“Christian theism must be rejected by any person with even a shred of respect for reason.”
“Reason and faith are opposites, two mutually exclusive terms: there is no reconciliation or common ground.”
“Faith is belief without, or in spite of reason.”
George H. Smith – Atheistic Scholar
These are three seemingly factual statements that are directed towards Christian theism. While it must be recognized that these darts of atheism are by no means new to the theist, it is however one that has provoked a host of different responses throughout church history. Here however I will seek to delineate only two of the main theistic responses to the atheistic challenges above.
The first or most popular response to the challenges thrown at Christianity is one of disregard. Here the Christian is taught to ignore the atheistic challenges in the name of faith and to regard it as the voice of the devil attempting to draw the Christian away from his or her faith. Rick Nanez, a Pentecostal scholar and theologian highlighted and reprimanded this approach to the atheistic challenge in his book Full Gospel Fractured Minds. He basically argues that when Christ told his disciples to love God – He told them to do so with all their hearts, soul and mind (Matthew 22:37). This is something I believe that many of us will need to truly consider: does loving God fully with our hearts and soul suggest that we ought to do so at the expense of our minds? This is hardly sustainable through Scripture because Christ asserts this command (to love Him with our mind as much as with our heart and soul) as the “first and greatest commandment” (Matthew 22:38).
The second response, which, I believe would be the more scriptural and rational response, would be to respond with apologetics: with faith and reason – with heart and with mind. We need to be able to systematically articulate our belief to anyone who challenges the faith on which we place our life on. This is exactly what the Scripture tells us to do in 1 Peter 3:15:
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…
Here Peter is telling the early Christians that while they set apart Christ as Lord, they were to always be ready to defend their faith (or to do apologetics). Nevertheless, they were also reminded by the apostle that the only legitimate way for a Christian to do apologetics (or to jump into a debate in defense of the faith) is to do so with “gentleness and respect”. Basically, the demonstration of Christ's humility in the apologetic process is not to be compromised. This is vital in evangelization because we must not be enticed into winning the battle (the argument or debate) only to lose the war (the person).
In conclusion, in response to the above assertions by George Smith, we should be able to defend our belief to legitimate extent with the use of reason. The statement that faith is in any way hostile or contrary to reason must be nullified altogether by a combination of intelligent and reasonable arguments. Every Christian believes that God is omniscient and all-knowing; and therefore it does at times seem rather contradictory for us to fear reason and logic. This sort of response only indicates that we have a faith that is so shallow and flimsy that it can be knocked flat by any thinking skeptic that strolls along. It is important for all Christians to recognize this. After all, right thinking can never lead one to wrong conclusions…
Sources:
Moyer, Larry R. 21 Things that God Never Said. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications,2004.
Nanez, Rick M., Full Gospel Fractured Minds. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Philip, Jose, Christian Apologetics. Lecture, Bible College of Malaysia (BCM), Petaling Jaya. January 5-16, 2009.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
Posts
Hey man,
ReplyDeleteA few of my thoughts here. Firstly, you only talked about why we should also use our minds when it comes to Christianity but you do not show how does faith and reason go hand-in-hand.
In fact, if taking faith and reason to go hand-in-hand, you would find alot of contradictions or things that is beyond reasoning. The existence of angels is something that the rational mind cannot comprehend nor can it be proven. So is miracles. Who can reason that you have a spirit within you and who can logically argue that the spirit will either go to heaven or hell after our death (if there is a spirit to begin with). Now, with this, can then faith still go hand-in-hand with reason? if so, how then do you account for those that I have mentioned, amidst the many others?
Cheers bro. Have fun
Hi Bryan...
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking time to read and make your comments on this blog.
You are right, perhaps I've been too brief in my post and was unable to sufficiently sustain my point of argument. However regarding your stand that there are things (like angels, miracles and so forth) that transcend the realm of reason; I would like to differ with all due respect. Therefore this is what I will be attempting to sustain in my next post (which should be out in less than a week I believe. I will seek to demonstrate how faith and reason go hand-in-hand with each other and compliment each other.
Thank you once again for sharing your thoughts.
Hi Samuel,
ReplyDeleteIt is already 2 weeks yet you still have not answered my question, eventhough you said that it would be less than a week. Sorry, but would you mind clarifying and showing us how faith and reason goes hand in hand? Thank you.
Sorry la bro, quite busy a bit... do you mind giving me an extension=p
ReplyDeleteSuperb bro... Inspire me sumtimes la.... Very nice...XD
ReplyDeleteI guess that this is now a dead blog.... *sigh* Rest in peace, dear blog....
ReplyDeleteany eulogies;p
ReplyDeletein the end, you still did not answer man....
ReplyDeleteHi Bryan,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your willingness to interact and I do sincerely apologize for delaying my reply.
Before I actually begin my attempt to sustain my claim – that faith and reason go hand-in-hand, here’s something I’d like to point out. You made an affirmative proposition that to view faith and reason as compatible would be self-contradicting as there are certain claimants of the Christian faith or the Bible that transcends the realm of reason altogether. In fact you have painstakingly given examples of this. These are good examples and the question itself indicates your thinking capability.
The answer to your statement hinges on the definition and perception of what I term here as “reason” or “logic”. Your statement would be spot-on if my definition for reason or logic is similar to the definition of science – what we can observe or comprehend. Therefore since we cannot “comprehend” or “observe” the so-called supernatural, we can by no means assume them to be true.
This however, is definitely not the case. Let me proceed to define (or at least describe) my concept of reason or logic.
1. Reason or logic is an infinite gift of God to mankind.
ReplyDelete2. Reason or logic flows from God and in that sense can be classified as a part of Him.
It is given only to mankind (spirits included) and is the 6th sense that sets him apart as superior to the rest of creation (spirits excluded).
3. The compatibility of faith and reason indicates that there is no such thing as the “supernatural”.
Humans coin this term to distinguish between things they can observe and comprehend from things they cannot. (For example, an airplane, computer or a nuclear explosion may be termed “supernatural” by one living in the BC period. And they are not entirely wrong. Nevertheless these are purely natural to us as we can understand and grasp their concept.)
4. There is a law of logic known as the “Law of Rational Inference” whereby inferences can be made by reasoning from a series of premises to a conclusion. (i.e. A is in B and B is in C, therefore A is in C.)
The great and legendary skeptic David Hume in him famous statement against Christianity claimed that the Christian faith was not only initially attended with miracles but also to this day cannot be accepted by any reasonable person without one. This is quite true. The disciples did not just follow an ancient Semitic magician and risk their lives just to be a new breed of self-styled charlatans. They witnessed first hand his capability not just to produce a supernatural phenomenon, but to intervene within the power of nature and to prove Himself as Lord of Nature. As the law of physics work, a greater power or force will take precedence over a smaller force or power, hence nature gave precedence to their Lord at His command. It was purely a natural process, but one that gave them every "reason" to believe that Jesus was whom He claimed to be.
Furthermore, Jesus’ virgin birth proves that He was not merely a man. This is confirmed by one of the greatest political enemy of Christianity – Islam. And so was His ability to raise the dead, heal the sick and so forth The Jewish scriptures, written over a span of 2,000 years by at least more that 20 authors are united in their prophetic description of Jesus. When one rational person consider all of these evidences put together, he cannot escape the fact that either Jesus was who He claimed to be or He was a person worthy of several Oscar awards for His acting abilities. As CS Lewis states:
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, page 52-53)."
Hence Bryan, when one considers the credibility of the Scripture and the person of Jesus, one can “reasonably” accept the rest of Jesus’ claims of angels, spirits, heaven and hell etc. This is the application of the Law of Rational Inference and it is both legitimate and valid to claim that faith and reason go hand in hand with each other.
Thank you…
Your comments on this Bryan?
ReplyDeleteYou forgot the church's long-time favourite response to dissent and perceived acts of blasphemy: censorship. They have burnt books and executed men who wrote them. And it's only in the last century or so in the church's 2000 year history that the world have started to find such behaviour unacceptable. I know that you have chosen to ignore this in your essay, but I find the omission notable.
ReplyDeleteAs a response to your reply to Bryan, I think it's safe to assume that after waiting half a year for an answer from you, he might have simply got tired of waiting and never returned.
To your first point: [1. Reason or logic is an infinite gift of God to mankind.]
Citations, please. That would be my first response. Having read the Bible and went to church myself, I got the impression that the Bible (or its authors) are not terribly keen on the idea of human thought, logic and intellect.
Genesis 3:6-7 went thus: "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."
It is notable that God's warning to the fabled pair was "You will die if you eat from this tree" to two individuals who have no conception of right or wrong. There is why we have the concept of mens rea in a court of law. A person has to have the capacity to recognise that their act is wrong before they can be guilty of it. And to me, God appears to prefer obedience over independent thought.
The other verse I would like to call attention to is Matthew 18:3, which had Jesus saying: "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." I find it interesting that Jesus would describe children as humble, but it's not an adjective anyone would naturally attribute to kids. What children lack is accountability, judgment and in many instances, apparent amorality. They obey due to love or fear, not after they have considered the moral merits of what is requested of them. Having been a kindergarten kid and tore the legs off grasshoppers with my friends during recess, I firmly believe that most children are little shits. It is after I am older and have the knowledge of good and evil did I realise that some of the things I have done were horrifying. There is some basis in infant psychological research there. The rudiments of empathy (the backbone of the golden rule and of morality) only start developing in earnest at the age of two - and those rudiments take many, many years to fully mature [Hoffman, M.L. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press][Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1990). The origins of empathic concern. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 107-130.]
Jesus's words mirrors his Dad's act, in that they both prefer obedience to independent thought. In find that your assertion "Reason or logic is an infinite gift of God to mankind" to be incredibly confusing, and dare I say, unsupported? God did not make a gift of reason or logic to us. We stole it and he punished us for it.
As for the rest of your post, I see a wall of argument from scripture - and I can only grant you those arguments if your source can be proven to be reliable. I think it cannot. Particularly when the four gospel writers frequently contradict one another in their details. I wouldn't list them all, but here's one in Jesus' most intense moment in the Bible - the crucifixion. Mark 15:25 puts it at the 3rd hour while John 19:14 said it's after the sixth. You'd think that two supposed eye-witness to one of the most important events in the life of their messiah (his death) would get it right. In fact, this sounds more like there's this story surrounding this rabbi in Pontius Pilate's Judea, and different authors wrote about it at different times after the events have transpired. Some may even have simply copied earlier gospel writers. I mean, did the fig tree wither right after Jesus cursed it or did it wither the day after he drove the moneychangers out of the temple? And the records of Jesus' supposed miracles is not always corroborated either - Mark and John notably did not mention Jesus's virgin birth, a life event of their leader which is as important, if not more important, than his death. Why should I believe that any of Jesus' miracles are true? Just because some of his followers, who had reasons to embellish stories around their messiah, said he did?
ReplyDeleteTry again, Sam.