The truth about God is too important not to be seriously investigated and honestly and fairly discussed. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take long for friendly conversations about religion to escalate into shouting matches—and this helps no one. Belief and unbelief are two sides to the same coin. The debate over faith and spirituality is here to stay. However, it does no good to vilify the other side. If any real ground is to be reached, we need to change the tone of this conversation.
WHY ALL THIS HOSTILITY AGAINST RELIGION?
It wasn’t too long ago that the idea of books on atheism and apologetics becoming New York Times best-sellers would have been hard to imagine. So what happened? Why are people reading books bashing God and ridiculing the faithful, or proffering a defense of the Gospel? Of course, that’s a rather complex question.
First, we live in a much different world following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The events of that horrific day, when 2,996 people were murdered and more than 6,000 were injured, are burned into our collective memory. We all had front-row seats to religious fanaticism run amok. Until that day, such zealotry had always been going on “somewhere else” in the world. It is impossible to overstate how drastically the events of 9/11 changed our world.
In the days that followed, the cultural conversation turned to the role and value of religion in the public square and throughout the globe. Such conversations are certainly legitimate and appropriate and, if conducted properly, can be quite healthy. But events like 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15, 2013, or the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando on June 12, 2016, helped create the cultural context in which the hyper-aggressive claims of today’s militant atheists could actually be entertained by a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
Second, there is a growing undercurrent of unbelief in America. A Newsweek cover story written by John Meacham, published on April 16, 2009, titles “The End of Christian America,” reported that “the number of Americans who claim no religious belief or affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent.” Why is this? While sociologists have more than enough polling data to analyze, I think Timothy Keller offers a plausible explanation in his book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism:
Three generations ago, most people inherited rather than chose their religious faith. The great majority of people belonged to one of the historic mainline Protestant churches or the Roman Catholic Church. Today, however, the now-dubbed “old-line” Protestant churches of cultural, inherited faith are aging and losing members rapidly. People are opting instead for a non-religious life, for non-institutional personally constructed spirituality, or for orthodox, high-commitment religious groups that expect members to have a conversion experience. Therefore the population is paradoxically growing both more religious and less religious at once.
This post 9/11 rejection of God and religion has its roots in pluralism and secularization. It seems a growing number of people—on both sides of the God question—are no longer content to “play church.” It is likely many see “religion” as a training ground for extremism, dogma, elitism, and narrow-mindedness. Either what people believe is true and they are going to attempt to live out their faith in all areas of their life, or it’s false and people shouldn’t waste their time going through the motions of their childhood faith if belief makes no difference whatever.
So these two factors have generated a cultural conversation about faith and God in the 21st century. This is both an opportunity and a challenge for those who attempt to share the Gospel. In addition, the events of 9/11 and after also created room in culture for militant atheists whose advocates tell anyone who’ll listen that if we get rid of religion, we can free ourselves from what they call childish nonsense. Atheism, of course, is not new. It’s been with us for quite a long time. The media fueled atheism, starting perhaps with the April 8, 1966 cover story of Time magazine, “Is God Dead?” Friedrich Nietzsche infamously said Gott ist tot God is dead) in his 1882 collection titled “The Joyful Pursuit of Knowledge and Understanding.”
What is new, however, is the biting and powerful rhetoric, as well as the cultural visibility, of these so-called militant atheist, the likes of which include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Bill Nye. Naturally, their visibility has increased secondary to the explosion of the Internet, blogs, and 24/7 media coverage of every imaginable topic. The more controversial and polarizing, the better. Hoping that something hits the mark, these militant atheists tend to throw everything at people. They appeal primarily to the emotions, lacking any evidence regarding the non-existence of God. Granted, it’s impossible to prove a negative. But these individuals skillfully dodge the concept of proof and instead use sarcasm and innuendo to rattle their theist counterparts and paint religion—especially Christianity—as delusional.
SO, IS FAITH IRRATIONAL?
A distinct feature of the rhetoric being espoused by the militant atheists today is their belief that religion is blind, irrational, and, well, just plain stupid. This is evident in the title of Richard Dawkins’ seminal work: The God Delusion. His intent is clear—those who believe in God are fools who have been brainwashed by their parents and ancestors into believing something absurd. Dawkins thinks religious people are deluded. I find myself asking, What could possibly cause Dawkins and others like him to be so adamantly against religion? Why resort to attacking fellow citizens simply because they believe in God? A major reason is because Dawkins has decided religious belief is not based in evidence. He said, “In all areas except religion, we believe what we believe as a result of evidence.” In other words, he believes religious faith is blind but in other disciplines—especially science—we demand physical proof for what we believe. Dawkins concludes that religion is a “nonsensical enterprise” that “poisons everything.”
Dawkins’ definition of a “delusion” is “a persistent false belief in the face of strong contradictory evidence.” Now wait just a minute! Isn’t it nearly impossible to prove a negative? What is this strong contradictory evidence? Daniel Dennett—an American philosopher, writer, cognitive scientist, atheist, and secularist—claims that Christians are addicted to their blind faith. According to militant atheist Sam Harris, “Faith is generally nothing more than the permission religious people give one another to believe things strongly without evidence.” Harris said, “Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.”
Dawkins often cites the story of doubting Thomas as proof that Christianity requires blind faith. When the other disciples reported that they had seen the risen Christ, Thomas refused to believe until he could see the nail marks and put his hands where the nails had been and into Jesus’ side where He had been speared. A week later, Jesus showed up and gave Thomas the evidence he demanded. Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29, NIV). True to form, Dawkins says this Scripture passage proves that Christianity opposes reason. He adds, “Thomas demanded [physical] evidence… the other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are help up to us as worthy of imitation.”
The fact that some Christians may have so-called “blind faith” is not the same as Christianity itself valuing blind faith and irrationality. Frankly, the Bible does not tell us to irrationally believe something in the face of reliable physical evidence to the contrary. Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (NIV). Eugene Peterson, in his translation of Hebrews 11:1, writes, “The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living. It’s our handle on what we can’t see” (MSG) [Emphasis added]. To me, this wonderfully written paraphrase shows that Christianity does not require blind faith in face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Hebrews 11 (the “faith” chapter) explains trust in God.
Many individuals—believers, non-believers, and agnostics alike—have a gross misunderstanding of what constitutes faith. Faith is not merely a manner by which we “fill in the gaps” in the absence of, or in the face of, real, tangible, evidence. Carl Sagan, for example, once said, “Faith is believing in something in the absence of evidence.” This is a rather narrow definition. Let’s take a closer look at the word substance. It comes from the Greek word hupostasis, meaning “a placing or setting under, a substructure or foundation.” This word can also be translated as “confidence.” The Greek word for evidence, elengchos, means “that by which a thing is proved or tested; conviction.”
Biblical faith comes from careful observation and the weighing of all available evidence. Faith, therefore, is dynamic rather than static. The militant atheists like to lump all religions together and dismiss them with sweeping generalizations. But Christianity is unique in valuing the role of the mind which includes the proper use of reasoning and argumentation. In fact 1 Peter 3:15 says, “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have…” (NIV). The King James Bible uses this same terminology: the substance of things hoped for. Jesus tells us to love God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind. God said to Israel, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18, NKJV).
EVERYONE HAS FAITH!
When people hear the word faith, they typically think of religion. No doubt religious people have faith in God. Christians have faith in the Word and many unseen things such as heaven, angels, and the spirit. The point that’s often passed over is that Christians are not the only ones who have faith—everyone does. Everyone has faith in something, including Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. If you don’t have faith, you wouldn’t eat, leave your house, get in an airplane, or go to the fiftieth floor of a skyscraper in an elevator car.
The philosophical revolution over the past few decades has lead to the strengthening of the traditional arguments for God’s existence with new insights and evidence. In their writings, militant atheists hardly interact with these arguments, and, until recently, they have refused to engage leading Christian thinkers in public. As part of my class on World Views at Colorado Christian University, I watched a debate between Dinesh D’Souza and the late Christopher Hitchens. I was shocked by Hitchens’ vilification of Christianity and the vitriolic and mean-spirited comments he threw at D’Souza in an attempt to throw his opponent off his game.
Faulty views of Christianity and its followers are not countered solely by good arguments, but also through relationships. The apostle Paul spoke of imparting not only the truth of the Gospel, but also his very own life. We typically refer to this as our “witness.” Perhaps Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens simply haven’t gotten to know thoughtful and intelligent Christians who value the role of evidence and reason. In other words, believers who grasp the importance of 1 Peter 3:15.
If the human condition limits our ability to know what is true, how do we determine what to believe? It’s been said that we have no criterion for truth—only the means to recognize error. In other words, our knowledge is finite but our ignorance is infinite. Philosophy has long recognized this fact and uses dialectics to assist in our quest to understand what is true. This process involves repeated and thorough criticism of our assumptions. After all, our Christian worldview is more inherited than undertaken by us. Of course, most atheists are fond of stating that faith is defined as believing without evidence. This is actually a faith that mirrors Hebrews 11:1. Even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of law-like order in nature and throughout the universe that is at least comprehensible to Christians.
5 Replies to “Is Faith Irrational?”
Matty, since you remain agnostic and not full-on atheistic, may I recommend two very compelling books? They are rather scientific and not necessarily “nightstand” reading material, but they’ll give you some things to ponder. I take this subject quite seriously. I am starting a master’s degree in Biblical Studies with the intent to focus on apologetics, Christian doctrine, comparative religion, and the true origin of life. Hopefully I will get a book or two on the book store shelves myself. I suggest reading “The LIE” by Ken Ham and “Replacing Darwin” by Nathaniel T. Jeanson. Both are available on Amazon. I’d welcome any continuing dialog.
Hello, I enjoyed your balanced piece on faith. You’re right, the word “faith” has religious and even spiritual connotations, but it can be used as a powerful tool in more practical terms. For example, just like people operate unthinkingly under the notion that the sun will always rise the next day, I can believe that I’m not going to screw my day up, because I have 41 years of history saying that I’ve managed to do okay so far. That is a form of faith, which–I believe is its main benefit–is very a source of comfort and strength.
That being said, I am an agnostic. I was raised Christian and went to a Lutheran church every sunday until I was 15, where I went through catechism. For me, if I had to distill the moment that most affected me in my departure from Christianity (and religion in general), was discovering Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution in school. It cracked me wide open. Suddenly here was something that MADE SENSE more than any of the days where I stared heavenbound in the nave of my church, hoping for some sign that I was doing it right, so little nod from god. None ever came.
However, I find that people, if they look hard enough for something, can find it. People develop a “god perspective,” in which everything they see is through the lens of “this is god’s plan.” I live among the Hasidem in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, a deeply religious sect of Judaism. This is how they approach life. I have explored this mindset but underneath it all, as I suspect I felt all those days in church, a quiet voice inside mutters the words, “Dude. this is bullshit and you know it.” I think what I find most frustrating is that this simplistic theory boils down to this: if something good happens, then god did it. If something bad happens, well, “god works in mysterious ways.”
This brings me back to agnosticism. For these people to say that they understand that “good” things are god’s will, but “bad” things are beyond their comprehension, and must also be god’s will…. Isn’t it easier to simply land on the idea that EVERYTHING that god wills is beyond our comprehension? Which easily translates to: god is beyond our comprehension, and then: the existence of god is beyond our comprehension.
I think one of the strongest statements the typically ego-laden human can make is: I don’t know.
I am truly impressed by your well-worded response to my post “Is Faith Irrational?” Most who disagree with me (and/or with Christianity in general) tend to be short-sighted, mean-spirited, and rely exclusively on “If I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist, period.” I can actually understand your disappointment with organized religion and your change in perspective from full-on faith to Darwin is right. This happens frequently to teens and young adults when they encounter secularism, Darwinism, pluralism, and (especially) moral relativism. It’s nice to hear you are agnostic rather than straight-up atheistic. So, there’s hope for you yet. LOL. Let me ask you this: If Darwin had no knowledge of genetics, how could he write a book on the origin of species? If genetic data were absent from his thesis, then how could he have made any semblance of a scientific argument for the origin of species? Moreover, why did his arguments gain such traction in the scientific community? I would think you will readily admit that since we began our quest to solve the puzzle of the origin of species (let alone the commencement of life itself) we’ve discovered many of the crucial pieces missing from Darwin’s initial theory. I have become something of an apologist, reading and studying works from both sides of the argument. I welcome any additional discussion. Thanks for your comment and for visiting my blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think we’re still pretty aligned, and this segues nicely into the thinking behind my agnosticism. Sure, Darwin may have not completely and flawlessly figured out the narrative of life on earth, but for me it makes a whole lot more sense than: an invisible magical deity that never manifests himself in any way shape or form created everything in nice neat little chapters. My agnosticism is based on a humility of sorts. Our egos want us to believe we have “figured things out,” when in actuality, when it comes to creation vs non-creation, nobody knows.
Why would any ground need to be made up? You (collectively) believe whatever you want, as long as you don’t try to force yours on me, let me doubt yours, and believe mine.
On that note: What could possibly cause Dawkins and others like him to be so adamantly against religion?
Because kindly old George H. W. (Thousand points of light) Bush, while president, said that Atheists should not be allowed to be citizens or patriots…. And he’s one of the nice ones. 😯