Is Christianity blind faith or is it based on evidence?
Feb 19th, 2008 by Nathan White
I’ve mentioned before that this semester, I am taking an anthropology class at Kennesaw State University. This particular class is an online class (my first experience of such), and there is a good bit of discussion that must take place in a ‘classroom’ web forum.
A recent question was posed by the professor which was along the lines of:
“How can/do people justify their [religious] beliefs…other than simply taking their religious teachings at face value (relying on faith)?”
I only had a brief amount of space to respond, but I’ve posted it here for you all to read and discuss. I would greatly appreciate feedback as to how I can improve my answers to these types of questions, as well as indicating blind-spots that I can avoid in the future. Remember, I am writing to a largely non-Christian audience, many of which know little or nothing about Christianity.
I will answer this question from a Christian perspective. Each point builds upon the previous:
1. Christianity is not *just* faith, but it is largely if not entirely based upon historical events. The apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church said that if Jesus Christ had not been physically raised from the dead, then our faith is in vain and we are the most pathetic people alive. Thus, it *is* faith because we were not there to witness the resurrection personally, but it is largely faith in historical accuracy (such as for example, faith that George Washington was the first American president since we were not there to witness it).
2. Having faith in the fact that Jesus Christ was indeed raised from the dead leads to the conclusion that He is the ultimate source of truth. He unequivocally confirmed what is now known as the ‘Old Testament’ to be the very words of God, and He commissioned 12 apostles as having His authority in writing the New Testament. In fact, the apostle Paul also said in a sermon on Mars Hill that we have confirmation that the scriptures are true because Jesus Christ had been raised from the dead (Acts 17). Thus, since only He has seen the ‘afterlife’ and returned/defeated death, only He has the authority to speak truthfully on the subject.
3. Following the first two points, that the Bible is true and that it is the ultimate source of absolute truth, we of course point to Jesus and the scriptures that teach that only through Jesus can one obtain access to the Father (what is more popularly called heaven). There is no other way but through Jesus, the one who defeated death.
4. Expounding upon the previous point, the Christian faith is *not* simply believing the right thing. It is not simply that *our* beliefs are just better than others. The bible teaches, and it is our ultimate source of truth per point number 2, that every man is accountable for his own actions. God created all men, and He demands obedience from all men. We have not obeyed, if you haven’t noticed. So, God is just and righteous, and He cannot simply turn a blind eye to evil (we would have no respect for a judge who pardoned heinous, guilty criminals). Evil must be dealt with in order for the judge/creator/overseer to be called just. Thus, man is left with two options: try to please God on his own, which he cannot do (have you read those 10 commandments??), or one must stand in his place and obey for man, and suffer those just consequences for him.
5. In conclusion, Jesus Christ is the ‘only’ way not because our ideas and opinions are just better than others; not because our formula produces better results; not because we’re smarter, better, or more clever. Jesus is the only way because, A: the bible as ultimate truth says so (the truth is outside of you or me), and B: because we need another’s righteousness to cover our own if we are to escape punishment for our breaking God’s law. On the cross, God counted the sins of His chosen to Christ and thus punished Christ in their place, and He also counted the righteousness of Christ to His chosen and gave them the works of Another.
Therefore, most religions accept the idea that man commits evil acts, but only one religion provides a way of escape from a God who is infinitely just and perfect. There is only One who is righteous enough to obtain favor with God…
I would go one step further. We do not have faith in historical events, simply. And though we have eye witness accounts, it is not that witness that we have faith in. Both these are what is known as implicit faith. In other words, we believe it because we were told it. And that is not the faith of Scripture. It includes that, but our faith is not blind in this:
Our faith goes beyond forensics. Yes there is evidence, for we have not followed cleaverly devised fables. But, Christ himself did many miracles, and was not believed though he provided proof. The remedy for unbelief is no mere existential knowledge, outside of us attested to by some bit of evidence. But, it is in us, as Jesus said:
Our knowledge, eido, is a vital knowledge, not in the past, but is now alive, it is as we see. By union with Christ we become first party witnesses. It is in this that it is not mere faith of the world which is often term blind faith. For ours is one that has been given eyes to see first hand the risen Christ.
TT,
I agree with your words. Keep in mind that I wrote my outline completely off the cuff, without any kind of prior notice, and that I endeavored to answer his question as best as I could.
Looking back, I did kind of make it seem as though our faith wasn’t so much faith. I will attempt to correct that in further discussions. Of course, we do have real faith, and of course it is granted to us by the Spirit –which is impossible for the unregenerate to understand.
Yeah, I figured you did. And you know what, if you write this stuff in a paper for an anthropology class you might fall under scrutiny as one who has lost his grip. Or, they might require you undergo drug testing
Ha, yeah, no kidding. As I wrote before, the relativism is unbelievable, and fixed and firm truth is absolutely unheard of.
Thomas Twitchell wrote:
Dear Thomas
How can you be sure that your inner religious experiences are a genuine encounter with God and not merely a product of your brain/mind? When someone is repeatedly exposed to a particular ideology in a positive context, the human mind may subconsciously create whatever inner subjective feelings endorse that ideology, in order to bond oneself to that ideology’s group of followers …. who may be a group you wish to be associated with in order to fulfill a personal need (such as to feel a sense of belonging). The human brain is constantly and subliminally being bombarded by various factors, which shape our thoughts and beliefs, and which may subtlely generate perceptions and impressions that we could misinterpret as being objective. I used to know a Muslim who said she experienced a beautiful inner relationship with Allah during her times of praying and reciting the Qur’an. How would you explain to Nathan’s anthropology class that your inner relationship with Jesus is a first-hand witness of the supernatural but that my Muslim acquaintance’s experience was a psychological delusion?
Respectfully, …. Phil
Phil-
First of all I was not exposed to a positive theological perspective when I became a Christian- I in fact hated the organized church- my knowledge of God was bare bones: Jesus died for my sins, I knew myself to be a sinner. He caused me to be born again at a point in my life when I was hostile to that very message. So your assumptions about how one becomes a believer is flawed.
How can I know unequivocably? Because I do, as Paul would say, I know him in whom I have believed.
How do you know the things that you have not experienced are true? How do you know you are you? All you have had to say about the mind could apply to your self-perception. You have no proof external that you are truely perceiving reality, only your own inner witness, testifying that you are you, or that the things you know are true, and as you said the sublties of your mind may be deceiving you. Do you know your mother, father, friends; do you know them? How is it that you do? Couldn’t your mind just be fooling you as to your external experiences, and perhaps what you perceive is not reality. Surely then, the things that others have told you about which you have not experienced first hand are even more suspect. How would you know? The reality of Christ follows along the same lines of reason. We know because we know, it is not just that we have been told, either. If you begin to challenge the means by which you know anything you will fall prey to your own rationalizations. You could say that anything others said, such as the anthropology instruction that Nathan is receiving, is invalid because it is not a direct experience, and that others might just be misperceiving their reality and you would not be able to trust the transmission of information, whether they experienced it or not. A schizophenic is convinced of his reality, even the external witness is perceived as he sees it. Others may be able to observe that he is not of his right mind, but how would he know whether they are right about him, seeing that the mind may subtly allow him to believe that they are deceiving him?
My father died when I was five. Was he real? The reality of knowing him is still in my present. I can confirm my father by the testimony of those who also knew him, which is what Nathan was speaking of in illucidating the external witness. That however is inadequate, because, if I do not have eye witness in myself I would have no way of confirming that reality. For you it may not make sense, but we have been given the mind of Christ. So that, we do not merely have the external witness that claims for itself to be the only truth, we have the testimony of another who was an eye witness, and beyond that, we have been made one with that witness so that it is not just external, nor is it a delusion, but a present reality of having been observed personally.
Sure, people have all kinds of experiences, and I do not doubt that they are real, but they are not all the truth. We can examine that reality. Two things may be asserted as true. But if they contradict one another when speaking about the same reality, then, a cannot be non a, all other things being equal; either one or the other is true, or they may both be false. So, how do we know? The external witness is one. We can confirm the Bible without contradiction. We cannot do the same with the Koran or any other religious text outside of Scripture. But, that is still inadequate. Just knowing that truths and that falsehoods exist means nothing if it is not possessed as reality for the individual. We still need an independent witness. That takes something that is beyond the natural. Simply because we are not examining the physical, but spiritual. No examination by physical means without can rule out the experience within, nor can it necessarily confirm it. It is bound by the physical. By necessity confirmation requires a supernatural witness, one from without the nature of the physical bounds of human existence, that establilshes that which is within. The final declaration of truth, must then come from a transcendent source, outside the reality that is being examined. The examining agent cannot be itself, as you astutely point out, because it is confused, if only by its own bias. As with any forensic evaluation we need an unbiased third party witness. But, since it is things which cannot be seen nor tested by natural means, it requires the supernatural.
To answer your question, there is no way to convince the unbeliever. Propositional truths do not work. No one, even Christ’s disciples believed his Word. Evidences do not work, they put Christ to death despite the miracles that testified of his Deity. It takes something else. But, the natural mind cannot receive this truth. To receive it, it must be changed, supernaturally. But, as you have explained, the mind can be self-deceiving, so then, how would one know that one reality is the truth as opposed to another? All inquiry into truth proceeds upon the presupposition that truth exists. But, if we approach epistemology by saying all experience is invalid, we have no basis for proceeding in inquiry. Likewise, if we say that all experiences are valid, the same thing results, we cannot tell the left from the right. We then seek to disprove and rule out what is not true so that we might discover the truth. Still, when all evidences are on the table, we will be one step removed from knowing, because as you said, the mind is wicked and deceitful, who can know it.
The question you ask is then how do we know one from the other? What I said to Nathan then comes into play; it appears to the unbeliever that we have lost our minds. That is exactly what was said of Christ. And the truth is, we have lost ours, and have been given his which is renewing the way we think about all other things.
We can demonstrate what is false in the religious experiences of a Muslim, externally. When it comes down to it then the very thing that we cannot prove, namely, the internal witness of the Holy Spririt, becomes the prover that is sought after by those who do not know Him. We testify that you cannot know what we know, nor can we convince you of it. To paraphrase Morpheus:
But better yet, to quote our Lord:
Wonderfully said TT.
Thank you
Nate, your argument presupposes that the Bible is, in fact, the Word of God. We know Christianity is true because the Bible says so. What do you say to those who wonder how one knows the Bible is, in fact, the very Word of God?
How does one come to support that claim while rejecting the claims of other religions who make similar but competing claims of divine authority from other holy books? What does one look for? Consistency? Historical accuracy? It just “feels” more right?
James said: What do you say to those who wonder how one knows the Bible is, in fact, the very Word of God?
Well, in addition to what I have already said, that Jesus claimed Divine authority and attested to that by raising from the dead (per Paul’s argument in Acts 17), I’d also answer and say that the Bible is the word of God because it claims to be the word of God. No other evidence is necessary because the Bible is the highest authority; to appeal to something else would be to abandon the very faith I profess.
James said: How does one come to support that claim while rejecting the claims of other religions who make similar but competing claims of divine authority from other holy books?
Well, Jesus raising from the dead is one answer. But ultimately, I’d go to the other religions and try to demonstrate how they are internally inconsistent. The Bible is perfectly consistent with history, man kind, and the world around us.
Nathan,
Excellent! The only thing that I might add would be that a supreme being is a much better explanation for the uncaused cause than mere matter/energy. IOW, faith is required in anything including atheism.
Jazzy Cat, I’ve been meaning to read a book by Vox Day called “The Irrational Atheist”. Have you read it? I don’t particularly care for the writer’s blog (voxday.blogspot.com), finding it a bit too confrontational for my taste (although I appreciate his reluctance to censor opposing views), but the book has gotten some good reviews from even atheists. Apparently, he takes a philosophical and rational approach to dissecting unbelief.
James,
I haven’t read the book, but I will check that blog out.