Paradox or Parallel- Can Faith and Reason Co-Exist?
Introduction
Teaching high school Bible class on Sunday mornings gives me a lot of practice in thinking through and presenting my ideas and analyses on various issues. Recently I was preparing a lesson on a Biblical story and its ethical application, and I felt the tug once again to help the students understand the uniqueness and soundness of Christian truth claims in our cultural melting-pot. I have to admit that what I shared with my high school students that morning was not extremely coherent, but it motivated me to further refine my thoughts. What I wish to share here is the more settled out result. It is a very basic, general historical and philosophical presentation and suggestion of how faith and reason should relate to each other. I believe this is an extremely important topic, and hopefully I can contribute something meaningful.
Basic Sketch of Three Periods in Western History
The earliest historical and philosophical period we will consider is often called the "premodern" period. It ran from several centuries B.C. until about 1650 A.D. Among its leading thinkers were St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. An equation they might have used to show how faith and reason relate is " Faith + Reason = Truth." Notice that the word "truth" is capitalized. This means that truth gained through the proper use of faith and reason together is objective and universal. It is the same for everyone, everywhere, at all times. Science, faith, and reason were thought to be in complementary relationships to each other.
The next period is often called the "modern" period. It has run from roughly 1600 to the present. Among its leading thinkers were Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Charles Darwin. The modernist equation might read "Reason - Faith = Truth." Modernism holds that faith is innocuous at best, and at worst holds back progress towards justice, prosperity, and peace. Unaided reason holds the key to objective, universal truth and human progress. Science has been held to be an ally of reason, and faith to be irrelevant to both science and reason.
The "postmodern" period has run from about 1970 to the present. Among its leading thinkers have been Freidrich Nietzsche, Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty, and Oprah Winfrey, though Nietzsche and others wrote long before the 1970’s. The postmodern equation would look something like "Suspect Reason + Any Faith = truths." In postmodernism, truth is subjective, not objective, and personal, not universal. Science, reason, and faith are viewed suspiciously, as any of them might be used by particular cultural groups to wield power over others.
Issues in the Development of These Periods
There are entire books written about the very simple breakdown I have just given. I have shared a few of the most basic distinctions. There are, however, some conceptual missteps along the way. Here are some:
The late premodern period, including the Protestant Reformation, was characterized by schisms in the Christian Church. Protestant Christians will defend the necessity of breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church, but the divisions and even wars that resulted made the church vulnerable to attacks on its truth equation by those who have claimed that the lack of unity in Christianity weakens its truth claims.
The growth in science and technology gave opportunity for some modernists to place great confidence in humankind's ability to overcome much greater technological barriers. It also lent hope to bringing about peace and justice apart from dependence upon God. This is despite the irony that many of the pioneering and premier scientists of the period were devout Christians. Examples of these include Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, William Harvey, Blaise Pascal, and Roger Bacon.
Modernists were successful in changing the understanding of what faith is from the premodern concept of being consistent with evidence and reason to that of being subjective mystical experience only, totally separated from evidence and reason. By contrast, St. Augustine described knowledge of God as “faith seeking understanding.” Contemporary author of Christian evidences Lee Strobel describes faith as a step in the direction that the evidence leads.
Modernists claim the right to expect such virtues as justice, equality, and freedom for people. People of many persuasions would agree with and applaud this. Without faith in God as grounding for such virtues, however, modernists do not have the necessary logical foundations for their virtue claims. If everything that exists came from nothing without a cause, and if it is much more likely that it should not exist at all, and it is eventually going to nothing again, what gives authority to any particular moral claims? Why not have a completely opposite set of morals than what a person or a society has, or even none at all? The prevalence of what seems to be objective moral sentiments in the hearts of people is a significant problem for modernism.
Many modernists, bolstered by Darwinism, expected that with reason as their guide, divorced from faith, life would get better and better for all peoples on earth. To a large degree, their philosophy prevailed, especially in the institutions of the media and public universities. Then the world experienced the twentieth century. In it was witnessed two World Wars, the Great Depression, continued racism including major events such as the Nazi Holocaust against European Jews, atomic warfare and the Cold War, the Vietnam War controversy and the Watergate constitutional scandal in America, and the disastrous failures of Communism in the Soviet Union and China. All of these things shook the confidence of many that modernism could make the world a better place.
Especially in the twentieth century, and particularly after the infamous Scopes Darwinism trial, the Christian Church accepted the division of faith from reason promoted by modernism. It became easier, and seemingly more “spiritual”, to not engage the culture’s intellectual leaders in academia, arts, and media on their own terms with clear, well evidenced, Biblical responses. As a result, the Christian Church became marginalized from being a thought leader in the culture, while it has sometimes still made a difference politically, economically, and socially.
As postmodernism grew in influence, it got away with a “bait and switch” tactic which has not been widely identified. Postmodernism, remember, claims that there are no universally true descriptions of the world and people, called meta-narratives, also called worldviews. Meta-narratives attempt to give universal answers to the big questions of life, such as where did we come from, what gives life meaning, does objective morality exist and what is its content, and what is the possibility of an afterlife? In the postmodern framework, various groups of people develop their group narratives to answer life’s questions. Postmodernism claims that both premodern and modern religions and philosophies are illegitimate when they claim to be “Truth” for everyone. Postmodernism claims that this imposition of “Truth” is oppressive and unfair. Instead, people from various groups and narratives should respect and not question or challenge the beliefs of those who are outside their groups. On the surface, this may sound appealing and very tolerant, but it is the “bait.” While postmodernism presents this posture of tolerance of all groups and persuasions, the “switch” is taking place. Postmodernism is imposing its brand of pluralism as a meta-narrative, demanding that all other groups and persuasions knuckle under and give up their distinct, objective, cross-cultural truth claims, however well or poorly founded. The alleged tolerance of postmodernism is a façade.
Proposed Responses to the Issues
Can these issues be successfully addressed? They can, but it will not be easy. Much of the Christian Church needs to accept a paradigm shift in its approach to faith and reason to accomplish this. If the orthodox evangelical Christian view of its central faith doctrines is accurate, then God exists and is active in the world. Therefore, the paradigm shift can happen. Here are a few thoughts:
First, become more clear about the relationship between faith and reason. The fact is, everyone uses both faith and reason, whether or not they realize it. Faith has come to be understood by many people to be a mystical feeling. In the Bible, Hebrews 11: 1 states, " Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Mystical feeling is, indeed, a part of Biblical faith, but there is more. Consider the words of 1 John: 1: 1-3, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us--that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. " Notice the words "seen," "heard," and "touched." How do these ideas fit in with a mystical feeling? I believe that fitting these pieces together is important for a fully Biblical Christian experience.
Let me illustrate with an example from Christian theologian and law professor John Warwick Montgomery. When we want to walk across a street, we do certain things. We look both ways. We consider the condition of the street, whether it is dry, wet, icy, and so on. We consider our walking speed. We consider the speed of any approaching vehicles. If considering these factors makes crossing the street an acceptable risk, then we cross the street. Now, when we cross the street, is there 100% certainty that we will reach the other side safely? Of course not. Perhaps we would figure that there is an 85% chance of crossing the street safely. So do we take 85% of ourselves across the street? Of course not. We take all 100% of ourselves across. So how do we understand the relationship between the 85% and the 15%? The solution is that, in this example, the 85% is reason and the 15% is faith.
The above example illustrates how we operate constantly in the world. There is never 100% certainty about anything in our world of multiple uncertainties. Do we, therefore, decline to make any decisions or to take any actions because of the uncertainties? Of course not. We reasonably calculate the approximate odds of gaining the desired result of buying a product, choosing a career, or committing to a relationship. We then, in faith, make decisions and take actions, despite the uncertainties. Faith takes us beyond what we can understand or forecast.
Biblical faith works in much the same way, as we prayerfully determine what the Biblical responses are that we should make in various situations, despite uncertainties from our perspective. There are frequent choices we must make that are similar to calculating the safety of crossing the street. On the basis of prayerful and Biblical consideration of our options (reason), we can choose to commit to the best path (faith).
I need to add that dissecting faith and reason in this way is somewhat arbitrary for the purpose of illustration. In practice, faith and reason are working together throughout the processes of our decisions and actions. We exercise faith in God's sovereignty over circumstances as we reasonably calculate our faith responses to situations, and exercising faith, in time, becomes the reasonable thing to do.
Second, become moer reasonable through recovering logical thinking skills. Christians nowadays are often very competent at technical thinking, or artistic thinking, or practical problem-solving, but are weak at spotting the fallacies in statements that are used to neutralize their faith and witness. The reason for this is that the Christian Church in the West has largely accepted the Faith/Reason split demanded by modernism. Here are a few examples of the kinds of challenges that should be handled more effectively. Have you heard the one that says that “everything is relative?” This is an example of a self-defeating statement. It fails to meet its own standard. The effective response is that if everything is relative, then the statement that everything is relative is also relative, and therefore meaningless. So everything cannot be relative. Another claim is that “no one can really know the truth.” Well, is that a claim to really know the truth that no one can know the truth? It also fails. Here is a popular one (especially with scientists): “Science is the only source of truth.” Question: do you think they get this from the scientific method, with test tubes, Bunsen burners, and the like? Or do they get it from philosophical reasoning? Upon reflection, the statement that science is the only source of truth is another self-defeating statement. Confidence in the scientific method is itself faith. Life lived totally by reason or science does not exist. And on it goes. There is nothing contrary between true spirituality and clear thinking. It is not an either/or choice. When we learn to clear away the bad ideas that float around in our culture, we can get to what matters, which is, is Christian faith, or any other truth claim, true or not, and how might we know?
Many Christians have learned to think of their faith as a personal, subjective experience, separate from objective evidence and reason. It is easier, in a sense, to depend upon personal experience, no matter what. All one has to do is to insist that one’s inner, subjective personal experience is correct, and that it cannot be challenged rationally or evidentially. The problem with that approach is that anyone with any spiritual view can say the same thing. Indeed, in the Christian understanding, it is part of the role of God the Holy Spirit to relate to us personally. He brings to us the gifts of repentance, faith, and relational closeness to God, along with guidance and enablement to apply God's Word, the Bible. The Bible, taken as a whole, encourages both subjective and objective sources for faith. It is important to follow all of the sources for faith wherever they lead. This leads to the next point.
Third, when we learn to think more skillfully, it is important howwe think. I would suggest that in thinking about spiritual things, a premodern approach is the most helpful. Remember that the premodern equation is “Faith + Reason = Truth.” Faith and reason, in the premodern sense, were both compatible with science and other evidence. Biblical faith is not anti-rational mysticism, but can be thought of as confidence based on both subjective and objective evidence. So, what is the objective evidence for Biblical Christianity? I will not take the time or space here to cover it exhaustively. I will suggest resources for that. Here I will present a basic outline for investigation and consideration.
There is evidence for the beginning of the universe. It is not rational to think of the universe as eternal, and if the universe had a beginning out of nothing, it makes sense that there had to be a personal beginner. In other words, if there was a Big Bang at the beginning of space, time, energy, and matter, there had to be a Big Banger. There is also evidence for the fine tuning of the chemistry and physics of the universe, for the conditions which would make Earth a life-permitting planet, and for the specified and complex nature of life, including human life, on Earth. In addition, there is the fact that human beings seem to recognize objective morality. We think that some things are really good, and some things are really bad, and that other people should recognize them also. But objective morality cannot exist as the sum of many persons’ subjective moral feelings. Objective morality seems to require a source from outside of humanity. Finally, the major Christian truth claims have strong evidential support. The Bible passes the normal tests for an historically reliable source. In it, Jesus Christ viewed Himself as one in being with God, yet He was a separate person from the Father and the Holy Spirit who are also God. Jesus Christ came to deal with sin, which separated humankind from God. Jesus performed miracles and fulfilled many ancient prophecies about Himself. He predicted and accomplished His own Resurrection from the dead, which sealed His victory over sin and death, won by His own perfect, substitutionary suffering and death on a Roman cross.
Conclusion
We should be willing to follow the best reasoning and evidence wherever it leads, and to put our faith there. Postmodernism, while having a degree of healthy skepticism about modernism, is skeptical to the point of defeating itself. Modernism ends in humanity's being nothing but the accidental product of chemistry and physics. Chemistry is the physical stuff of the universe, and physics describes how it operates. That provides no place for meaning, morals, or personality, because consistent physicalist modernism has no mechanism of its own to explain non-physical things. Premodernism is the most coherent system within itself, and best corresponds to the world around us. The premodern approach provides the justified framework for the reconciling of Faith and Reason.
Resources
For Logical Thinking:
Koukl, Greg. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions.
Geisler, Norman L. and Brooks, Ronald M. Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking.
For Christian Theistic Evidence:
Franzwa, Jeff. The Main Thing- Jesus the Christ, Crucified and Resurrected. http://reasoningfaith.com/the-main-thing.html
Geisler, Norman L. and Turek, Frank. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.
Habermas, Gary R. and Licona, Michael R. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
For Worldview Analysis:
Franzwa, Jeff. What in the World(view)? : A Simple Tool for Analyzing Your Most Basic Convictions. http://reasoningfaith.com/what-in-the-worldview.html
Samples, Kenneth R. A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test
Pearcey, Nancy. Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning.
* Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of the Bible.
Introduction
Teaching high school Bible class on Sunday mornings gives me a lot of practice in thinking through and presenting my ideas and analyses on various issues. Recently I was preparing a lesson on a Biblical story and its ethical application, and I felt the tug once again to help the students understand the uniqueness and soundness of Christian truth claims in our cultural melting-pot. I have to admit that what I shared with my high school students that morning was not extremely coherent, but it motivated me to further refine my thoughts. What I wish to share here is the more settled out result. It is a very basic, general historical and philosophical presentation and suggestion of how faith and reason should relate to each other. I believe this is an extremely important topic, and hopefully I can contribute something meaningful.
Basic Sketch of Three Periods in Western History
The earliest historical and philosophical period we will consider is often called the "premodern" period. It ran from several centuries B.C. until about 1650 A.D. Among its leading thinkers were St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. An equation they might have used to show how faith and reason relate is " Faith + Reason = Truth." Notice that the word "truth" is capitalized. This means that truth gained through the proper use of faith and reason together is objective and universal. It is the same for everyone, everywhere, at all times. Science, faith, and reason were thought to be in complementary relationships to each other.
The next period is often called the "modern" period. It has run from roughly 1600 to the present. Among its leading thinkers were Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Charles Darwin. The modernist equation might read "Reason - Faith = Truth." Modernism holds that faith is innocuous at best, and at worst holds back progress towards justice, prosperity, and peace. Unaided reason holds the key to objective, universal truth and human progress. Science has been held to be an ally of reason, and faith to be irrelevant to both science and reason.
The "postmodern" period has run from about 1970 to the present. Among its leading thinkers have been Freidrich Nietzsche, Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty, and Oprah Winfrey, though Nietzsche and others wrote long before the 1970’s. The postmodern equation would look something like "Suspect Reason + Any Faith = truths." In postmodernism, truth is subjective, not objective, and personal, not universal. Science, reason, and faith are viewed suspiciously, as any of them might be used by particular cultural groups to wield power over others.
Issues in the Development of These Periods
There are entire books written about the very simple breakdown I have just given. I have shared a few of the most basic distinctions. There are, however, some conceptual missteps along the way. Here are some:
The late premodern period, including the Protestant Reformation, was characterized by schisms in the Christian Church. Protestant Christians will defend the necessity of breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church, but the divisions and even wars that resulted made the church vulnerable to attacks on its truth equation by those who have claimed that the lack of unity in Christianity weakens its truth claims.
The growth in science and technology gave opportunity for some modernists to place great confidence in humankind's ability to overcome much greater technological barriers. It also lent hope to bringing about peace and justice apart from dependence upon God. This is despite the irony that many of the pioneering and premier scientists of the period were devout Christians. Examples of these include Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, William Harvey, Blaise Pascal, and Roger Bacon.
Modernists were successful in changing the understanding of what faith is from the premodern concept of being consistent with evidence and reason to that of being subjective mystical experience only, totally separated from evidence and reason. By contrast, St. Augustine described knowledge of God as “faith seeking understanding.” Contemporary author of Christian evidences Lee Strobel describes faith as a step in the direction that the evidence leads.
Modernists claim the right to expect such virtues as justice, equality, and freedom for people. People of many persuasions would agree with and applaud this. Without faith in God as grounding for such virtues, however, modernists do not have the necessary logical foundations for their virtue claims. If everything that exists came from nothing without a cause, and if it is much more likely that it should not exist at all, and it is eventually going to nothing again, what gives authority to any particular moral claims? Why not have a completely opposite set of morals than what a person or a society has, or even none at all? The prevalence of what seems to be objective moral sentiments in the hearts of people is a significant problem for modernism.
Many modernists, bolstered by Darwinism, expected that with reason as their guide, divorced from faith, life would get better and better for all peoples on earth. To a large degree, their philosophy prevailed, especially in the institutions of the media and public universities. Then the world experienced the twentieth century. In it was witnessed two World Wars, the Great Depression, continued racism including major events such as the Nazi Holocaust against European Jews, atomic warfare and the Cold War, the Vietnam War controversy and the Watergate constitutional scandal in America, and the disastrous failures of Communism in the Soviet Union and China. All of these things shook the confidence of many that modernism could make the world a better place.
Especially in the twentieth century, and particularly after the infamous Scopes Darwinism trial, the Christian Church accepted the division of faith from reason promoted by modernism. It became easier, and seemingly more “spiritual”, to not engage the culture’s intellectual leaders in academia, arts, and media on their own terms with clear, well evidenced, Biblical responses. As a result, the Christian Church became marginalized from being a thought leader in the culture, while it has sometimes still made a difference politically, economically, and socially.
As postmodernism grew in influence, it got away with a “bait and switch” tactic which has not been widely identified. Postmodernism, remember, claims that there are no universally true descriptions of the world and people, called meta-narratives, also called worldviews. Meta-narratives attempt to give universal answers to the big questions of life, such as where did we come from, what gives life meaning, does objective morality exist and what is its content, and what is the possibility of an afterlife? In the postmodern framework, various groups of people develop their group narratives to answer life’s questions. Postmodernism claims that both premodern and modern religions and philosophies are illegitimate when they claim to be “Truth” for everyone. Postmodernism claims that this imposition of “Truth” is oppressive and unfair. Instead, people from various groups and narratives should respect and not question or challenge the beliefs of those who are outside their groups. On the surface, this may sound appealing and very tolerant, but it is the “bait.” While postmodernism presents this posture of tolerance of all groups and persuasions, the “switch” is taking place. Postmodernism is imposing its brand of pluralism as a meta-narrative, demanding that all other groups and persuasions knuckle under and give up their distinct, objective, cross-cultural truth claims, however well or poorly founded. The alleged tolerance of postmodernism is a façade.
Proposed Responses to the Issues
Can these issues be successfully addressed? They can, but it will not be easy. Much of the Christian Church needs to accept a paradigm shift in its approach to faith and reason to accomplish this. If the orthodox evangelical Christian view of its central faith doctrines is accurate, then God exists and is active in the world. Therefore, the paradigm shift can happen. Here are a few thoughts:
First, become more clear about the relationship between faith and reason. The fact is, everyone uses both faith and reason, whether or not they realize it. Faith has come to be understood by many people to be a mystical feeling. In the Bible, Hebrews 11: 1 states, " Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Mystical feeling is, indeed, a part of Biblical faith, but there is more. Consider the words of 1 John: 1: 1-3, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us--that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. " Notice the words "seen," "heard," and "touched." How do these ideas fit in with a mystical feeling? I believe that fitting these pieces together is important for a fully Biblical Christian experience.
Let me illustrate with an example from Christian theologian and law professor John Warwick Montgomery. When we want to walk across a street, we do certain things. We look both ways. We consider the condition of the street, whether it is dry, wet, icy, and so on. We consider our walking speed. We consider the speed of any approaching vehicles. If considering these factors makes crossing the street an acceptable risk, then we cross the street. Now, when we cross the street, is there 100% certainty that we will reach the other side safely? Of course not. Perhaps we would figure that there is an 85% chance of crossing the street safely. So do we take 85% of ourselves across the street? Of course not. We take all 100% of ourselves across. So how do we understand the relationship between the 85% and the 15%? The solution is that, in this example, the 85% is reason and the 15% is faith.
The above example illustrates how we operate constantly in the world. There is never 100% certainty about anything in our world of multiple uncertainties. Do we, therefore, decline to make any decisions or to take any actions because of the uncertainties? Of course not. We reasonably calculate the approximate odds of gaining the desired result of buying a product, choosing a career, or committing to a relationship. We then, in faith, make decisions and take actions, despite the uncertainties. Faith takes us beyond what we can understand or forecast.
Biblical faith works in much the same way, as we prayerfully determine what the Biblical responses are that we should make in various situations, despite uncertainties from our perspective. There are frequent choices we must make that are similar to calculating the safety of crossing the street. On the basis of prayerful and Biblical consideration of our options (reason), we can choose to commit to the best path (faith).
I need to add that dissecting faith and reason in this way is somewhat arbitrary for the purpose of illustration. In practice, faith and reason are working together throughout the processes of our decisions and actions. We exercise faith in God's sovereignty over circumstances as we reasonably calculate our faith responses to situations, and exercising faith, in time, becomes the reasonable thing to do.
Second, become moer reasonable through recovering logical thinking skills. Christians nowadays are often very competent at technical thinking, or artistic thinking, or practical problem-solving, but are weak at spotting the fallacies in statements that are used to neutralize their faith and witness. The reason for this is that the Christian Church in the West has largely accepted the Faith/Reason split demanded by modernism. Here are a few examples of the kinds of challenges that should be handled more effectively. Have you heard the one that says that “everything is relative?” This is an example of a self-defeating statement. It fails to meet its own standard. The effective response is that if everything is relative, then the statement that everything is relative is also relative, and therefore meaningless. So everything cannot be relative. Another claim is that “no one can really know the truth.” Well, is that a claim to really know the truth that no one can know the truth? It also fails. Here is a popular one (especially with scientists): “Science is the only source of truth.” Question: do you think they get this from the scientific method, with test tubes, Bunsen burners, and the like? Or do they get it from philosophical reasoning? Upon reflection, the statement that science is the only source of truth is another self-defeating statement. Confidence in the scientific method is itself faith. Life lived totally by reason or science does not exist. And on it goes. There is nothing contrary between true spirituality and clear thinking. It is not an either/or choice. When we learn to clear away the bad ideas that float around in our culture, we can get to what matters, which is, is Christian faith, or any other truth claim, true or not, and how might we know?
Many Christians have learned to think of their faith as a personal, subjective experience, separate from objective evidence and reason. It is easier, in a sense, to depend upon personal experience, no matter what. All one has to do is to insist that one’s inner, subjective personal experience is correct, and that it cannot be challenged rationally or evidentially. The problem with that approach is that anyone with any spiritual view can say the same thing. Indeed, in the Christian understanding, it is part of the role of God the Holy Spirit to relate to us personally. He brings to us the gifts of repentance, faith, and relational closeness to God, along with guidance and enablement to apply God's Word, the Bible. The Bible, taken as a whole, encourages both subjective and objective sources for faith. It is important to follow all of the sources for faith wherever they lead. This leads to the next point.
Third, when we learn to think more skillfully, it is important howwe think. I would suggest that in thinking about spiritual things, a premodern approach is the most helpful. Remember that the premodern equation is “Faith + Reason = Truth.” Faith and reason, in the premodern sense, were both compatible with science and other evidence. Biblical faith is not anti-rational mysticism, but can be thought of as confidence based on both subjective and objective evidence. So, what is the objective evidence for Biblical Christianity? I will not take the time or space here to cover it exhaustively. I will suggest resources for that. Here I will present a basic outline for investigation and consideration.
There is evidence for the beginning of the universe. It is not rational to think of the universe as eternal, and if the universe had a beginning out of nothing, it makes sense that there had to be a personal beginner. In other words, if there was a Big Bang at the beginning of space, time, energy, and matter, there had to be a Big Banger. There is also evidence for the fine tuning of the chemistry and physics of the universe, for the conditions which would make Earth a life-permitting planet, and for the specified and complex nature of life, including human life, on Earth. In addition, there is the fact that human beings seem to recognize objective morality. We think that some things are really good, and some things are really bad, and that other people should recognize them also. But objective morality cannot exist as the sum of many persons’ subjective moral feelings. Objective morality seems to require a source from outside of humanity. Finally, the major Christian truth claims have strong evidential support. The Bible passes the normal tests for an historically reliable source. In it, Jesus Christ viewed Himself as one in being with God, yet He was a separate person from the Father and the Holy Spirit who are also God. Jesus Christ came to deal with sin, which separated humankind from God. Jesus performed miracles and fulfilled many ancient prophecies about Himself. He predicted and accomplished His own Resurrection from the dead, which sealed His victory over sin and death, won by His own perfect, substitutionary suffering and death on a Roman cross.
Conclusion
We should be willing to follow the best reasoning and evidence wherever it leads, and to put our faith there. Postmodernism, while having a degree of healthy skepticism about modernism, is skeptical to the point of defeating itself. Modernism ends in humanity's being nothing but the accidental product of chemistry and physics. Chemistry is the physical stuff of the universe, and physics describes how it operates. That provides no place for meaning, morals, or personality, because consistent physicalist modernism has no mechanism of its own to explain non-physical things. Premodernism is the most coherent system within itself, and best corresponds to the world around us. The premodern approach provides the justified framework for the reconciling of Faith and Reason.
Resources
For Logical Thinking:
Koukl, Greg. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions.
Geisler, Norman L. and Brooks, Ronald M. Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking.
For Christian Theistic Evidence:
Franzwa, Jeff. The Main Thing- Jesus the Christ, Crucified and Resurrected. http://reasoningfaith.com/the-main-thing.html
Geisler, Norman L. and Turek, Frank. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.
Habermas, Gary R. and Licona, Michael R. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
For Worldview Analysis:
Franzwa, Jeff. What in the World(view)? : A Simple Tool for Analyzing Your Most Basic Convictions. http://reasoningfaith.com/what-in-the-worldview.html
Samples, Kenneth R. A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test
Pearcey, Nancy. Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning.
* Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of the Bible.