I have to be very honest with you about some things and I believe this honesty may surprise some and possibly make other uncomfortable. I do not mean to intend the latter, but I can't see how this can be done without initially doing some boat rocking. Of course, I never intend to shake anyone without it first having shaken me, and only to the extent that it's worthwhile. Before that, I hope you can bear with me for the next few paragraphs so that I can at least set up some definitions that will help me in explaining the concepts of this note.
Faith is trust in someone or something. Belief is an assenting to a knowledge claim about reality. Reality is an actual state of affairs. A justified true belief is something that you not only believe about reality, but have good reasons for believing it to be true. This last definition is a bit tricky because you can accidentally be right about something, and although you would be right, your belief would not be justified. You accidentally got it right, despite your reasons. So, there have been theories proposed in terms of justified true beliefs that speak about things like defeaters, which are possible explanations to refute the belief held. There are even defeaters for defeaters, if that makes sense.
What justified a belief? Are beliefs and faith isolated to just religious life?
Before delving into these questions, let me set up the critical side of isle. Skepticism can mean two things. In the general sense, it can mean someone who critically examines things and arrives at doubt and inconclusiveness. A narrower meaning would represent a school of philosophy that rejects the ability to either know anything, know with certainty or to know anything outside of what you perceive with the senses. The latter form is more prevalent and is sometimes referred to as verificationalism...the idea that you can't know anything unless that knowledge was gained through your five senses. Of course, the skeptic will have no use for faith or beliefs. However, upon closer scrutiny, you find the skeptic's definition of faith and belief are mainly relegated to religious speculation. As such, they are considered unwarranted in terms of actual knowledge with their usefuleness being merely therapeutic or to produce a desired outcome. But the content of faith or beliefs would be non-cognitive, or in other words, not something knowable about reality.
When it comes to belief in God, there are three broad schools in Christian circles and one broad school in skepticism, with many different flavors. In Christian circles, some say belief in God is rational and based on evidentiary arguments. This school of thinking got its traction during the Enlightenment. In other Christian circles, some say belief in God is necessarily irrational and groundless, despite belief. This school, too, can trace its birth to the Enlightenment and shortly thereafter. You can have both non-Christians and Christians (used in a very broad sense) in this same category. Both would believe that assent to things like God, Jesus and the Bible are irrational to hold, and they would part ways as to whether or not it was ok to be irrational in believing those things. The Christian skeptic would believe you can and the non-Christian skeptic would think it assinine. I tend to side with the non-Christian skeptic, when comparing the two together.
The third school is called Reformed Epistemology and proposes that belief in God, as well as other certain things, is properly basic. That is, these beliefs are immediate and not grounded in any evidence or arguments and no arguments are required to hold it. These beliefs, held by properly functioning minds with the natural inclination towards the truth, are basically held and such beliefs are natural. Reformed Epistemology says that there are things you know that are basic and do not require argumentation or criteria in order to hold. One of them is a belief in God. They believe that although Christianity is rational and there are great arguments to support Christian beliefs, none of them are necessary.
Needless to say, although there are both Christian and non-Christian evidentialists, there are only Christian Reformed Epistemologists. That's because the idea of basically proper beliefs runs contrary to foundational evidential or skeptical beliefs (there's that word again). Since it would appear that Reformed Epistemology is sort of the step child in mainstream circles, does that mean it's the least plausible explanation for knowledge, particularly as it relates to faith and God? No. In fact, I think it is by far the most persuasive. If you were honest, regardless of which side of the fence you were on, you would admit to it as well. There is a avalanche of knowledge claims we simply accept and use to support other knowledge claims. For example, I am typing this sentence. I need no supporting arguments to know this. It's properly basic. Whether or not you believe belief in God is properly basic is another debate. The purpose of this note isn't to dwell into that debate as much as sort of clarify the use of faith and belief in every-day life. In this regard, Reformed Epistemology or Classical Common Sense is the best explanation for what we know.
As belief pertains to arguing the existence of God or the non-existence of God, I have read tons of Christian apologetics (defense of the faith). I have also read tons of atheistic works. There's good and bad among both. The negative tendency in Christian apologetics is to be pedantic and dogmatic, without getting into the actual muck of real life. The negative tendency in atheistic works is that a great majority of them are more passionately and pejoratively driven against theism and Christianity, rather than presenting valid reasons of their own. There are exceptions, such as the late J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism. But for the most part, they are emotional and angry.
Here's the honesty. There are rational arguments for atheism. There are also irrational aspects of Christianity. I realize that's a hard pill to swallow, but its true. And there is no final arbiter found in argumentation, even though it can aid or support a belief one way or the other. In the end, everyone, Christian and atheist, requires faith and belief in order to continue living, all fueled by the will. And that very will or internal decider will color and skew all arguments, evidence and support to better fit what you have already committed to believe. It isn't fatalism. You can change your mind. I have. But normally it will not happen until something tragic happens to you. And that's because we build up scaffolding of diversions to keep us safe from delving too deeply into things we may have even contemplated as being inadequate in our minds, but would never voice to others. Reality is what it is, despite what we think about it. But because of our will's involvement in gaining and supporting knowledge, we all have the tendency to cheerlead our position and avoid dealing with its difficulties.
Regarding rational atheism, if you reject the supernatural and the existence of God, for example, the theories that are prevalent are somewhat reasonable, especially since matter, time, energy and space are all you begin with. The concept of evolution and abiogenesis has an internal consistency and rational explanation for all that we see. On the other hand, there is nothing obvious about understanding the Trinity of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or the idea that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. There simply are no arguments to either prove those things or make them seem obvious. They are difficult to explain. On the other hand, the concept of consciousness, morality and the design of nature make a mechanical and material explanation of reality seem very underwhelming, to say the least. If you are an atheist, belief in God is considered either cultural or psychological survivalist instincts, at best and folk mythology, at worst. If you are a Christian, atheism is considered rebellion against God despite evidence, an inability to recognize Him through the noetic impact of sin or a combination of both.
Despite the difficulties of certain theological doctrines, can I still say that belief in God is properly basic? Yes. Although those doctrines are considered essential, they are not essential in explaining belief in God. Because these doctrines are difficult, it doesn't make them false. Understanding the detailed creeds with about those doctrines aren't necessary to know before believing God. In fact, you believe in God and through that belief, you come to believe the other things that are not basic. In atheism, the refusal to believe in God doesn't require you to understand evolutionary biology before you hold to that belief. And being a Christian, I believe in God, believe it's rational and know Him to be real. Contrary to evidential arguments, I think the hardest stumbling block for many atheists aren't the arguments, but the lives they see. I realize that many of the more virulent atheists like to paint us as all horrible, backward and dangerous people, but the truth of the matter, in real life, is that those not in the lime light, who love the Lord, are themselves a very formidable argument that atheists have a hard time dealing with.
I bring all this up to show that regardless of where you come, there are some things we must come to grips. First, we do not have the option of certainty. Knowledge doesn't require it and since our reasoning abilities as well as our senses are limited, it's not available to us. Second, we all, whether religious or non-religious, operate daily through faith and belief. You use it every time you sit in a chair or turn on a light switch. In fact, because certainty is outside of our reach, faith and beliefs are requirements to keep on moving, anyway. The Christian is mistaken (sorely mistaken) if he or she believes God can be proven with certainty or that all the verities of the faith are obviously factual. The atheist is mistaken (sorely mistaken) for the same things, except in rejecting God or in defending alternative explanations through science, philosophy or just ranting. We are all shut up in a reality that we simply cannot know apart from faith. Faith is a prerequisite for knowledge.
But the skeptic (or perhaps even some Christians) may argue that things self-evident, incorrigible or sense perceived, require no faith whatsoever. It falls on the concept called the Verification Principle, which states that the only knowledge gained is that perceived with the senses. Anything that is claimed to be knowledge that cannot be perceived by the senses, doesn't count as real knowledge. But there are two really basic things wrong with this. The first one is a bit nerdy and the second one is undeniable. The nerdy objection is the obvious fact that the theory itself cannot be obtained through the senses. There’s no way we can empirically verify the verification principle. It's very difficult to seriously consider a theory that cannot stand under its own first principles. The undeniable objection is that there are, in fact, many things you know that could never be observed with the five senses. For example, when you are angry, you don't perceive this through your senses. Recognizing a moral value or an aesthetic value, although could be recognized through something seen or heard, are not known by the senses.
Another objection would be that faith is separate from knowledge because knowledge is based on criteria. In other words, if it fits a certain criteria, then it counts as knowledge, such as whether or not it is sense perceived, externally verifiable or internally consistent. Those things may be true with certain knowledge claims, but there is a problem with this theory. It's like a dog eating its tail. It ends up in a vicious regressive circle. Here's what I mean. If knowledge requires criteria before it can be known, then the criteria is itself a knowledge claim, which also requires criteria for it. And the criteria for those criteria of knowledge are knowledge that requires further criteria for its justification. This goes on ad infinitum. So, although this objection may initially make sense, once you push it to its logical conclusion, it is no explanation for knowledge.
In addition to the requirement of faith in terms of knowledge, we can also turn the skeptic's exacta knife inside out and look at this another way. Instead of having to prove you know what you know, the real question is are there any good or sufficient reasons to doubt what you believe? Absent these reasons, the skeptic is left with either iterative and repetitious questioning ("How do you know? Well, how do you know that? How do you know?", etc). or trying to convince you that so long as there is even the possibility you could be wrong, you should doubt your belief. Neither of those methods is very good nor can be taken seriously. Unless and until you are presented with reasons to doubt the belief you have, you are within your rights to continue holding to that belief.
Do I believe in Jesus Christ as the risen Lord and Savior? Yes. Is it possible that I could be mistaken? Yes, I could. But the possibility of being mistaken is different from reasons to doubt my being mistaken. Not only that, although I could possibly be mistaken, I do not believe that I am and I even know that I am not. Knowledge doesn't require 100% certainty nor does it require proof in order to hold it. Otherwise, not only is skepticism the only game in town, even skepticism itself falls by the same sword, which also leads you into a brain burner. Knowing that you know nothing is to know something.
There is great importance for a intellectual and spiritual honesty. Traditionally, we have buried doubt, made doubt a taboo subject and even scorned any believer of standing that would voice such doubts. What we have done is bought into the enlightenment bologna that certainty is required and evidence is our foundation for faith. Both are false. In fact, we have doubts. We all know it. It's the white elephant in the room. But we need not treat doubt as the boogie man. Our doubts can be the tools we use to strengthen our knowledge and faith. Instead of making sure no one ever questions the essentials of the faith, the hypostatic union of Jesus' incarnation, the problem of evil or any difficult topic, we need honesty. We need to bring our doubts out and place them on the table, before each other, in a non-condemning and non-judgmental way. By doing so, we accomplish two major things. First, we can now actually grow in our faith and knowledge of Christ, rather than pretend to and then manage that facade. Second, we can actually tap into the power of the Gospel in ways restoring the church to its original intent, rather than the stoic, boring, legalistic and hurtful thing it unfortunately has become in many cases.
From an evangelical standpoint, there's another set of questions. How can I present the Gospel to you or give you reasons for the hope I have, if you don't believe? Is it possible? If it weren't, then the New Testament is a false document and all personal testimony outside of it is false. But how many other things do you believe as an atheist or a skeptic that sets the bar that high in order for you to accept it? If it's because God isn't empirically visible to you, then why do you believe anything that is beyond empirical observation? If it's because you have never personally experienced anything of the supernatural, have you ever experienced abiogenesis or the morphing of one animal into another? I know you believe it, but have you seen it? No? Then what is it? Surely, if you were honest, Christianity isn't irrational. There are great arguments for the Gospel, in all kinds of forms. There are also some very intelligent Christians. In fact, many of them are far above par, intellectually, despite the bad press. If I can open up with you and admit that there are great atheistic arguments, that some of them are rational and persuasive, that many atheists are very intelligent and even far more so than myself, will you believe me?
And if you do, can we really talk? Not this rhetorical ping pong tournament we normally engage in, but real conversation...honest and open conversation. I hope so. It's my fervent prayer, even if that makes you uncomfortable for me to suggest. I can't change my beliefs to avoid discomfort for you. All I can do is be willing to be wrong, make a friend, and in the worst case, agree to disagree without being so damn disagreeable. On the other hand, my struggles with doubt, confusion, tragedy and searching have actually confirmed my beliefs and I really have no problem defending them, if need be. Could I be wrong? Yes. I don't believe I am. In fact, I know I'm not. Now, if you know otherwise, contrary to the spirit of the age, I'd actually to know what those reasons are...if you cared enough to let me know as I care enough to let you know, you would strive to persuade me as much as I do you. Otherwise, it's all an ego trip and we're both trying to impress others and manage our appearances. I have to tell you, I am not the least bit interested in that anymore. It's a waste of time.
