Here we are at the last installment of this series. If you have not read Part 1 and Part 2 I would recommend you do so for the full context of this piece.
How Do We Know what is True?
Recall that the truth is telling it like it is, or more formally that the statements we make objectively correspond to reality. This is not correspondence to what we want or wish to be true. Gould gives guidance to this, “But how do we know that something is ‘true’? By what process do we utilize our reason to arrive at the truth? The reasoning process involves several components, including (1) the reception of facts from sensation, reports of others (i.e., testimony), memory, introspection, or the imagination; (2) the perception of self-evident truths (including the laws of logical inference); and (3) the arrangement of the facts to arrive at new truths that are not self-evident.”[1] Some may argue as the legitimacy to these forms of knowledge, but this is what we are endowed with and have come to discover. I submit that this process of coming to know truth is virtually accepted by most and to deny this is to deny reality. Perhaps to deny this demonstrates one’s disenchanted worldview.
The evidence of how logic, science, and the world function declare these facts and cry out the truth. Now, some argue as to what qualifies as evidence? For example, I have heard it said that to have a number of witnesses testifying to similar facts is not evidence. You may read this and think, “How absurd.” Why would someone think that? Although witness evidence is known not to be entirely accurate this, in fact, can at times speak to the veracity of the evidence.
Allow me to provide an example. Let’s say one were to attend a crime such as a personal robbery that occurred in a parking lot in the early evening.
The suspect was a white male, face uncovered, with a hoodie, and dark pants. He was 25-30 years old, average height and a muscular build. There were ten witnesses 7 of which saw his face. Now the chances of all of them seeing and reporting the exact same suspect description and account of the events would be rare indeed? Why you ask? They all watched the same event. However, they likely watched from different positions and viewpoints. They also come to any event or circumstance with their own biases. This effects how they perceive things and what they would focus on. Someone that loves shoes may see that the robber was wearing the newest brand of the latest popular shoes. Someone else may be a fitness trainer and note important details about the physique and build. Someone else may be an Esthetician and note details of the face and skin, and so forth. You get the point.
Although difficult we can now construct an accurate image of the crime and the suspect. The difficult task for the investigator is of course to determine which details are the ones to focus on, and which ones to rule out to reconstruct the crime. The reality is that some details from each witness may not be accurate, but some are. As the investigation and evaluation of all the details and evidence progresses the task is to paint as accurate a picture as possible. Also, to identify a viable suspect(s) and eventually determine who the culprit is and bring him to justice. In the course of the investigation, you identify a viable suspect and you conduct photographic line-ups with the witnesses and the complainant.
Out of the 7 witnesses and the complainant you showed the line-up to 5 of them identified the suspect. All the witnesses gave similar, not identical, descriptions of the suspect and his clothing within some variation. Finally, the video surveillance clearly shows the clothing and description and it is within the variances of the witness’ descriptions. With this evidence in hand, would you charge the identified suspect? I would argue that this is abundant evidence. Even if you found some angle you questioned, or perhaps you would like to know the background of the suspect and interview him. This is certainly a normal and logical course of the investigation. As a side note, there is rarely an investigation that answers every question.
The point is that witness evidence, the testimony of others, or your observations count as evidence. To deny this calls into question not only the entire justice system but also many ways of knowing or knowledge. Can testimony or our own observations be wrong? Certainly. This does not call for the exclusion of a valid form of evidence. If faced with the assertion of questioning evidence, or what qualifies as evidence, then turn to the Road Runner Tactic. One might ask what qualifies as evidence? How did they come to the conclusion they are drawing about evidence? Did the laws of logic exist before there were people? And so forth.
Interrogation
Back to the allegation, or claim, that Christians have blind faith. Is this supported by the facts presented? Most assuredly it is not. As one can see, faith and reason complement each other and I argue one is the handmaiden to the other just as philosophy is to theology. This belief of Christians having a blind and unreasoned faith is an example of not taking all the facts into account. Furthermore, such a person is not evaluating the facts, pro and con, objectively. Moreover, this leads to biased case-building (investigational bias) and/or tunnel vision in order to make the facts fit the outcome one desires.
We all have ideas about various subjects, situations, or data we encounter. One should always measure the relationship of the idea or notion, and the object it is about. This ensures our ideas will match reality. D.Q. McInerny submits, “An idea is the subjective evocation of an objective fact. Clear ideas, then, are ideas that faithfully reflect the objective order from which they derive. Unclear ideas, conversely, are those that give us a distorted representation of the objective world… To ensure that our ideas are clear, we must vigilantly attend to the relationship between any given idea and its object.”[2]
The quest we should all be on has to do with the pursuit of truth, and not this unrealistic idea that happiness is the ultimate goal of life. To do so then this means evaluating the evidence as noted above and committing to what the evidence, probability, and what provides the best explanation given all the facts. This is what is reasonable and this is also a large part of what faith and trust should be founded on. C. Steven Evans declares, “The general answer is that a commitment to a position is reasonable for a person when that position makes more sense than any of its rivals, judged by all the evidence that is reasonably available to that person.”[3]
Next, can properly basic beliefs be reasonable? Absolutely. If I look out the window to the outside and see water falling outside from the sky, the window has droplets falling on it, and there is a puddle forming on the ground with drops landing in it. What can I infer? I can reasonably infer and believe it is raining and that if I walk outside I will become wet. Interrogating this aspect of the claim that reason does not correspond to faith fails as well since properly basic beliefs can form part of trust in the gospel. This is connected to the claim that we can only know what science can prove, but can science prove that I sense pain, elation, or disappointment. No, because these are internal subjective thoughts. Again, one cannot actually prove that the world was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age and memories, or that we are all just brains in a vat being electrically stimulated to think we are really alive. These are properly basic beliefs that are not grounded in argument.
Is religion (Or Christianity) missing the mark? Many argue that religion is not true and does not hold the truth. They argue that religion is merely superstition and a crutch for those who need it. This again goes against reason and stems from ignorance of the reasonableness of faith. I would interrogate this claim as to what evidence and arguments they have to hold this idea or position. Have they examined all the claims of religion or Christianity to be specific? One might raise the question as to how a person came to this belief and drew these conclusions. Have they thoroughly investigated religion(s) and what are the arguments and evidence that support this conclusion?
I also assert and find it intriguing, that society is obsessed with the supernatural and paranormal. We love the imaginative stories of the miraculous and that which defies normalcy. Consider many novels or popular movies over the last two decades. This is what Gould points to in his work as part of discovering truth and making inroads with culture is to evoke the imagination as part of truth and apologetics. Furthermore, we as humans have a deep sense of longing and wonder for more. Gould posits, “…many today are obsessed with the occult, the paranormal, and the spiritual. This obsession is at odds with what the reality police tell us exists. We long for more, even as we are told there is nothing but the material and material pleasures. We have become like Plato’s tyrants, who ‘never taste any stable or pure pleasure. Instead, they always look down at the ground like cattle, and, with their heads bent over the dinner table, they feed, fatten, and fornicate.’ The architects of our disenchantment have created a genuine mess. Human beings were not meant to live like cattle, and a life solely focused on sensual experience will never satisfy us.”[4] We were meant for more than just this…
Conclusion
When one thinks of reason and faith and knowing truth, it is not some blind leap into the dark. One makes a volitional decision that there are reasons to believe and trust in what one has intellectually come to know, understand, and verify. In order to come to trust in God, a person must first assent to the belief that God exists. There are numerous arguments and evidence that provide reasons to believe, and we will get to these in later blogs. In developing a trust relationship with God this is the volitional part of faith and reason that contains the components of content, act, and habit. Thomas A. Howe and Richard G. Howe posit, “The volitional aspect of faith is the act of the will by which I make a commitment to live, think and act on the basis of God’s Word…often characterized as faithfulness…realized in one’s life and actions.”[5]
It is a reasoned faith that God commands, yes commands. Jesus instructs us to engage our heart, soul, and minds (Matthew 22:37). It is clear from the exploration we have taken, and the interrogation of these assertions, that faith and reason are not opposed. In fact, faith and reason are instructive and complementary to each other. It is through reason, critical thought, and subjecting our faith to scrutiny that one develops a mature and confident faith. We can see the claim that Christianity is based on blind faith and is opposed to reason is false and does not stand up to interrogation or the truth. However, the challenge now is for us to disciple and raise up leaders, as well as be leaders, within our Christian community to educate themselves. This must be not only in their faith life, but also in their vocations as to how their faith is related to this as well.
Finally, recall that we must always pursue truth and not rationalize or hold to contradictory ideas for the sake of denying truth. McInerny addresses this, “Another way I can allow myself to hold on to statements that contradict the facts is deliberately to refrain from examining the facts to which the statements refer. This attitude is expressed by the quip ‘Don’t bother me with the facts; I’ve already made up my mind.’ Mental operations of these kinds are not so much instances of reasoning as evasion of reasoning. Obviously, this can have nothing to do with logic. Those forms of unhealthy reasoning can be known as ‘rationalization.’ Rationalization is reasoning in the service of falsehood.”[6]
“I don’t mean to suggest that I don’t care about happiness; all of us who are honest will admit that we do care. However, I am convinced that true happiness is founded on truth; anyone who asks me to choose happiness over truth is offering me a false happiness.”[7]
C. Steven Evans, Why Believe?: Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God
[1] Ibid., 128, Kindle.
[2] D.Q. McInerny, Being Logical: A guide to Good Thinking (New York, NY: Random House Publishing Group, 2004), 7, Kindle.
[3] C. Steven Evans, Why Believe?: Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), loc. 1678-1679, Kindle.
[4] Gould, Cultural Apologetics, 61, Kindle.
[5] Thomas A. Howe and Richard G. Howe, “Knowing Christianity is True: The Relationship Between Faith and Reason” in To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, ed. Francis J Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 31-32.
[6] McInerny, Being Logical, 29-30, Kindle.
[7] Evans, Why Believe?, loc. 165-167, Kindle.