Faith and Reason

[Bravus]

Complementary or mutually exclusive?

[David Koot]

Complementary, of course, complementary. The conflict is not between reason and faith. Conflict CAN occur between a person's personal views or ideas about something, and his or her faith.

Dave

[Bravus]

Then the appropriate response would be to reason it out, using Scripture as the guide, yes?

[David Koot]

A source of information needs to be authenticated to the level of the reasonable person standard. I would think that such a procedure would be important when it comes to the Bible.

Dave

[David Koot]

Permit me to elaborate a bit. Observation is something I rather enjoy at times--particularly when it comes to the pursuit of truth. I have observed that in many instances, a student may approach the task of discovering truth with ideas and beliefs about the way he or she thinks things are or should be. With such a backdrop, the student may tend to interpret the data in the light of those ideas and beliefs. Case in point: the VFD/666 thread. I was fascinated to observe what appeared to be evidence of mindsets when it came to analyzing the evidence. Different students approached the identical data, but the WAY in which they severally described the data, the weight or value they assigned to each item, provided insights about their respective mindsets.

Dave

[Dr. Shane]

Our church needs to target the intellectual societies of the western world. I think Clifford Goldstien certainly has the right idea in his approach but more needs to be done. Adventist media can do a lot in this effort too.

[Bravus]

Agreed with both of you. Except about Clifford Goldstein, who in many ways I think is a smart anti-intellectual.

Dave: does that, though, mean we end up as prisoners of our mindsets, since we interpret the evidence through them?

(in the thread in question, you see me minimising the evidence as evidence that I want to deny the connection, and I see you maximising it as evidence that you want to maintain it. we may well each consider the other to be behaving irrationally.)

[David Koot]

Dave: does that, though, mean we end up as prisoners of our mindsets, since we interpret the evidence through them?

[Bravus]

Just to unpack my original rather terse opening question a little.

There are two pieces to it: the first is that we have often heard here the idea that 'faith is what you have when there's no evidence'. The people who say it wouldn't necessarily accept this description, but it's a 'god of the gaps' approach: in areas where we don't and can't know, we have faith. They often say that evidence is the antithesis of faith and destroys it.

The other is the 'the things of God are foolishness to mortal minds, so any reasoning you can come up with is foolish and irrelevant, now shut up and eat yer vegetables' response... which we also see fairly frequently here.

[D. Allan]

Turning things around a bit I'll hypothsize that when Reasoning fails to solve the Problems of a broken Soul then Faith becomes a Lifesaver; but it is not a Faith in things that require the Reason to be involved - such as, a Faith that embraces the unreasonable. Reason has nothing to do with the Matters involving Faith. It doesn't require one to believe in anything that the Reason sees as false - for Reason is entirely blind in the Matters where Faith is required; and entirely useless.

It may be that it is as equally ridiculous to say, 'My Faith depends on Reason,' as to say, 'My Reasoning depends on Faith.'

They can never be 'exclusively mutual.' :)

[D. Allan]

Or I should have turned things around by stating, 'when Faith fails to find the square root of 2 and or find a cure for polio then we must turn to Reason (where we should have started at first for such types of problems).'

[David Koot]

evidence is the antithesis of faith and destroys it.

[John317]

Quote:

I disagree with that view.

Dave

The entire Bible might well be viewed as God's evidence of His trustworthiness, and this evidence He presents to us in order for each individual to make a reasoned decision, a decision based not on a blind faith but on the weight of evidence. It is evidence and reason that He uses to win us back to trust. God could have told us who He is in propositional statements, but instead He chose to use historical narratives consisting of personal testimonies and stories that require us to draw conclusions. There is no way for us to appreciate these things without reasoning that leads to faith.

[LifeHiscost]

Complementary, of course, complementary.

As an example, I have faith that this below is true...

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Isaiah 1:18 KJV

The conflict arises in my psyche when I think it not reasonable to expect the Holy God to offer such forbearance to a sinner such as I. And the person who denies the promises of the OT because they relate only to those under the Old Covenant must live with this conflict in his/her soul.

Regards!!

[Jerry D Thomas]

I don't think you can discount the fact that you must first have faith that God exists and that the Bible reveals His message to us. Neither of those can be arrived at by reason.

We choose to believe something for which there is no proof--that is what makes it faith. We choose to believe that there is something more to our existance than science can observe and measure. Within the framework of our faith, we must reason out what God's message to us means. And it's clear that reasoning, educated, dedicated Christians sometimes arrive at different interpretations of that message.

We may not like it, but in the final analysis the human brain is the ultimate arbiter of truth, because it is the only tool we have to understand God's message. We can choose to beleive that the Holy Spirit influences that understanding, but we must still process that influence through the meager mental facilities that we possess.

We can choose to believe that the Gospel of John (for example) reveals God's truth to us, but we depend on human brains to translate, interpret, and explain what those words mean. We can choose to believe that God used the brain matter residing in the person of Ellen White to explain and illuminate Bible truth. But even then we will filter that understanding through our own experiences, our own interpretation of the words she used. Or else we turn to someone whose brain matter we trust more and depend on them to tell us what she meant.

Oddly enough (to me anyway), faith is something entirely seperate from reason, yet we must use human reasoning to decide what we have faith in.

[John317]

I don't think you can discount the fact that you must first have faith that God exists and that the Bible reveals His message to us. Neither of those can be arrived at by reason.

I don't agree with this. In my opinion, the way you have stated your case-- that reason can lead one neither to faith in God's existence nor to faith in the Bible as the revelation of His message-- is too strong. If you mean that reason alone does not lead to saving faith, I could agree with you. Faith is the same as trust or belief or confidence or conviction. Faith is not blind but is based on evidence, which is meaningless without the use of reason. We have confidence and conviction because of the evidence we've examined using our reasoning powers. Saving faith, however, comes from a decision to accept the Bible's testimony about Christ and to commit one's life to Him as one's personal Lord and Savior. This kind of faith, it is true, does not come by a mere intellectual assent that God exists or that the Bible is true, but it results from the movement of the Holy Spirit on the mind and the believer's choice to submit to it. It's highly unlikely that the believer will make that choice if he is convinced by the evidence that it makes no sense to believe in God or that the Bible is a fabrication.

Pascal said, "There are three sources of belief: reason, custom, inspiration. The Christian religion, which alone has reason, does not acknowledge as her true children those who believe without inspsiration. It is not that she excludes reason and custom. On the contrary, the mind must be opened to proofs, must be confirmed by custom and offer itself in humbleness to inspirations, which alone can produce a true and saving effect. Ne evacuetur crux Christi*." Pensees, #245

* 1 Cor. 1: 17. "Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

I believe today in God and in the Bible because of the weight of evidence. The Bible itself asks us to examine the evidence, particularly the evidence of prophecy. See, for instance, Isaiah 41 to 44, where we are asked to consider the prophecies as evidence that God exists.

I believe Ellen White got it right when she said: "God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to have our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His Word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth, will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith."

I believe that the weight of evidence leans overwhelmingly in the direction of God's existence and in the reliability of the Bible. If I wasn't convinced of this, I would not be a Christian.

Good examples of how the evidence and reason lead to belief in God can be found in Hans Kung's Does God Exist? Also, in Lee Strobel's books, The Case For Faith and The Case For Christ. The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, John Clover Monsma. An excellent discussion of the relationship between faith and reason is found in Nicholas Wolterstorff's Reason Within the Bounds of Religion.

[LifeHiscost]

I don't think you can discount the fact that you must first have faith that God exists and that the Bible reveals His message to us. Neither of those can be arrived at by reason.

We choose to believe something for which there is no proof--that is what makes it faith.

Perhaps your conclusions reflect your faith. Looking in retrospect over the experiences of my life, there were incidents in which miracles performed by Him took place for my good when I as yet had no trust (faith) whatsoever that there was even a God that had any concern for my life. Obvious to me at a later date, these were evidences that struck me with revelationary power, that all the time I had been wandering around fearful, He not only existed despite my lack of faith but His concern for my welfare was no less at anytime of my unbelief than when I invited Him to reside in my life that I might know best how to live with Him. The difference lay only in my willingness to freely give my life to Him, to use in whatever manner He wished.

Our trust, our faith or lack thereof, diminishes not nor establishes His glory or grace. Its' lack on my part only eliminates my ability to see His gifts affective in my life for the sake of others primarily, and my joy secondarily.

"For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."

Romans 12:3 KJV

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."Rom 5:7,8 NASB

Regards!!

[bevin]

Quote:

We choose to believe something for which there is no proof--that is what makes it faith. We choose to believe that there is something more to our existance than science can observe and measure.

That is not the issue. The issue is not the big picture of belief in God. The issue is when our reasoning about a piece of ancient literature contradicts our reasoning about an observable world.

Different people react different ways when this happen.

I look at them both and conclude the Book and the fossils are both physical entities whose origins can be examined by scientific means, the Book was written by people who didn't have our knowledge or our tools, the fossil story is complex and consistent, therefore the Book is not literally true.

Other people look at them both and conclude the Book is literally true and we should discount all science that contradicts it as being based on dishonesty and incorrect assumptions

I understand why they do this, I even understand why they oppose me when I don't do it - they are scared that God has deliberately made some kind of trap.

A God that would create a planet-sized deception is not one worth worshipping.

/Bevin

[LifeHiscost]

the fossil story is complex and consistent, therefore the Book is not literally true.

At one time the fossil story among certain, gave rise to the conclusion that there was no such tribe as the Hittites, written as fact in the Bible but discounted by naysayers concerning the reliability of the Bible record, re: the lack of finding any archealogical evidence of their existence. At a later time archeologists found written archeological evidence of the Hittite tribe and the naysayers were forced to admit, that true which was previously thought myth, even by certain theologians as well as the scientific community. The question then can be posed, Was the tribe of the Hittites literal truth when the intelligensia had found no literal truth to that effect? Perhaps the answer to this question might be a clue. When a tree falls in the forest and no one is present, does it make a sound?

While the fossil story may be complex, it is hardly consistent.

There are other circumstances of similar import proving the reliability of the Bible record and God has so motivated certain individuals in pursuit of those evidences for the sake of honest questioners of His Word.

For those who question God's Word, in His efforts to reach the unbelieving He has spared no expense, even to the giving of His Son to an ignoble death. It still remains up to the individual to choose whether to believe God the arbiter of their destiny or to rely on their own wisdom for assurance of eternal life.

To believe in a god of which we could plumb the depths of His wisdom, would place God as no greater than we, a shuddering, fictional scenario, IMHO.

"But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!" Luke 19:40 NASB

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:1,14 KJV

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." John 20:29 KJV

Regards!!

[bevin]

There is a huge difference between

...not finding any evidence for the Hittites and then discovering some

and

...finding lots of evidence that contradicts the short-age global-flood model

/Bevin

[John317]

Have you ever read a book called The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross? It is about the Big Bang and what it says about God. If you know about it, what is your opinion of it or the writer?

Also, have you read books by scientists who don't believe in the Big Bang? I noticed a few books from this viewpoint and am wondering if you think they have a case.

I myself enjoy reading several books at a time on a subject from differing points of view.

[John317]

There is a huge difference between

...not finding any evidence for the Hittites and then discovering some

and

...finding lots of evidence that contradicts the short-age global-flood model

/Bevin

It used to be that the critics of the Bible, those who said things such as that the Bible wouldn't be around much longer-- remember Voltaire, who himself hasn't been around now for well over 200 years? --, said the Bible obviously was false because it mentioned nations and people that they just knew never existed. Among those supposedly non-existent nations were the Hittites (to name just one among many), and among the people who were supposed to've never existed were Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, David, and even Jesus Christ. They used to even deny that Moses could possibly have written the books attributed to him because they said writing hadn't even been invented until after Moses lived (1445 BC). And the Exodus thing? A likely story!

Well, now that we know for sure those people existed (as well as many more in both the Old and New Testaments), that Moses could easily have written those books, and that the Bible has been proved right by archeology over and over again-- do you think that these critics (who claimed to be so honest and open-minded and to be merely searching for truth) would admit that the Bible is more reliable than they thought? No. Instead, they raise the bar and say, "Oh well. It just proves those things and people existed. That is nothing. It doesn't touch on whether the Bible can be trusted because, you know, it doesn't prove the trustworthiness of the first 11 chapters of Genesis."

Do you know of any archeological discoveries that proved without question that the Bible is mistaken? I've taken classes in this at public universities and the books I've read show a suprising amount of support for the historical accuracy of the Bible insofar as archeological digs have been able show one way or another. (I'm aware of the questions surrounding Jericho, but that issue is still being debated and has not been resolve.)

[phkrause]

Yes I also like reading differrent vues. And as the years have gone by the Bible continues to demonstrate its accuracy.

pkrause

[John317]

Yes I also like reading differrent vues. And as the years have gone by the Bible continues to demonstrate its accuracy.

pkrause

Yes, it has stood up very well under the withering criticism and doubts thrown at it over the last 4 hundred years. No book has been picked apart so much and been examined so closely. Yet the good, old book still stands tall. It outlasts all of its worst critics.

[LifeHiscost]

Do you know of any archeological discoveries that proved without question that the Bible is mistaken?

I very much appreciated your post, John317. It's also true that the prince of darkness himself has no trust in the Word as being reliable. Belief in the Word is more a matter of the heart and experience by an individual, with the God Who makes no errors, than it is in making effort to prove one way or another. When God speaks to the heart through His Word, the person who is desirous of doing his Father's will, finds joy in walking where His Father points the way.

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:17 KJV

"A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps." Proverbs 16:9 NKJV

Blessings!!