Faith, Logic and Belief

One of the more stimulating discussion on the issue here. Too tired to drag it over to this blog.

Update 23 April 2012: here it is, reproduced with permission from missgoody2shoes (Thanks heaps!)

Monday, February 28, 2005

"We should believe that God exists because it's basic faith to do so, just like you believe water makes you less thirsty, the sun rises from the east and sets in the west, ice feels cold, running makes you tired, cars won't crash you down when it's a green man. And if that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation would we."
My response:
Basic faith - lack of need to conduct any further research or thinking to believe in something?

That would be translated into knowledge. We know tt we sweat when we run etc - yeah. Experiential knowledge. How about when one falls down & scrapes the knee. It would be painful, without a doubt? Immediately, we assume there will be pain but the lepers don't feel a thing. So, what assumptions are we making?
Cars not crashin you down when it's a green man. We adhere to a faith based on probabilities. There is stil a chance, albeit small, but it exists.
Ice feelin' cold - yeah sure it does, but if u hold it for too long, it numbs and leaves a burning sensation. Similar to heat? Pain. So the feelin' of cold-ness is not the absolute final result, which just ends there. (ok, my bro kindly pointed out that this statement doesn't prove much. But it's merely an analogy of something I'm tryin to get at). Test the assumptions you make.

It's safer to try to look at the big picture and try piecin' things tog - rather than to look to one aspect i.e. the faith-beyond-a-doubt aspect to determine the BIG question of God. This stems from the instinctive need to satisfy our intellect. I suppose, this is the premise you have chosen to start from in provin' God. A good question to ask yourself: What exactly do you want or need as proof of God, or to back up faith? Will the total belief (or conviction) in the way somethin' works prove that something is true? Not necessarily.
In the past, pple believed earth was flat. Now we know better (havin e benefit of sci & tech).
So, could it be possible that we are missin' certain pieces of the puzzle now that may come tog in the future - we are disadvantaged cos we do not have all the facts to draw a final conclusion. We have all the capacity for believing, but are just handicapped at present, so we just have to make do with what we have & know.
I know many have turned to atheism. No god. Or agnosticism - no way of knowin' (if I werent a christian, I might have ended up as agnostic). I'm just assuming that the contention here is whether there is a basis for faith in a God (and not the Christian God - that would be another matter altogether).
Ultimately, everyone chooses what they want to believe in & hence the saying : Everyone has the right to choose what to believe, but not everythin they believe in is right/true. So then, do you believe in an absolute, do you believe there's a truth out there waiting to be found or realised, or may be it already has been by the privileged some?
All ancient civilizations (if I'm not wrong) had the concept of God, the "superior being". At that point in time, it could be the case tt there was no need to conduct further research. Where did this whole idea of "God" come from? How did it permeate so many societies, both past and present? I personally feel that the idea of a God survivin' right from early civilization til now is pretty amazin' if it were false.
If belief has to be based on knowledge, then wouldn't u agree that our present-day knowledge is very much limited, too limited to transform the belief into knowledge? As I've said, we are handicapped, given the little we know. I'll be honest here. I'm subscribing to a faith based on probabilities, and to a considerable extent, experience & observation (this "extent" is growing). My doubts remain, but I've already made my choice (which is subject to possible change in the future, hopefully not tho').
Always consider different aspects i.e. theory v. practical reality, when formin' a conclusion. i prefer reality over theory definitely. then, comes all the issues of the origin of Man & creation, the problem of sin/evil, the meaning of life, the mystery of "life"-after-death to consider at the same time...

We all need hope in this world we're livin' in.

----------------

Comments:

Anonymous said...

Caustic as my remarks may be, I hope you know that my purpose is not criticize the Christian faith out of contempt or for any other personal grudge.

The need for/idea of God comes from the inperfection of humans. All humans go through some kind of suffering and thus hope for something better through divine intervention. This hope is then translated to a belief in god(s), which are implanted in the culture of civilisations both modern and ancient alike, through appointed leaders or influential people. In a more recent example, the Church of the Holy Roman Empire was largely controlling the people's beliefs. Due to St Augustine's doctrine of predestination (the people that will go to hell are already decided), natural disasters and sicknesses were blamed on "witches" among the population and countless were tortured to death. My focus is not on the fact that many deaths occured, but rather on the fact that most people are unable to think critically and doubt the norms.

All religions consist of some form of "exchange". (i.e. Believing in God --> eternal life, doing good works --> the pleasure of pleasing God/entry to "heaven"
praying to the rain god --> rain for crops in dry seasons
praying to the war god --> blessings for battle etc.).

The idea of God stems from human need and not from a higher being who put the concept in our heads.


It is true however, that we cannot make an assumption on God based on the knowledge the world possesses now. It is very sad to live a life without meaning.

But I think it would be sadder still to place your hope in an imaginary being whose existence you base on probabilities.

-timmy
27/2/05 4:28 PM

 

lisa said...

no worries! i welcome all feedback! :)

but, i dont think it's sad placing my hope in the "imaginary being" whom i'm convinced is true. it's not just the probabilities thingy.
As my dad once said, even if (so happen if the case may be) that Christianity is a fluke altogether, there would be no regrets. The same goes for me. I'd have nothing to lose, only a great possibility of gainin' much should it prove true when the time comes. no harm done. :) in fact, i've experienced change which i cannot really understand how it came about, yet i dare not be so sure that it's not from God. but, this is subjective.

But, onto the experiential aspect (the tricky part to this: can one ever trust another individual's experiences? i really dont know. that would depend on the r/s itself.)

Most pple succumb based on experiences with "God" (altho i've had the privilege of knowin' one truly unique individual who found her way to Christianity through pure search and questioning - she belongs to the minority - remarkable!)

The way i see it now - Life is (sort of) a gamble, and the stakes on Christ is definitely high. I wouldnt dare risk it, not unless i have a compelling reason to.

when you say "imaginary being whose existence [is based on] probabilities",it seems to me that you are pre-supposing He is imaginary as your starting premise. i'm really curious as to what would be required to fully convince you of God's existence,... miracles? personal encounter? some "tangible" evidence? the basic-faith theory where you need to feel certain beyond a doubt?
for me, it took a mixture of alot of factors.

But ultimately, i was won over by a love & peace that i cannot pretend to fully comprehend. which is why i love it when i see lives of pple dear to me so changed, it is actually very telling.

faith needs to be developed, and i'm doubt it can be built on philosophical arguments for s secure foundation, altho these do point us in some direction. Which is why i believe that it's not the theoretical intellectual arguments for/against God or faith or what have you that builds faith. it's more than just that. Form v. Substance. Theory v. Practice. it's still the life that we live out that counts the most, and the lifestyle we choose is heavily influenced by our worldview.

i know of no other way to explain the unexplained & the apparently unexplainable other than to look to idea of a God as a headstart. it's definitely easier this way than moving in the opposite direction, cos you wouldnt have anywhere much to begin - it'd be pretty random, the way i see it.

ok, re how the concept of God came about. point taken there (i guess i neglected tending to Man's need for a "God")... somethin' more to look into :)
27/2/05 5:55 PM

lisa said...

one more thing to add,
there are many intellectual giants and great thinkers who have been convicted.

tho i do struggle with intellectual barriers once in a while, it's encouraging to know that there are many who have struggled & come to the stand that Christ is Lord. And more importantly, the greatest testimony is a life transformed, which i realised is a point that i've been makin' repeatedly.. heh. so anyw, press on in your search!
27/2/05 6:05 PM

Anonymous said...

I'm sure you know, being a Christian means having a personal relationship with God.

What I meant was, how do you have a relationship with someone whose proof for existence is based on probability? Believing in God for the purpose of "playing safe" is absolutely not good enough for me.

"Love and peace" doesn't work for me either. It is what all human beings seek in religion. Something that gives them hope. Christian belief makes people feel peaceful because they think they'll go to heaven when they die thus all things they do on earth should be done to please God. Similarly, Buddhism makes people feel peaceful because it encourages people to let go of material desire(to those who turn to this religion for hope and not for divine favors that is). The doctrine of both religions relieve their followers of worldly stress, thus giving "peace". This is probably one reason why their lives have seem to have changed after believing.

"Uncomprehensible love" doesn't make sense to me. By definition love arises out of kinship or good things someone does for you. Even if such a thing were to exist, I have never felt it in my life as a Christian (back when what my parents told me was the truth).
If you mean you feel God's love for you through Jesus dying on the cross (i've heard this plenty), then the statement becomes redundant. We're trying to discuss about faith in God aren't we?

I agree philosophy and discussion is not all there is to the Christian faith (if not it wouldn't be called faith in the first place). At some point when the evidence is enough i'll accept it.

And also, just because the intellectually high and lofty ones think a certain way doesn't mean it's the right way. =)

-timmy
27/2/05 8:56 PM

 

JM said...

Too good to resist not diving into...!

To frame the issue, can I suggest that to even believe that "Truth" exists, requires "Faith"?

It takes faith to believe faith exists.To take a step even further back, can we prove that our faculties of "believing", "analysis", and other such thought processes are even dependable? The question should be: Can we even understand anything at all? (i.e. what is 'meaning')

To suggest that our thinking is reliable, is a step of Faith. Because we are within the dimension of thought, we cannot prove if our thought is flawless or flawed. You cannot use a subset of a domain/dimension to scrutinize the domain/dimension. (e.g. a 2-dimensional creature will never understand a painting- you have got to have the 3rd dimension of height to appreciate/scrutinize the lower 2-dimensions of length and breadth)

To believe anything at all requires that element of "belief", or "faith". It (i.e. belief) is a suspension of what is evident, or prima facie, making a transient leap in logic for the higher. And like what Lisa has said earlier, Faith and Grace are ever-so intertwined. To believe (Faith), we suspend our base ideas for that 'higher' notion (Grace- something undeserved). Both faith and grace are illogical.

My Point: You cannot use Logic to discuss Faith.

Faith is transcendent to logic. While there are elements where faith runs in the plane of logic, there is more to faith than logic. (A 3-D object emcompasses a 2-D section, but it is much MORE than just a 2-D plane; 3-D transends 2-D. You can use 3-D to depict 2-D accurately, but cannot use 2-D to depict accurately)

Yes, we can logically discuss God, his existence, myth and role. But our logic cannot contain Him. Because if He exists
- then we should expect to be NEVER able to explain Him fully, because if we were able to, we would have "created" God. (the 2-D cannot surpass the 3-D; only the 1-D) If we 'created' God, then we can fully explain who he is and why he is. We cannot.
- He is infinitely transcendent to all human logic (even if it were perfect), and our Logic is painfully defective
- we are painfully inadequate to even begin to 'discuss' God, without the premise of faith.

To 'discuss' Faith itself already commits the person to transcend the domain of logic. This is regardless of experience, or statistical probability.

We cannot use logic to put "faith" in a box, much less use "faith" to put God in a box.

I understand that what i'm suggesting is inherently nihilistic, but if you're even willing to have read this far, you'll have found yourself transcending logic for faith.

Now we can talk about God. =)

שלוס
28/2/05 5:21 AM

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the club. =D

Anyway, back to the very first question we go..

Can basic faith be used to justify the Christian Faith?

Now i'll be fair here. I won't go to the extreme of nihilism, because even if existence is illusory, there wouldn't be a thing I could do about it. So, assuming that we are living in reality and not in a virtual brain-in-the-jar world, I now make my point.

The Christian Faith is not the same as basic faith (the same type of faith that we use to believe that anything exists at all). Because if that were the case, there would be no need to be discuss it. It would just be accepted.

An example of basic faith would be faith in the fact that the sun rises every day at a certain time and sets at a certain time. In religion however, it usually takes a larger step of faith.

In "basic faith", we consider one factor - the validity of our experience. (Is the brightness and warmth produced by a different source? Do we really feel these at all? Is the world that we exist in reality?)

But in the Christian faith we need to consider the same factor and also the possibility of its claims. (Does that peaceful feeling come from God? Can an undefinable God exist? Is it possible for a being to exist out of space and time?)

Since we all know it is impossible to derive any proof for Christianity from pure logic, I'm curious to know then, what do you base your belief on? (I also assume that the Christian faith and blind faith are also different as most Christians insist.)

-timmy

(again i apologise if my comments sound hostile)
28/2/05 1:56 PM

lisa said...

The arguments against God are plentiful. I could spend my whole lifetime trying to refute these, and not even come close to succeeding. and i dont believe in God merely because of probability or because of playing it safe - those only go to telling me that my search is worthwhile, and to encourage me to continue searching so that i can build up on knowing truth. i was extremely dissatisfied with blind faith not too long ago.

i concede that christian faith is not same as basic faith in that sense. so then, could there be any reason why the faith seems so elusive? why did some manage to find it, and others just miss out on it? i dont know. maybe it is as the Bible says, ... it's because we were born spiritually dead (that is if you believe in the possibility of the existence of another dimension, namely, the spiritual one) because of sin. we cannot see spiritual things because we are separated. we can see and observe only the physical i.e. the sun example. then it'd make sense. from "hindsight", working from the Bible as the reference point.

so, my answer to the first question is: maybe the Christian faith can go to justifying the basic faith :)
“One of the strongest arguments in favour of Christianity is the failure of Christians, who thereby prove what the Bible teaches about the fall & original sin.â€

when i refered to those intellectual giants, i did not mean that just because they are geniuses meant that they knew better. sure, they had the advantage of brains (and that works both ways, to either help discover faith or destroy it). People like c.s. lewis and chesterton seemed to have "loosed rather than restrained their minds". it took more than just mere intellect and sound arguments to convince them.

the blind faith argument could work against anyone who has a belief in anything. say, an atheist chooses not to believe in God because of x no. of reasons; compare this with a christian who believes in God because of y no. of reasons. one places his faith in himself and his stand that there is no God, the other places his faith in a Higher Being. both requires faith, and both could be accused of being blind.

i, too, wish that my faith could be perfect - but if all the Bible says is true, it makes perfect sense that our faith can never be perfected in this lifetime. So like what jm said: It takes faith to believe faith exist - i stand by that. we seem to be wired to have this capacity for faith.

Chesterton said "I am the man who with the utmost daring discovered what had been discovered before ... I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy". Wait and see, today’s orthodoxies may well become tomorrow’s heresies, and vice versa.
time will tell. so, time becomes the risk factor. when will we come closer to the answer? either upon the end of time (assuming there is one) or upon death. i'm not sure myself whether we'll know the full answer even then, but i suspect we'll know enough.

we do not have a monopoly over knowledge. over truth & answers. but i believe faith in God can come close to being as logical as basic faith, provided we know where to look. i find logic in the coherence of the Christian faith. how time and history, science and nature, prophecies coming to pass, miracles (which plainly defies man's logic), morality, the idea of eternity and time, etc - everything complementing each other, fitting nicely together - it makes good sense to me. somethin' else is just as absolute, or perhaps more, as the rising and setting of the sun: we all were born into the world, we all will eventually die. so then, do we just pass thru life without permanence of any sort?

i, tog with a friend, hav eva spoken to a hard-core atheist (and boy! it was quite an experience i tell you!). he came up with excellent arguments disproving God. sophisticated and all. pointed out contradictions in the Bible that stumped me. but when it came down to things that matters - like the meaning of life - he couldnt answer (and at that point in time, i was sure that i hit on something. i suspect he rejected God o'er some personal reason, rather than because of the intellectual arguments he made. and the last i heard [is that right, Gail? if you are reading this...], this guy is going all out to disprove Christianity). this guy used to be a Christian. what i dont understand is why couldnt he just let go of Christianity "peacefully" and move on. why must he hit back with so much "veangence"? he equated happiness to meaning, and saw it as an end in itself, no permanence.

much of my faith comes from personal experiences (each time i challenge God in some area but without the motive of testing Him or His existence, He surprises me.). if i believed in coincidence, i wouldnt give God a chance.

and i like to observe. the details in all of creation. it's fascinating & amazing. how everything seems to work, it points to a creator or an intelligent being. we are created beings, not just matter. we have the capacity to feel & do so much, to believe, to choose. if we were just matter, we would be no different from a block of wood, would we? let creation speak for itself.

re jm's point - you cannot use logic to discuss faith. its true. my take on it is we can use logic to discuss the bases for faith, but it cannot be used to develop or grow faith.

there's danger in "casting off faith with nothing to take its place".
Philip Yancey - "For Chesterton, and also for me, the riddles of God proved more satisfying than the answers proposed without God. I too came to believe in the good things of this world, first revealed to me in music, romantic love, and nature, as relics of a wreck, and as bright clues into the nature of a reality shrouded in darkness." If faith makes life meaningful, if it brings life (as Christians claim it does), why not have it? it's gotta be better than just living with "nothing", and if you believe that we all will come to nothing-ness, then we have nothing to worry about, since while we are living, we had a meaning and purpose.

"And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."
- T.S. Eliot

Timmy: dont worry about the hostility. haha, if i survive your questioning, it helps to build my own faith. long-term good. it's got me started thinkin' alot more too.
i'v got another book to recommend (or i can lend it to you) - Soul Survivor, How My Faith Survived the Church. some stuff above were extracted from this book.

Jerming: thanks! i like the 2d/3d thingy and all that stuff about God's logic and Man's... actually i've never read any of Chesterton's full writings yet (but i will, i need the discipline and time). i merely collect quotes along the way, when i read other books or articles.
And, the entry "Water" - i just realised that it's not by Chesterton. it's by George MacDonald. haha, was blur lah, tt's why got 'em mixed up. i have this anthology of 365 George MacDonald quotes. C.S.Lewis was influenced by MacDonald's writings. if you want, can lend it to u.
28/2/05 8:32 PM

jm said...

Lisa: George MacDonald! wow, you're reading all the good books. I've been searching out chesterton for a bit. You should also try Malcolm Muggeridge, and Francis Schaeffer.

Timmy: Hostility? None felt if none intended! To address (and hopefully satisfy?) your question...

"Since we all know it is impossible to derive any proof for Christianity from pure logic, I'm curious to know then, what do you base your belief on?"

To rephrase the question: Why I (jm) believe in God (and his claims in christianity), despite the difficulties in logic and belief.

You also said, "The Christian Faith is not the same as basic faith".

Is a 'faith' in [the Christian] God really that different from your idea of 'basic faith'?

You have already justified 'basic faith' as that forged through experential means. You will find that as a christian, my belief (and basis) for God's existence as espoused in Christianity is confirmed through my experience. Because of his 'actions' in my life through the bible and confirmed by my own experience and accounts of reliable people (historical facts, miracles, life changes), it would be illogical for me to deny His reality. For me, believing in God is the direct result of my experience of Him, coupled with the claims he makes concerning himself (creation, loving me etc). This is not unlike your qualification for "basic faith". Or isn't it? =)

At this point, I would like to introduce the concept of the Worldview. Simply put, a worldview is a set/system of assumptions and beliefs (which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or unconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) that address the basic makeup of our world.

The first thing each one of us recognizes before we even begin to think at all is that something exists. In other words, all worldviews assume that somthing is there rather than that nothing is there. What we discover quickly, is that once we have recognized that something is there, we have not necessarily recognized what that something is. (james w. sire)

When we examine the christian worldview, it includes a system of revealed/received ideas, as well as a set of experienced truths.

While I may not have personally experienced every aspect espoused in this system of belief, I agree with Lisa, that in "hindsight", the Christian worldview best fits/explains the world as I have experienced it.

You find that "basic faith" runs on exactly the same processes- you believe that the sun rises at a particular time at at particular location on a particular time of the year, because we best explain this with a "scientific worldview"- that the earth is round, spins round the sun and rotates on a tilted axis. Can I prove these facts? Not in my capacity anyway. Do I understand why these events are so? No. I don't need to*. In fact, we make full use of these 'assumptions' because they BEST FIT our experience, and not so much because we understand fully the mechanics behind them.

*In fact, to use a Rule of Logic, isn't this a consequence of Ockam's Razor?

It is an informed faith that I adhere to; nothing blind nor mindless about it.

The christian worldview best addresses my understanding of the world, and confirmed by my experience. While realizing there are many aspects of the Christian system of belief (worldview) I may not fully understand, my exerience tells me that in hindsight, I will understand. If it has proven to best fit till now, I can safely trust in its reliability for other issues. Since the claim is that it comes from a Creating God to his creatures, imperfect understanding of the Creator is not dissonant to me.

To be fair, yes, I will hold on to the christian worldview until I find its claims to be inconsistent with my understanding and experience of the world. It is not blind faith I subscribe to. But if it were the "True" system reflecting how reality really is, I shouldn't be expecting to change my mind anytime soon.

"Oh taste and see, that the Lord is good."

Without tasting, you will never know that honey is sweet and pleasing. We can analysize it, study its formation, chemical make-up, production and function. But without the defining step of experiencing it, one misses the whole appreciation of that sweet golden substance.

It's not about foolish actions or blind faith, but "basic faith". It's about making an informed decision and giving it a try. For all it is worth.

Take the leap. What's not worth trying?

 

Daniel Chew said...

The main thing the whole faith question boils down to is this: epsitemology. How do we know what we know? Do what we see exists or maybe we are all in an illusionary world ie the Matrix. Why do we choose one over the other explanation? Ockham's Razor is a practical rule and it does not make the option ruled out any less true, just less probable. The theist have the burden of proving that God exists, but the atheist also have the burden to prove otherwise. The agnostic also have their own burden to proof, namely that they know that God's existence is unknowable. Thus, everything is by 'faith', in that sense. It is for this reason that human reasoning break down at this point, for we can't reason beyond what we know and is knowable to us.

Therefore, faith is entirely reasonable. Because of this also, the epistemological theory of presuppositionalism has been proposed by Cornelius Van Til. Thus, Christian faith is logical and reasonable, within the sphere of human capability of understanding. When we as Christians believe by faith, we are not believing blindly, but we believe primarily because of God's revelation to us in His Word. The well-informed Christian knows that non believers are not more enlightened and are not disbelieving because there is no proof or insufficiency of proof, for they have no epistemological superiority in their unbelief than in our belief. Even worse for them, Christianity has secondary evidences which support the Christian worldview, and disprove theirs. To believe in one worldview or the other, one could look for secondary evidences to support it while disproving others.

Consider this: the reason why God says is Scripture that no one can plead innocent at the final judgment is that Man has some knoledge of God through things like Nature(Rom. 1:19-20) which they willingly suppress by their wickedness(v. 18) and which they are held accountable. Epsitemologically, this translate to mean that there are certain things here that are sufficient for Man to know God if he is not suppressing them with his sinful nature (which he almost always do), thus it is sufficient for God to condemn the unbeliever to Hell. One aspect of this knowledge is seen in Rom 1:20.

'For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, has clearly being seen been understood from what has been made, so that Man are without excuse (NIV)

Thus, God has decreed that one way that we should be able to know that there is a God is by His creation, for the stars proclaim the glory of God. However, Man, as usual, suppress the knowledge by creating a ridiculouslf flawed theory known as Darwinism and only reluctantly accepted the Big Bang theory, and even then are trying to find explanations to avoid its implication of a beginning. However, they are deceiving themselves, as the Bible had foretold, for the 2nd Law of thermodynamics predict a beginning and thus a Creator, while the irreducible complexity of each and every living organim, and the lack of evidence for macroevolution, disproves Darwinism. Thus, on this alone, Man could be held accountable for rejeting God and turning to their own way. Notes also that this falsifies some religions like Budhism, as Budhism has no God and no Creator, only absolute laws like Karma etc.

Much can be said about other evidences which props up Christianity while disproving others, but I woud not delve deeply into that here.
2/3/05 3:35 AM

JM said...

I would like to briefly point out that in addition to Faith having an Epistemological (the study of knowing) dimension- exploring the meaning and logic to life, God and other such issues, there is the other aspect of Faith which is Ontological (the study of being).

It is important to put ontology first as a Christian. Traditional Christian theism has always seen the Infinite-Personal God as most basic form of what is. God, at the most fundamental level, is what it means to be. God's revealed identify to Moses at the burning bush was "I AM WHO IAM. ...you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent you'" I AM: one can get no more fundamentally real that that. I AM is not to be equated with anything within the created order. He is single and sole. He is what it is to be.

Likewise, our experience of God and Prime Reality (i.e. the Really Real), should an Ontological one. One where I "be", and God "AM".

Epistemological aspects come later, almost in hindsight.

Epistemology is predicated on the nature of what is, not on an autonomous ability, human reason disengaged from God. Moreover, there is no dichotomy between religious knowledge and secular knowledge.

In the biblical worldview, in short, everything is first and foremost determined by the nature and character of God. It cannot be said too strongly: Ontology preceeds Epistemology. When the Scriptures turn to epistemology, they do so with the assumption of the existence of God.

Human knowledge is possible because he who created and knows all things exhaustively is also the "light of all people" (Jn 1:4). Christ is "the true light, which enlightens everyone" (Jn 1:9). That is why we can know. Ontology- the existence of an omniscient God who creates us in his image- is the foundation for epistemology.

So what is the nature of fundamental reality? What is Being? It is God in his awesome personal array of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and goodness. We can understand the universe because an understanding God made it to be understood. (james w. sire)

Happy Founder's Day to all you AC fellas out there.
2/3/05 5:33 AM

Daniel Chew said...

>JM said...
I would like to briefly point out that in addition to Faith having an Epistemological (the study of knowing) dimension- exploring the meaning and logic to life, God and other such issues, there is the other aspect of Faith which is Ontological (the study of being).

Thanks for pointing that out. It is correct that in the Bible ontology comes first. As a Calvinist, I do not subscribe to autonomous human reasoning being able to find God on its own. What I am saying is that autonomous human reasoning could tell the person that there is no such thing as absolute truth apart from God; that all foundational premises of any particular worldview could not be verified in a logical manner (as logic and reasoing break down at that point). Thus, since that is the case, presuppositionalism is perfectly valid as an epistemological theory of explanation.

Note that I didn't say that one can get from autonomous human reasoning to presuppositional epistemology then to Christian theism. That is impossible, apart from the Spirit's work of regeneration. What I am saying is that from autonomous human reasoning, one can know that one's worldview is no less superior epistemologically than the other apart from revelation by God and thus none should (ie atheism, agnosticism etc) have the right to demand proof from others more than it can give of itself.

Since that is the case, Christian faith is no less (un)reasonable than faith in no God or faith in the unknowability of God. Thus, we can call the bluff of those who say that Christian faith is illogical, blind or irrational. (Faith is logical yet uber-logical, informed not blind, and rational inasmuch as God has allowed us to reasoned it out).

Daniel Chew said...

Sorry about this, but the last post didn't quite read like I wanted it to... The bold part is not supposed to be placed there...
It should be read like this:

What I am saying is that from autonomous human reasoning, apart from revelation by God, one can know that one's worldview is no less superior epistemologically than the other and thus ...
2/3/05 6:51 AM

Anonymous said...

From what i've gathered, the Christian faith is no less logical than faith in atheism/agnosticism. So I guess it all boils down to personal experience with God.

The general idea that i'm getting is that the theory of evolution is less believable than the Christian belief - that creation points to an intelligent designer, both logically and through historical facts and accounts. That's something i'll read up on.

And to all ye ex-ACSians, happy belated Founder's Day. =D
-timmy

 

Daniel Chew said...

Timmy:
From what i've gathered, the Christian faith is no less logical than faith in atheism/agnosticism.

Only apart from God's revelation in the epistemological sense. In other fields like science and history, the Christian faith is inherently superior. In the ontological sense, that's up to God's revelation of himself, which is incomprehensible to those whom he has never shown himself to.
2/3/05 10:01 PM

jm said...

Timmy: Yup, you're right. It comes down to an experience with God. Its sorta like in the English Law system, a criminal suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty (unlike the French system with is presumed guilty until proven innocent!!). Its about giving God and his claims a try.

Check out evolution. Scrutinize its processes, and especially look at what people in the scientific community have to say- you'll find alot of conflicting data and views, which is why the idea is still a "Theory" (and not a "Law"). Also, take a look at stuff from physics and astronomy about the formation of the universe- the need for a first cause, a point-source beginning and the improbability of the 'many-worlds' theory.

And yes, an experience and revelation of God can only come through a personal revelation of himself through his Holy Spirit. This is because our spirits are dead to God, and only the Holy Spirit can 'revive' it (think of it as a jump-starting a flat car). This is why there has to be an inviting of himself into your heart. Its not an intellectual process (epistemological), but a spiritual/heart-level one (ontological).

The happy thing is, He always comes into our heart when we invite him to. Its not a predestined, select few whom he chooses. (This is where I differ fr Daniel and his Calvinist view; discuss another place, another time). The choice is up to us, because his invitation is always open. In a sense, salvation is like walking through a door which says "You are invited to enter", and once you enter, you look back at the reverse of the door and it says "You have been chosen".

=)
3/3/05 12:39 AM

Anonymous said...

Hi all, brief intro. Im timmy's bro.

Now, to the point. First of all, this has been a most interesting discussion so far. However, i am neither good at debating nor positively dispositioned towards it, so i give you instead, a question.

Instead of asking why christians choose to believe in christ, we should also ask ourselves and non-christians alike why people choose NOT to believe in Christ.

In light of the direction previous posts have been heading towards, i would like to propose an exploration of the experience of God. It was mentioned by (JM?) earlier that his faith is a direct result of his experience of God, coupled with the claims He (God) makes concerning himslf (creation, love etc). Ignoring the arguments about creation for the moment, i would like to focus on love. How does God make claims about His love? i believe that the most tangible and convincing way is through his people, christians. Which brings me to my second question.

Is it possible that some people do not believe because they are not feeling God's love and hence not hearing His claims? Why is it that some, instead of simply not believing choose to attack the christian faith? As ambassadors of Christ we are tasked with spreading the faith, and part of that task is proclaiming his love. Is it possible that we are neglecting this responsibility?

Theologically we may be correct, but if we neglect to love, our argument is incomplete. Above all, we must not forget that "love conquers all". If love were that powerful a testimony, it may be reason enough for those who see it to take that large leap of faith. The lack of love within the church, on the other hand WILL cause believers to fall away.

-sAm-
3/3/05 1:50AM

lisa said...

hey :)
wow, this place has turned pretty lively... anyw, welcome welcome!

i just had a tutorial on Freedom of Religion earlier today! timely i must say! We kinda touched on issues of religion (DUH!) and faith yada yada... and the most featured e.g. of a religion used in tutorial was that of Christianity (it seems that our "religion" has made a mark on the world, more so than others. altho' we did have to talk about the Islamic religion becos of the tudung* issues)!

*FYI, there had been this controversy o'er primary school malay girls wearing headscarves (tudungs) to school as an expression of their religion.

The first qns - why do people choose NOT to believe in Christ?
The responses during tutorial:

- Blind faith - they assume that there is no God, and that we are believing in the idea of a God hence believing in God as a Being. But as we can now see, their presumption has not been tested. For me, i believe in God as a Being, thus i believe in the idea.

- Some people are born into religion, so to speak, while others simply are not exposed to religion hence different people subscribing to different beliefs. i.e. born into a Christian family therefore a Christian. Well, there is failure to consider the definition of 'religion'. what people perceive 'religion' to mean is relevant. So, Christianity is a religion, or is it more than just a religion?
Well, some related religion to the supernatural & illogical, the expression of belief in the form of rituals and practices... see, religion can cover so many things. Thus, it is of importance how religion is understood. Christianity (and so is Islam) are considered wholistic (think it's spelt like this) - meaning the whole life, or rather all aspects of life, are integrated together i.e. they touch on the whole life. Thus, these people assume that Christians are mainly born into their faiths.

assumptions we make really do blind us.

The second qns - whether some people dont believe because they dont feel God's love.
what do you mean by "feel"?
A could love B, but if B is ignorant of that (or rejects). then it's quite obvious and natural that they wont be aware of God's love.
God loves everyone, regardless of race, language or religion (haha, our national pledge. i already forgot how it goes, but this bit stuck).
Ok, the point i'm getting at is that to experience that love, there's gotta be a response (i.e. the step of faith to believe) first.
And yes, love does complete the picture.

an exploration of the experience of God - now that's somethin' i, too, would love to go into! the next stage after the faith decision.
3/3/05 1:37 PM

Anonymous said...

Hello. ;)
you guys see this post I make. But you don't know me. You've never seen me. Do I exist? You might have interacted with me in the past, but do you know me?
I could be timmy using another persona, I could be JM or Lisa or maybe even a computer literate dawg.
Do I exist?
Who am I?
Do we need to know?
it doesn't take faith to know that there is a God. It takes simple intellect and for some even courage. It takes faith to believe that there is a GOOD God and that He is in control - in the midst of all things good and bad. And that is typically substantiated by His faithfulness. The bank loans me money in good faith not by who I claim to be , but by my history of good credit.
~ck
6/6/05 5:15 AM