Gendou
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:41:41 +0000
A few years ago, one of my friends wrote this essay on what his faith meant to him:
This is, to me, one of the finest descriptions of what it means to be a Christian Intellectual that I have ever read.
Many believe that in order to have faith, one must lost all skepticism. I hope that this essay helps to show that that is not necessarily true.
Drac
What is faith?
In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis outlined his view of faith:
"Faith [...] is the art of holding onto things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian, I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist, I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods 'where they get off,' you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion."
This is a valid, intelligent, and logical approach, and one that I have admired for several years; but I would have to admit that it is not an entirely Biblical one.
The most-quoted Biblical treatise on Christian faith, that in Hebrews 11, is not so much an definition of faith as an exposition on its effects. Hebrews 11:1-2 says, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for."
But in answer to this, the modern quester will often ask, "Why? How were they sure?" This question- a question as to the nature and definition of faith, rather than its importance and its effects- is not answered directly.
If I were to attempt a rational, consistent approach to considering the Biblical concept of faith, I would begin by noting that Biblical faith and logical skepticism are actually linked as follows:
Faith is the refusal to allow baser qualities to interfere with higher loyalties and ethical positions.
Faith is more akin to loyalty and committed devotion than it is to the usually-quoted blind suspension of disbelief. One passage that I came across in my reading that rings true to me:
Faith, according to Paul, is the act whereby a man identifies himself with Christ [...] Faith is thus the indispensable, and at the same time the all-sufficient, condition of salvation. Viewed in this way, it is an act of the profoundest spiritual meaning.
It is not mere assent, intellectual or moral, it is not mere confidence in Christ's words or in his promises, it is not a mere belief that he is what he claims to be, but it is the reception of Christ himself into the soul. [...] strictly speaking, it is not an act at all, but simply the attitude of receptivity toward Christ.
Skepticism is the refusal to allow baser qualities to interfere with higher mental functions and intellectual positions and methods.
Skepticism- and I speak here in a careful general sense, and not in an attempt to simultaneously define several related schools of philosophy- is at essence also a kind of loyalty or devotion- a loyalty or devotion to the process of principled intellectual inquiry. The representation of skepticism as being equivalent to incredulity or potentially temporary disbelief is sufficient for superficial conversation, but does not stand up to logical or philosophical scrutiny, and is inappropriate within a discussion of philosophy or theology. (1,2)
As such, faith is not intrinsically in conflict with rationality at all; such conflict is utterly dependent on the "faithful" making the questionable choice to uphold anti-intellectuality as a supposed virtue. In a sense, Skepticism urges faith in logical processes, and Faith urges a skeptical approach to fear and doubt.
From this standpoint, Lewis's version of faith is simply refusing to allow low mood and poor digestion to interfere with the logical and supra-logical position one has taken in favour of Christianity; it approaches the boundary between pure biblical faith and skepticism- which is only to be expected, since his defense of Christianity is based on ethical as well as intellectual arguments.
It is appropriate here, I think, to point out the counterfeiters: "faith" based on ignorance is sham (as many dogmatic parents learn when their children reach maturity and independence); and "skepticism" based on fear of taking a position is worse than worthless- it is merely cowardly doubt. And, perhaps most commonly, what initially appears to be faith in some cases or logical skepticism in others, often turns out to be common human inertia.
In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis outlined his view of faith:
"Faith [...] is the art of holding onto things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian, I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist, I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods 'where they get off,' you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion."
This is a valid, intelligent, and logical approach, and one that I have admired for several years; but I would have to admit that it is not an entirely Biblical one.
The most-quoted Biblical treatise on Christian faith, that in Hebrews 11, is not so much an definition of faith as an exposition on its effects. Hebrews 11:1-2 says, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for."
But in answer to this, the modern quester will often ask, "Why? How were they sure?" This question- a question as to the nature and definition of faith, rather than its importance and its effects- is not answered directly.
If I were to attempt a rational, consistent approach to considering the Biblical concept of faith, I would begin by noting that Biblical faith and logical skepticism are actually linked as follows:
Faith is the refusal to allow baser qualities to interfere with higher loyalties and ethical positions.
Faith is more akin to loyalty and committed devotion than it is to the usually-quoted blind suspension of disbelief. One passage that I came across in my reading that rings true to me:
Faith, according to Paul, is the act whereby a man identifies himself with Christ [...] Faith is thus the indispensable, and at the same time the all-sufficient, condition of salvation. Viewed in this way, it is an act of the profoundest spiritual meaning.
It is not mere assent, intellectual or moral, it is not mere confidence in Christ's words or in his promises, it is not a mere belief that he is what he claims to be, but it is the reception of Christ himself into the soul. [...] strictly speaking, it is not an act at all, but simply the attitude of receptivity toward Christ.
Skepticism is the refusal to allow baser qualities to interfere with higher mental functions and intellectual positions and methods.
Skepticism- and I speak here in a careful general sense, and not in an attempt to simultaneously define several related schools of philosophy- is at essence also a kind of loyalty or devotion- a loyalty or devotion to the process of principled intellectual inquiry. The representation of skepticism as being equivalent to incredulity or potentially temporary disbelief is sufficient for superficial conversation, but does not stand up to logical or philosophical scrutiny, and is inappropriate within a discussion of philosophy or theology. (1,2)
As such, faith is not intrinsically in conflict with rationality at all; such conflict is utterly dependent on the "faithful" making the questionable choice to uphold anti-intellectuality as a supposed virtue. In a sense, Skepticism urges faith in logical processes, and Faith urges a skeptical approach to fear and doubt.
From this standpoint, Lewis's version of faith is simply refusing to allow low mood and poor digestion to interfere with the logical and supra-logical position one has taken in favour of Christianity; it approaches the boundary between pure biblical faith and skepticism- which is only to be expected, since his defense of Christianity is based on ethical as well as intellectual arguments.
It is appropriate here, I think, to point out the counterfeiters: "faith" based on ignorance is sham (as many dogmatic parents learn when their children reach maturity and independence); and "skepticism" based on fear of taking a position is worse than worthless- it is merely cowardly doubt. And, perhaps most commonly, what initially appears to be faith in some cases or logical skepticism in others, often turns out to be common human inertia.
This is, to me, one of the finest descriptions of what it means to be a Christian Intellectual that I have ever read.
Many believe that in order to have faith, one must lost all skepticism. I hope that this essay helps to show that that is not necessarily true.
