Is Christian faith reasonable?
By: Scott Aniol
The author is right on. There is no reason or logic without The source and author of such, The Creator, the source of our intelligent design
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Unsplash/chuttersnap The eighteenth-century Enlightenment essentially created a Worldview without God, elevating reason over faith, forcing Christians to wrestle through understanding the appropriate biblical relationship between the two.
The elevation of reason over faith in the eighteenth century took two general forms. First, pure naturalists relied upon reason as the ultimate authority by which all notions must be judged; in other words, naturalists will not consider rational any notion that allows for the supernatural or otherwise contradicts the foundational assumptions of naturalism. Similarly, empiricists insisted that a notion must have some sort of empirical evidence in order to be considered reasonable. In each of these cases, naturalists or empiricists defined reason on the basis of their foundational assumptions, which assumes reason as its own self-evident authority.
Previously, Christian theologians defined reason differently, not considering it to be the ultimate and independent authority. For Christians, God’s revelation is the supreme authority by which all notions must be judged. This does not mean Christians rejected reason prior to the Enlightenment; rather, Christians acknowledged reason as a God-given tool that allows people, by employing various laws of logic, to judge whether or not a notion corresponds to reality, that is, whether or not it is true.
The definition of faith also hinges upon whether one presupposes naturalist/empiricist principles or the truth and authority of God’s revelation. For example, naturalists might define faith as “believing in spite of evidence to the contrary.” Their definition of reason is constrained by their underlying assumption that immaterial reality is an impossibility. In contrast, faith defined biblically is confident belief in what is “not seen” (Heb 11:1), that is, belief in that for which there is no empirical proof. For example, Abraham believed and obeyed God even though “he did not know where he was going” (Heb 11:8). He believed without empirical proof, but it was perfectly reasonable for him to believe God if reason is defined as a faculty of human cognition that allows a person to judge whether something is true or dependable.
Defining reason and faith in these ways should make determining their relationship simple for Christians. Just as naturalists/empiricists root their understanding of those terms in naturalist/empiricist presuppositions, so Christians understand their relationship based on revelation concerning the reality of God and his creation. Christians understand (reason) by faith (Heb 11:3). God created the universe and everything in it (Gen 1:1–2:1), and this includes both what is material and immaterial (Col 1:16). He rules all things in his universe (Eph 4:6), and “in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17). All things exist and function on the basis of God’s creation and rule of all things (Rom 11:36). These truths alone implicitly ensure the absolute reasonableness of the Christian faith. If reason is that faculty by which a person determines whether a notion corresponds with reality, and if God is the creator and ruler of reality, then all that God has said is self-attestingly reasonable. There may be no apparent empirical evidence for every Christian belief, and a Christian may not understand the reasonableness of every biblical claim, but he can be assured that his faith is indeed reasonable because of the impossibility of the contrary.
In fact, unbelief—whether naturalist or empiricist—is inherently irrational. Because God created all things, and because all people are made in his image, God has already revealed himself to all people; all people know God (Rom 1:19–20). The reasons for God are “plain,” and all people “clearly perceive” this evidence of the existence of God. Reason leads to belief in these things, for the very laws of logic themselves depend for their existence upon the reality of the Christian God. Yet, all people suffer from the noetic effects of sin (Rom 1:21), and thus they suppress this plain knowledge of true reality; all people are born doubting what is self-evident and rational.
Therefore, Christians can assume the reasonableness of their faith as self-evident. For Christians, reason is not the foundation or source of faith, but rather an instrument of faith. This is an important distinction that can give Christians confidence that what they believe is true, but that also ensures that they “honor the Lord as holy” (1 Pet 3:13) in affirming the supreme authority of God’s revelation in their worldview and, consequently, in their entire lives.
Scott Aniol, PhD, is an author, speaker, and teacher of culture, worship, aesthetics, and church ministry philosophy. He is chair of the Worship Ministry Department at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary . He founded Religious Affections Ministries and has written several books, the most recent being By the Waters of Babylon: Worship in a Post-Christian Culture . He can be found on Twitter @ScottAniol , and you can listen to his podcast here .
Tags
Who is online
371 visitors
No
WTF? Was God a hermaphrodite?
"Man created God in his own image." - al Jizzerror
"the man has now become like one of us "
god was not a singular being as some might suggest
look it up.
I find it interesting how the front of the book says we must NOT be allowed to live forever on our own - but the back of the book says to believe in him and we get to live forever.
conclusion: god was a narcissistic genetic engineer... LOL
and the reference to "man is to our species as a whole not a "sex
as it is above so shall it be below = as it is below so it is above.
I bet their politics is crazy
as I believe in god but not "magic" that makes me a christian heretic
Did God suffer from multiple personality disorder?
So, if they were all the same person, did the Holy Ghost have a vagina?
LOL no. but that's funny.
all genetic engineers engaged in a project that big have people who work for them.
as it is below = it is above
the big question is why create us in the first place? a science experiment?
side note:
eve did not eat an apple... she ate from the tree of knowledge.
the tree of knowledge? science
the tree of life? genetic engineering / DNA
Is that some form of polytheism?
stick any label ya want on it... matters not to me.
just curious here.
is an alien genetic engineer harder to swallow than a singular magical being?
personally im a bit insulted that predators in the animal kingdom have better night vision than we do... but that is probably just me... LOL
cheers
"Swallow" is a strange choice of words.
Was the "big bang" actually primordial black holes banging together until they ejaculated matter in all directions?
only to small minds who only focus on definitions and not ideas.
ciao
I can't "swallow" the Bible (it's too big and difficult to chew).
Hmmm.... Will it blend?
Me too.
I think he got that definition from Catholick dogma.
As far as the origin of life is concerned, an alien genetic engineer hypothesis would be much, much easier to swallow (or at least to consider) than any magical being hypothesis.
It's not just you. They have a better sense of smell too.
We have evolution to thank for our diminished senses. We still have the genes for a better sense of smell, for example, but we haven't relied on them for survival for such a long time that they have been free to mutate out of operation without reducing our reproductive success. So here we are, very poor smellers (comparatively speaking), who, more often than not, end up needing glasses to boot.
or... the genetic engineering was not so "intelligent.
I reckon we are like the killer bee. (we created them = we are their "god and they are broken just like us. overly aggressive )
(killer humans) made by genetic engineers but the job could have been better. this was the best they could do.
" LORD God said, " The man has now become like one of us"
this is another interesting point. How many Gods were or are there? The commandment about having no other gods before me also suggests there were or are multiple gods,
This is another thing that does not make sense to me
Right before that we have another major contradiction in the Bible: omniscient God is surprised. An all knowing entity actually 'learned' something that He did not know. He discovered that Adam & Eve had eaten forbidden fruit and then had to act in response.
'All knowing' is a poison pill attribute in the definition of a plausible God. Especially when said God decides one day to destroy all of His creations — beings that He made (as an omnipotent creator) and who He knew would fail Him (omniscience).
Articles like this are proselytizing. Newstalkers is not a Sunday school. No one comes on here and advocates for Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Shinto, animism, pantheism, Easter Island religion, Roman gods, Thor, or any religion. Why do you have to do it every day?
If you are a good person God won't keep you out of heaven because you failed to spread the word sufficiently. Why not give it a rest.
Bingo. I don't need to be judged by those who claim to practice Christianity. Another example of religious hypocrisy.
That sure sounds to me like someone promoting a specific religion.
Christians are not supposed to judge others.
It seems to me that Christians are extremely judg mental.
PROSELYTIZE | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
proselytize definition: 1. to try to persuade someone to change their religious or political beliefs or way of living to…. Learn more.
That's a problem they have brought on themselves. They've come up with all these rules that were initially written for the purpose of mass crowd control. Specifically to control those who they deemed less worthy and easily manipulated.
That grand experiment has actually been extremely successful. Those in power are still using religion as a vehicle to control and manipulate those they deem less worthy. And those less worthy are still lapping it up. (BTW - I used the word lapping twice already today. That must be my word of the day......hahahahaha)
On the other hand, I've always said that religion serves a purpose for the elderly. It offers them a form of piece of mind and somewhere for them to gather and socialize. Most old people who attend church regularly are the most flexible and understanding and do not judge others. It's the younger attendees that are the problem. They use church more as a social climbing club in which they are vying to be part of the popular crowd. Thus all the judgement and intolerance. It's like perpetually being in high school with the mean kids.
X - I remember when I first joined NT back in 2016. I specifically remember you trying to drag me to church with you and I was kicking and screaming. Actually......that may have been one of my creative short stories......... Never mind, that was one of my short stories and not an actually memory.
So you are saying that there can be no logic or reason without Christian faith. Believing in the supernatural is neither logical nor reasonable.
Sorry HA, that is simply not how real life works. You should search for answers outside of Genesis.
X - after 3 years you still haven't caught on to my sense of humor. I was only kidding around with you.
Christ's philosophy of loving one anothers, treating everyone fairly and not judging each other too harshly is actually quite reasonable.
Believing a mythical immortal spirit had sex with a human girl who gave birth to a god is not...
Interesting way to start an article: bemoaning reason being superior to faith. The author thinks that faith (believing something without supporting evidence because other human beings claimed it to be true) or ("belief in that for which there is no empirical proof") should preempt reason ("the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.").
One wonders if a volunteer (one who is not otherwise coerced) suicide bomber would actually carry out the attack if s/he was using reason more than faith. I suspect there are not too many volunteer suicide bombers who are thinking critically but quite a few who would do anything in the service of Allah (by faith).
But that faith is belief in what other human beings say is true. Seems to be far too much trust given to human beings claiming to have knowledge of the grandest possible entity.
It seems some people really think faith or belief equals fact. What is more unreasonable or irrational than that?
I have noticed that many apologists will stop at nothing: illogic, falsehoods, etc. to try to support their beliefs. It does not surprise me that one has declared that faith (belief in what other human beings merely claim is true sans evidence) is superior to reason ("the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.") based on quality evidence.
Indeed. Such mentality lends credence to the idea that religious belief is a form of a psychological condition.
From this seed:
So you're saying that "faith" is belief in something for which there is no empirical proof.
That is NOT "reasonable".
The contrary is that the Christian God (the God as defined by Christianity ... essentially that defined by the Bible) does not exist. It is not impossible that the Christian God is human fiction. Indeed, it is near certainty that the God as defined by Christianity (and the Bible) cannot possibly exist. That God, as defined, is a contradiction. A contradiction in definition means the definition is false.
A god (as in sentient entity of the known universe) might exist. While possible, we know nothing at all about this hypothetical creator. Our reality is extremely complex and still quite mysterious to us. Believing that our origins are the result of a sentient uber-powerful entity is not based on evidence, but it is not unreasonable either. Belief that the biblical definition of God is true, in contrast, is unreasonable.
Religion did not make sense to me as a little boy and makes less sense to me after over 60 years
Christians can believe what they want for themselves and their lives, but when they judge others, want to make laws according to the bible, want to discriminate based on their interpretation of the bible and try to take away a woman's reproductive choices then no their faith is not reasonable.
Lately I have had a visit from a church lady and a friend every Wednesday. So far they have answered every question I have had about religion beautifully and consistently. It is not to say that I will ever attend church, but I now understand the whole religion thing a little better.