for some general religious/spiritual reality rather than the precise narratives in question).
With all of these options, the only way to avoid seeing it as a gamble (as far as I can tell) is to ignore most of the evidence.
I'll most likely respond to your comment on the other post as well, but I'll have to think through it a bit.