I still think that post is broadly accurate, but my views have changed somewhat on the subject of whether faith-as-copout is intrinsically a bad thing. I'm now pretty much convinced that in some situations it can actually be a good thing. For example, I vaguely approve of Ken Miller's views on the subject:
"I don't think that the existence of God can be proved. There's a reason, after all, why it's called 'faith' and not 'certainty'. Rather, I find that the hypothesis of God helps me to make sense of life and of the world around me, and I find that hypothesis congruent with science, not dependent upon it."
(BTW, in the other big discussion thread, I mentioned that Ken saw antiscience as a form of blasphemy. As best I can tell, that statement was complete rubbish - I have no idea where I got that idea from)
Paul: on rereading your "'Faith' vs faith" essay, I note that the quote from Schaeffer doesn't actually include any Biblical references. Are these out-of-frame (so to speak), or is this purely Schaeffer's viewpoint on the matter?
Hebrews 11, for example, would on first reading appear to suggest a form of belief that's so strong and unshakeable that it acts as a sort of magic. Schaeffer's conception of faith as being merely a halo of partially-supported beliefs surrounding a core of pure rationalism seems rather puny by comparison.
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed". Is faith supported by evidence really still faith? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?
Obviously I'm not even a Christian so have no personal stance on all this, but it appears that Scripture does justify more than one interpretation of the word "faith". Miller's seems as Biblically consistent as any other, and far more sensible than some.
Um, the strength of faith in Heb 11 isn't magic - it's a gift of God.
Secondly, "blessed are those who have not seen..." needs to be seen in its context. Because the obvious next question is: "How can I believe if I haven't seen?" To which John provides the answer: "Jesus did all sorts of things when he was here. But these things are written so that you might BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing have life in his name."
I wrote about how to interpret the Bible on my blog - from a standard course on the subject. If we want to know what the Bible says about faith, we have to let it speak for itself, rather than imposing our own cultural, post-modern, existential ideas.
... that is, unless we are prepared to go down the path of believing that the meaning of the text is ultimately only found in the reader, rather than the writer.
Um, the strength of faith in Heb 11 isn't magic - it's a gift of God.
That interpretation is in direct conflict with Hebrews 11:4, which suggests that faith is a property of humans that leads to God's approval. It would be extremely circular, not to mention rather narcissistic, for God to approve only of those humans to whom He had given a gift.
(I'm making the assumption here that God is not actually a sociopath. Please correct me if that's wrong)
Because the obvious next question is: "How can I believe if I haven't seen?" To which John provides the answer: [...]
To which the obvious next question is: "How can I believe if I don't like taking people's unsupported word for stuff?"
I'd still classify this form of belief as being faith in the sense of "belief that goes beyond the evidence".
I wrote about how to interpret the Bible on my blog - from a standard course on the subject.
A standard course from a particular Christian tradition, you mean. There are hundreds of those - what makes yours so unique? A Roman Catholic, by contrast, might say: "If we want to know what the Bible says about faith, we have to look at it in the context of the Church that compiled it, rather than imposing our modern notion of 'sola scriptura'."
that is, unless we are prepared to go down the path of believing that the meaning of the text is ultimately only found in the reader, rather than the writer.
My belief is that any given set of data will be consistent with multiple interpretations. In science, it is possible to distinguish between different interpretations by performing further experiments. The Bible, by contrast, is a finished work.
The only way to determine which interpretation was correct would be through communication with the author. Which wouldn't be a problem - except that the people who claim to have done so often disagree with each other.
Um, the strength of faith in Heb 11 isn't magic - it's a gift of God.
I've just noticed that this definition also appears to conflict somewhat with the Schaeffer quote you mentioned. By Schaeffer's definition it isn't the faith itself that's a gift from God; the gift is the extra information provided by God that enables one to trust ("have faith in") Him. IMO, that's a fairly substantial difference.
So that's two different definitions from you, quite apart from my interpretation of Hebrews 11 (which I accept may be ludicrously wrong). Which one is correct? How do we tell?
For the record, your description of faith as a "gift from God" rather than merely a purely rational decision to trust Him corresponds fairly closely with what I understand Miller to be saying.
6 Comments:
OK, but please note the disclaimer on it :)
I still think that post is broadly accurate, but my views have changed somewhat on the subject of whether faith-as-copout is intrinsically a bad thing. I'm now pretty much convinced that in some situations it can actually be a good thing. For example, I vaguely approve of Ken Miller's views on the subject:
"I don't think that the existence of God can be proved. There's a reason, after all, why it's called 'faith' and not 'certainty'. Rather, I find that the hypothesis of God helps me to make sense of life and of the world around me, and I find that hypothesis congruent with science, not dependent upon it."
(BTW, in the other big discussion thread, I mentioned that Ken saw antiscience as a form of blasphemy. As best I can tell, that statement was complete rubbish - I have no idea where I got that idea from)
See also "Faith vs faith" on my blog - extract from Schaeffer - the use of "faith" by Miller is not how it is used in the Bible.
Paul: on rereading your "'Faith' vs faith" essay, I note that the quote from Schaeffer doesn't actually include any Biblical references. Are these out-of-frame (so to speak), or is this purely Schaeffer's viewpoint on the matter?
Hebrews 11, for example, would on first reading appear to suggest a form of belief that's so strong and unshakeable that it acts as a sort of magic. Schaeffer's conception of faith as being merely a halo of partially-supported beliefs surrounding a core of pure rationalism seems rather puny by comparison.
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed". Is faith supported by evidence really still faith? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?
Obviously I'm not even a Christian so have no personal stance on all this, but it appears that Scripture does justify more than one interpretation of the word "faith". Miller's seems as Biblically consistent as any other, and far more sensible than some.
Um, the strength of faith in Heb 11 isn't magic - it's a gift of God.
Secondly, "blessed are those who have not seen..." needs to be seen in its context. Because the obvious next question is: "How can I believe if I haven't seen?" To which John provides the answer: "Jesus did all sorts of things when he was here. But these things are written so that you might BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing have life in his name."
I wrote about how to interpret the Bible on my blog - from a standard course on the subject. If we want to know what the Bible says about faith, we have to let it speak for itself, rather than imposing our own cultural, post-modern, existential ideas.
... that is, unless we are prepared to go down the path of believing that the meaning of the text is ultimately only found in the reader, rather than the writer.
Um, the strength of faith in Heb 11 isn't magic - it's a gift of God.
That interpretation is in direct conflict with Hebrews 11:4, which suggests that faith is a property of humans that leads to God's approval. It would be extremely circular, not to mention rather narcissistic, for God to approve only of those humans to whom He had given a gift.
(I'm making the assumption here that God is not actually a sociopath. Please correct me if that's wrong)
Because the obvious next question is: "How can I believe if I haven't seen?" To which John provides the answer: [...]
To which the obvious next question is: "How can I believe if I don't like taking people's unsupported word for stuff?"
I'd still classify this form of belief as being faith in the sense of "belief that goes beyond the evidence".
I wrote about how to interpret the Bible on my blog - from a standard course on the subject.
A standard course from a particular Christian tradition, you mean. There are hundreds of those - what makes yours so unique? A Roman Catholic, by contrast, might say: "If we want to know what the Bible says about faith, we have to look at it in the context of the Church that compiled it, rather than imposing our modern notion of 'sola scriptura'."
that is, unless we are prepared to go down the path of believing that the meaning of the text is ultimately only found in the reader, rather than the writer.
My belief is that any given set of data will be consistent with multiple interpretations. In science, it is possible to distinguish between different interpretations by performing further experiments. The Bible, by contrast, is a finished work.
The only way to determine which interpretation was correct would be through communication with the author. Which wouldn't be a problem - except that the people who claim to have done so often disagree with each other.
Um, the strength of faith in Heb 11 isn't magic - it's a gift of God.
I've just noticed that this definition also appears to conflict somewhat with the Schaeffer quote you mentioned. By Schaeffer's definition it isn't the faith itself that's a gift from God; the gift is the extra information provided by God that enables one to trust ("have faith in") Him. IMO, that's a fairly substantial difference.
So that's two different definitions from you, quite apart from my interpretation of Hebrews 11 (which I accept may be ludicrously wrong). Which one is correct? How do we tell?
For the record, your description of faith as a "gift from God" rather than merely a purely rational decision to trust Him corresponds fairly closely with what I understand Miller to be saying.
Post a Comment
<< Home