Is Faith Reasonable?

Is Faith Reasonable?

By Rob Lowrance 

As a Rational, specifically as an INTJ, I find this question quite pertinent. INTJs can be quite relentless in questioning things and so it is to be expected that things that others hold sacrosanct are up for critique for the INTJ. This is not to say that each INTJ might have things which they hold dear and have spared from their own critiquing nature. For me, though, faith is one of those things which I have questioned time and time again. In particular, having been raised as a Christian, I have often questioned if faith is reasonable in that context. This is where I will focus the following post.

What do we mean by reasonable?

A key question to consider here is what is meant by reasonable. By reasonable, I mean ‘based in reason, sensible or rational.’ As such I will at times us the term rational as a synonym.

What do Atheists often mean by faith?

There is a quote that I have seen bandied about on the Internet from Mark Twain’s book, A Journey Around the World. The quote of interest is found at the beginning of chapter 12: ‘There are those who scoff at the schoolboy, calling him frivolous and shallow: Yet it was the schoolboy who said “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”’ [1]

So, one definition of faith is ‘believing things which we know to be false.’ Richard Dawkins and many other atheists hold to a definition similar to this one. [2] By such a definition faith would be irrational and hence not reasonable. So, if this is what is meant by faith, then the answer to the question in the title of this post would be, ‘Not at all.’

The problem is, though, that this is not generally what Christians mean by faith. I never asked myself, ‘Is it reasonable to believe something that is obviously false?’

What do Christians often mean by faith?

Faith is often used to mean ‘a set of beliefs.’ While this is a valid definition, it isn’t the one that I want to deal with. Rather, I would like to deal with what many Christians understand faith to be.

First, faith is relational. In this respect, the belief is based upon trust in a person. For example, consider a little girl who is urged by her father to jump into his arms. The girl is a bit afraid, but she jumps the two feet from the landing into his arms, with a shriek that turns into a giggle as he catches her. Why would she jump in such a situation when she was afraid? She obviously comprehends some of the danger. She jumps because her father, who has been proven trustworthy many times, told her it would be ok.

Second, faith is supported by experience. When a Christian speaks of faith, it is in the greater context of experience where the trustworthiness of God has been proven. Consider again the example of the little girl leaping into her father’s arms. She leaps because she trusts him and she trusts him because he has been proven trustworthy. If he had been in the habit of dropping her, it would be reasonable for her to not trust. But since he has shown himself trustworthy, it is reasonable for her to trust him, so she leaps. Likewise, when a Christian speaks of faith, it is with a similar understanding. Experience has shown God to be trustworthy, so trust is reasonable.

Third, faith is supported by evidence. What counts as evidence for one may not count as evidence for another. For instance, in Acts 8, where Philip is speaking with the eunuch, the Scriptures were evidence, because the eunuch already considered the Scriptures to be from God. For others who do not believe the Scriptures as yet, evidence must come from another source.

For Saul, who did believe the Scriptures, but did not believe that they revealed Jesus as the Messiah, it took a revelation of Jesus to him. For Saul, who later became known as Paul, this visitation worked, because Jesus appeared to him as God, whom Saul already believed in. (See Acts 9.)

For others, it may take demonstrations of God’s power. For instance, the proconsul of Cyprus believed after a false prophet was blinded. (See Acts 13.) This seems to have been Paul’s MO most of the time. (See 1 Corinthians 2. See also Acts 14.)

Now, stories of miracles are often viewed with suspicion. After all, there have been charlatans who have gone around pretending to heal the sick in order to extort money. Miracles are most valuable as evidence when they occur to you or to someone you know and trust. After all, if someone you don’t know claims to have been healed of something that you cannot verify yourself, it is easy to disbelieve. But if something dramatic happens, that is a different story.

For instance, if someone were missing a limb which grew back in front of others, that would be evidence of something out of the ordinary. Now, some may still seek an explanation besides God, perhaps positing a very rare but natural explanation. However, for most people, this could reasonably be viewed as evidence for God and evidence for His trustworthiness.

So, when a Christian speaks of faith, it is far from ‘believing what you know ain’t so.’ Rather, faith is based in relationship, in experience, and in evidence. While the Christian does not know everything, his or her faith is not without evidence. Rather, in those areas where specific knowledge is lacking, these three elements provide a basis for belief. So what we have isn’t belief in spite of evidence; what we have is belief because of evidence.

Now, this only gives warrant for belief in areas where the One who is trusted has revealed something. Thus, Christians can have false belief. I am not saying that Christians are always right, by any means. I can think of a host of examples to contradict such a statement. Rather, faith can be warranted.

In other words, faith is reasonable when it is supported by evidence. The evidence can relate to those kinds given above or even to logical arguments. In other words, when a Christian speaks of faith, he or she is not speaking of blind faith.

Faith can be reasonable.

Faith can be reasonable, but not all faith is reasonable. The definition which is often given by atheists for faith is actually not what Christians mean when they are speaking of faith. Christian faith can be reasonable, while blind faith is not.

Who is guilty of blind faith? Christians can be, certainly. But so can those who hold to Naturalism. Some, perhaps many, atheists are guilty of holding to a ‘Naturalism of the gaps.’ In other words, they believe that everything can be explained via Naturalism, even if the explanation is not yet known.

But at its roots, Naturalism must hold that thought itself is a natural, material phenomena. If this is the case, then thought is based upon random physical events. If thought is based upon random events, then what warrant would we have for believing it to be rational? [3] So, one can look at Naturalism as a rational system which holds that rational thought does not exist. In other words, it is not coherent. [4] But in such a case, it would be reasonable to reject Naturalism as a system.

In summary, faith can be reasonable, as long as it is not blind faith. ‘Religious’ people are not the only ones who can have blind faith. Given relationship, experience, and evidence, it can be quite rational (and coherent) to believe.

Blessings,

Rob

[1] For those interested, this book can be found in electronic format here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2895/2895-h/2895-h.htm

[2] See http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/89 for Dawkins’s own words on the subject.

[3] I’m not saying that attempts have not been made to answer this problem within Naturalism. I do believe that such attempts are doomed to failure.

[4] This is not to say that there are not many intelligent people who believe in Naturalism. But intelligence does not equate to being right in belief. There are intelligent people on both sides of this debate.

* Typing mistakes fixed on 12-20-13.