Rational Basis for the Christian Faith...

kelly1

Hello all,

just a question that occured to me. If you started having doubts about Christ, what basis for your faith would you cling to?

We Christians are often accused of blind faith. I would argue that our faith isn't blind but is in fact reasonable. Of course we have no concrete evidence for the existence of God or Jesus but Christianity wasn't just plucked out of the air!

Thank God my faith is intact but I think if I did have a crisis of faith I would have the following to turn to:

- The Resurrection as an historical fact.

I haven't researched this subject in depth but it seems to me there's strong evidence that the Resurrection actually took place. I think the strongest argument is the change that took place in the disciples of Jesus following His post-resurrection appearance to them. After Jesus was crucified, His disciples had strong doubts about Him and His role as Messiah. After the resurrection, their view changed radically. They began to preach boldly while facing persecution and the possibility of martyrdom. What personal worldy gain did they have by preaching the Gospel? Certainly not money or wordly pleasures!

- The fulfillment of OT prophesies about the Messiah in the NT. Just read Isiah!

- The testimony of the saints. Their biographies are really inspiring!

- The reliability of Scripture. Historical/archaeoglgical research has shown the bible to be quite accurate historically, especially the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel itself has been shown to be remarkably uncorrupted because the earliest surviving manuscripts around the world agree to a very high degree.

What keeps you steady in times of doubt?

God bless,
Noel.

Fanny Cradock

Just a friendly reminder to make sure we all stay on topic, folks.

Good question Noel. I think my moments of doubt have generally arisen because I've attempted (consciously or otherwise) to disconnect myself from God. Whether this is in terms of not reading my bible, not praying, not engaging with other Christians (in active worship or at an intellectual level), embracing cynicism or simply becoming too wrapped up in myself and my personal desires. There isn't a specific answer in there to your question, rather it's more of a diagnosis of what happens when I stop taking spiritual sustenance.

I suspect that if I suffered a crisis of faith I would have to spend some serious alone time with God (perhaps a spiritual retreat) and also turn to others for aid.

chozometroid

Every thing you mentioned applies, but for me personally, whenever I have my "hard times," I keep my faith based on:

• What God has done for me. It's just too much.
• The reliability and depth of the Bible. I can't just blow it off as "man made holy book."
• Life itself. I know the atheist position, and I can't accept what it entails, and it's not because I don't want to think there is no God. It's just as imaginative and "hopeful" as a belief in a deity.

Gary L

I had a crisis of faith and lost it. I'm an Atheist now. I do feel I've lost something though. If I tried I wouldn't be able to get my faith back. Do you worry that you might lose it in the future? I didn't see it coming at all it happened very fast.

chozometroid

Gary L wrote: »

I had a crisis of faith and lost it. I'm an Atheist now. I do feel I've lost something though. If I tried I wouldn't be able to get my faith back. Do you worry that you might lose it in the future? I didn't see it coming at all it happened very fast.

At this point, I don't see any reason to lose my faith. The worst that could happen is that I could be angry or confused about God. To me, losing my faith would just be me pretending there is no God, and trying to ignore the fact that He is the Living God.
Not understanding some difficulties in life is not enough reason to turn to naturalism.

homer911

Hi Noel

I presume you are not talking about "undulating" faith.

Have you ever read The Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis? A very witty series of letters written from Screwtape to his nephew Wormwood, both angels of Satan, giving tips on how to overcome the faith of "the enemy"

kelly1

Gary L wrote: »

I had a crisis of faith and lost it. I'm an Atheist now. I do feel I've lost something though. If I tried I wouldn't be able to get my faith back. Do you worry that you might lose it in the future? I didn't see it coming at all it happened very fast.

Hi Gary, I'm sorry to hear that. Mind me asking, when you did have faith, did you act on it i.e. by praying to God, worshiping and thanking Him? I believe faith is a gift from God through the Holy Spirit and I'm sure your faith will return if you humbly and sincerely pray for faith even though you don't believe. Ask God to let you know He's there.

homer911 wrote: »

Hi Noel

I presume you are not talking about "undulating" faith.

Have you ever read The Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis? A very witty series of letters written from Screwtape to his nephew Wormwood, both angels of Satan, giving tips on how to overcome the faith of "the enemy"

Can't say I've heard of undulating faith! I talking about hopefully infrequent moment of doubt about God and Jesus.

Gary L

I have to say that I'm surprised by how you feel life would go without God. I think on both sides of the divide people fail to understand the others views. Would it not be fair to say that you can't know how it feels to be an Atheist? If your curious, I suggest checking out existentialism. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1809722369981617563&ei=_epWS-7ANJSo-AbCiqW-Bg&q=existentialism+&hl=en#


Its by know means an attack on religion. Its a philosophy on life that has the individual as the centre of its own life.Just to clear up my view at least. I feel I can live quite honorably without God.

Slav

I don't think there is rational basis for the Christian faith. And I don't think there is a need for it. Personally I don't know anyone who accepted (or turned back to) Christ based on some rational conclusions.

Our faith does look like a blind one to non-believers. We know ourselves that our faith is very irrational because the any rational basis is too weak and too narrow for it. Credo quia absurdum est. As Tertullian said:

The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed - because it is shameful.
The Son of God died: it is immediately credible - because it is silly.
He was buried, and rose again: it is certain - because it is impossible.

Fanny Cradock

Gary L wrote: »

I have to say that I'm surprised by how you feel life would go without God. I think on both sides of the divide people fail to understand the others views. Would it not be fair to say that you can't know how it feels to be an Atheist? If your curious, I suggest checking out existentialism. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1809722369981617563&ei=_epWS-7ANJSo-AbCiqW-Bg&q=existentialism+&hl=en#


Its by know means an attack on religion. Its a philosophy on life that has the individual as the centre of its own life.Just to clear up my view at least. I feel I can live quite honorably without God.

Well, not to stray too much from the topic, I don't think that being an atheist means you can not live honourable, many atheists are exemplars of humanity.

However, if you are interested in existentialism you should look up the one of the granddaddies of the philosophy - Friedrich Nietzsche. From the little I know about his works, I find his master-slave morality to be quite appalling. Perhaps Kierkegaard offers a less offensive contribution.

Fanny Cradock

Slav wrote: »

I don't think there is rational basis for the Christian faith. And I don't think there is a need for it. Personally I don't know anyone who accepted (or turned back to) Christ based on some rational conclusions.

Our faith does look like a blind one to non-believers. We know ourselves that our faith is very irrational because the any rational basis is too weak and too narrow for it. Credo quia absurdum est. As Tertullian said:

The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed - because it is shameful.
The Son of God died: it is immediately credible - because it is silly.
He was buried, and rose again: it is certain - because it is impossible.

I have heard of people who have come to know Christ by such a route, and I would humbly count myself amongst those who returned to faith because of the rationality of the Christian message. It does happen! There are other routes to faith than faith alone.

kelly1

Slav wrote: »

I don't think there is rational basis for the Christian faith. And I don't think there is a need for it. Personally I don't know anyone who accepted (or turned back to) Christ based on some rational conclusions.

Our faith does look like a blind one to non-believers. We know ourselves that our faith is very irrational because the any rational basis is too weak and too narrow for it. Credo quia absurdum est. As Tertullian said:

The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed - because it is shameful.
The Son of God died: it is immediately credible - because it is silly.
He was buried, and rose again: it is certain - because it is impossible.

Slav, the fact is that after the Resurrection, Christ appeared to His disciples thereby giving them concrete proof that He was who he said he was. Jesus could have ascended to heaven without making an appearance but then Christianity would never have gone any further than the crucifixion. So I think the disciples witness of the resurrection is strong evidence for the truth of Christianity.

Slav

kelly1 wrote: »

Slav, the fact is that after the Resurrection, Christ appeared to His disciples thereby giving them concrete proof that He was who he said he was. Jesus could have ascended to heaven without making an appearance but then Christianity would never have gone any further than the crucifixion. So I think the disciples witness of the resurrection is strong evidence for the truth of Christianity.

Noel, this is all good for Christians but I don't think it's good enough for a non-believer or anyone who questions the fundamentals of Christianity.

For this purpose we cannot see Resurrection as a historical fact. The only source that insists on Resurrection is Bible; for History it's not enough because from its perspective:

a) there is no independent evidence, i.e. any non-Christian sources,
b) there is no evidence the authors on the NT books were eye-witnesses of the events.

Slav

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I have heard of people who have come to know Christ by such a route, and I would humbly count myself amongst those who returned to faith because of the rationality of the Christian message. It does happen! There are other routes to faith than faith alone.

Could please explain what rationality of the Christian message do you mean? Or maybe share you own experience in finding a rational basis?..

Xluna

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, not to stray too much from the topic, I don't think that being an atheist means you can not live honourable, many atheists are exemplars of humanity.

However, if you are interested in existentialism you should look up the one of the granddaddies of the philosophy - Friedrich Nietzsche. From the little I know about his works, I find his master-slave morality to be quite appalling. Perhaps Kierkegaard offers a less offensive contribution.

I would'nt recommend Nietzsche as a first port of call for those interested in existentialism at all. Instead I'd recommend the granddaddy of existentialism, Jean Paul Satre. It's sad that Nietzsche is linked in the public consciousness with embittered loners,philosophical Satanism and Nazism.

Interestingly Nietzsches Sister edited his works before presenting them to the Nazis in order to make it appear the his work was endorsing Nazi ideals. Ironically Nietzsche would have hated Nazi ideology. The whole dogma and group morality which Nazism employed were part of the aspects of organised religion,which he dispised. For the record I find the master/slave morality distasteful also. However it's important to know that it's far from an instrinsic part of existentialism. Existentialism can be very positive and act as an agent for good in the world.I.E. compare with the religious philosophy of provedentialism which was en vogue in Britain during the mid 18th c. It as a major factor in turning the potatoe blight into the Great potatoe famine.

Fanny Cradock

Slav wrote: »

Noel, this is all good for Christians but I don't think it's good enough for a non-believer or anyone who questions the fundamentals of Christianity.

For this purpose we cannot see Resurrection as a historical fact. The only source that insists on Resurrection is Bible; for History it's not enough because from its perspective:

a) there is no independent evidence, i.e. any non-Christian sources,
b) there is no evidence the authors on the NT books were eye-witnesses of the events.

Again, I think you are wrong here. The resurrection is a historical claim insofar as it is an event that is alleged to have happened at a particular time, in a particular location and to a particular individual. That the body of evidence comes from within Christianity doesn't invalidate it, nor does it make it true. I'm not discounting the requirement for faith in believing the resurrection, but I'm challenging the notion that faith is a self-contained loop. I'm sure that everyone from Bart Ehrman (no friend of Christianity) to Bishop N.T. Wright would disagree with you. If tomorrow they dug up some artefact that disproved the resurrection (not sure what that could possibly be)

Speaking of Wright, perhaps you should consider reading the following: Who Was Jesus (100 page light introduction), The Challenge of Jesus (200 pages), or Jesus and the Victory of God (a scholarly 700 pages).

My own personal story isn't exciting. I didn't have an epiphany that called me back to faith (well, this isn't entirely true, but it's not a topic for here) and no single scholarly work brought me back. However, the body of that intellectual pursuit has undoubtedly played a major role in my return. While my knowledge of Christianity is embarrassingly lacking in a number of areas, but I'm grateful to many people like Kreeft, Guinness, Carson, Zacharias and Wright (not to mention scores of others and also personal friends and family) who have all helped me in their own ways. Maybe after consuming vast amounts of fish oils I'll tackle some of what I perceive to be some of the heavyweights - Jürgen Moltmann, Aquinas, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Søren Kierkegaard to name a few.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

If you started having doubts about Christ, what basis for your faith would you cling to?

- The Resurrection as an historical fact.
- The fulfillment of OT prophesies.
- The testimony of the saints.

For me to have doubts about Christ would involve God removing his Holy Spirit from me to the extent where I'd not be able to perceive him. And if I wasn't able to perceive him I'd have no reason to suppose the Bible His Word. So there'd be no comfort there..

Slav

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, I think you are wrong here. The resurrection is a historical claim insofar as it is an event that is alleged to have happened at a particular time, in a particular location and to a particular individual.

That's right. However historical claim and historical fact are two different things. A historical fact can potentially be a solid basis for faith but not a historical claim I suppose.

That the body of evidence comes from within Christianity doesn't invalidate it, nor does it make it true.

Exactly. It does not make it a historical fact though.

I'm challenging the notion that faith is a self-contained loop

Nobody's saying it's a self-contained loop. I was talking about rational vs irrational basis for the Christian faith. Not sure how it relates to self-contained faith.

My own personal story isn't exciting. I didn't have an epiphany that called me back to faith (well, this isn't entirely true, but it's not a topic for here) and no single scholarly work brought me back. However, the body of that intellectual pursuit has undoubtedly played a major role in my return. While my knowledge of Christianity is embarrassingly lacking in a number of areas, but I'm grateful to many people like Kreeft, Guinness, Carson, Zacharias and Wright (not to mention scores of others and also personal friends and family) who have all helped me in their own ways. Maybe after consuming vast amounts of fish oils I'll tackle some of what I perceive to be some of the heavyweights - Jürgen Moltmann, Aquinas, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Søren Kierkegaard to name a few.

Thank you for that though I was more interested in any rational basis that you discovered during that journey.

Intellectual pursuit is not necessarily rational. Same as a scholarly work is not necessarily a collection of 100% rational ideas. After all that Tertullian's "De carne Christi" I quoted earlier in this thread is a scholarly work. For instance, speaking of resurrection we can approach it differently. As in the OP we can say that resurrection did take place because according to the NT it made a dramatic change for the disciples of Christ. Or we can repeat after Tertullian: "He was buried, and rose again: it is certain - because it is impossible". With all my respect for Noel I'd go for the Tertullian's reason as for me it looks stronger, deeper and more profound though completely irrational.