Faith and Truth

8 November 2008

Earlier this year I read a book on epistemology. Not being much of a philosopher myself, some of it undoubtedly went over my head, but it did get me thinking about how I would define my own theory of epistemology. In other words, how do I know what is true? I have no doubt that my thoughts on this matter aren’t original (there is probably even a fancy name for my views). And I am sure that some of my more philosophically savvy readers can blow plenty of holes in this, but I present it here anyway.

My basic idea is that all knowledge is faith based. Everything I believe is based on some kind of trust relationship. The stronger my faith or trust is in something, the more firmly I believe what it tells me.

So for example. I believe I ate cornflakes for breakfast this morning. It is a strongly held belief because I trust my short-term memory. However, if you ask me what my phone number was while I was at university, I think I can remember it, but my certainty is not so high. The strength of my belief is based on the strength of my faith in something (my memory in this case).

Another example. I believe that Arsenal drew 0-0 with Panathinaikos on Wednesday in the Champions League. This belief is solely based on the BBC’s report of the match. I have no other evidence whatsoever for this belief. It is a strongly held belief because I trust the BBC to be truthful reporters (on matters of football results at least).

All of my scientific beliefs are also trust-based. If I believe that the speed of light is a constant, it is not because I have in any way “proved” it, but simply because I trust the superior intellects of the scientific community. If I say that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, it is because I trust Wikipedia. If I perform an experiment to measure it, I must trust the accuracy of the measuring equipment, as well as my own competence to perform the experiment correctly.

So I do not consider my religious beliefs to be any special category of “faith-based” beliefs. They are again the result of a trust relationship. As a Christian, I trust Jesus - meaning that I believe him to be a speaker of truth. This necessitates that I have at least some level of trust in the Bible, first because it is the source of what Jesus said, and second because Jesus himself placed great trust in the Scriptures.

Which brings me onto my second observation, which is about how we acquire, maintain and change our beliefs. As small children we are inherently trusting of what our parents tell us. Later we go to school and believe our teachers. But sooner or later we learn that there are such things as lies, and such things as contradictory viewpoints. When we hear a competing truth claim, or see something that conflicts with our understanding of the truth, then we are forced to re-evaluate our trust relationships.

As an example, let’s return to the BBC. I consider the BBC to be a trustworthy news agency. I am strongly inclined to believe their reports are truthful and impartial. But suppose I am reading a news article about evangelicalism which I judge to be factually incorrect and strongly biased. Now my trust relationship needs to be re-evaluated. I become more cynical and wary concerning what they report.

And the same follows with my religious beliefs. Undoubtedly my early belief in God was based on the faith of my parents, and those at the church I attended. I trusted the Bible simply because I was told it was true. But as I grew older, I came across those who didn’t believe the Bible, and their arguments against it. Each time it caused a re-evaluation of my trust relationships.

Whenever there is a re-evaluation of a trust relationship because it has been challenged by a competing claim, three outcomes can occur. First of all, we might consider our original belief to have survived the challenge. In this case, our trust is likely to become even stronger. Second, we might consider the challenge to have some merit, but not enough to cause us to reject our original belief. We then enter a period of doubt or agnosticism, awaiting more evidence that will sway us one way or the other. The third outcome is that we consider the challenge to be successful. Our original trust-relationship is broken (often causing a cascading effect of tearing down other related beliefs) and a new one is formed.

So in conclusion, I cannot accept the idea often heard from people like Richard Dawkins that true beliefs are those based solely on “evidence” and “rationality”. Evidence must be trusted before we base a belief on it, and my ability to reason flawlessly from premise to conclusion cannot be taken for granted.

So the things I believe are all based on faith. I might trust a scientific theory because I trust the textbook it is written in, but when I perform my own experiments and see with my own eyes that the predictions it makes are valid, then my level of trust in that theory grows. It is exactly the same with faith in Jesus. My level of faith and trust can only grow if I take him at his word and do the things he says. Only then will I see if he is telling me the truth or not, and only then will my faith grow as he proves himself faithful to me.

5 comments

A reader 19 November 2008

You say: ..My level of faith and trust can only grow if I take him at his word and do the things he says. Only then will I see if he is telling me the truth or not, and only then will my faith grow as he proves himself faithful to me...I do not think that it is a very good test to assess the veracity of your faith..I think there are several examples in both the OT and the NT where what the Bible says is likely not to prove itself to be true for many in life..For instance, the story of Job. He himself acknowledged that good things do not necessarily happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. This idea in the Bible that there are punishments and rewards according to one's actions has already been proven to be false for many people. With some experience in life, you will see that this idea of punishments and rewards according to one's deeds simply is not true. If I was strict logically on this matter, only one example contradicting this idea is enough to prove this idea to be false...I think you are in the right track in trying to understand the way you believe in your religious beliefs and in what you consider as being true..It is an important self-exploration and you can only strengthen yourself further by doing it...It is obvious that there are truths that cannot be double-checked by concrete evidence, facts and therefore one has to use intuition to assess them as being possible true..For instance, the existence of God as the creator of this Universe. Or the existence of aliens in other planets and galaxies..The existence of God cannot be proven to be true nor cannot be proven to be false. Does it mean that God does not exist? NO!.Same for aliens. But with billions of galaxies and we on earth being a tiny planet, it is very likely that somewhere on another planet in other galaxies other living beings exist. Are they more intelligent than us or more primitive? We do not know but the likelihood (in probabilities) that aliens exist in other planets in other galaxies is very high or at least very plausible...So, probably one has to find a way to rely as often as possible on concrete, tangible facts to label something as being true. However, for things that cannot be supported easily by concrete facts, then one has to use intuition that of course does not rely on concrete facts but on what you call a kind of trust that something is true...You seem to be an honest thinker and that is what I found good when I read you. Keep being honest in your exploration of the way you think and believe and that is all that matters...All the best..An occasional reader
Mark Heath 22 November 2008

thanks, .occasional reader.. I think you misunderstand what I mean by my faith growing. I do not mean that I assume that only good things can happen to me if I follow Jesus. In fact, the Bible warns that believers will face suffering of various kinds. I do mean though that passivity will not build trust in God. For example, suppose I think that if I am generous with my money I will land up in financial trouble. So I choose not to give it away. By doing so, I miss out on a lesson in trusting God, and experiencing his provision. My faith in him will not grow. But I am not saying that my faith can only grow if I give it away and immediately God sends some extra money my way. It might not work out like that, but the opportunity to grow in trusting God remains that I would not have had if I remained passive.
Steve Haines 13 December 2008

Mark - I'm not sure I understand your comment:...So I do not consider my religious beliefs to be any special category of .faith-based. beliefs....My own experience in becoming a Christian was that I moved from .(a) not believing the Christian message, to (b) believing it to be true, and then several weeks later to .(c) trusting in Christ..Although I was convinced at point (b) I did not have saving faith until point (c). Something supernatural happened which was not the same as any other category of belief/knowledge...Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I'd be interested in your view.
Mark Heath 13 December 2008

Hi Steve, I agree that your steps b and c are very different things. One is a mental assent to certain facts, while the other is trusting a person. And theologically I agree that to get to point c, a supernatural work of God is required, but this is not because trusting Christ is not rational, but rather that we are too stubborn/weak/foolish to do so...What I have been trying to say in this post (and judging by the responses, rather clumsily), is that when we consider the epistemological warrant for any belief, it is always based on a trust relationship...In moving to step b, you started to trust the truthfulness of the Bible and your Christian friends. And this may be the result of compelling logical arguments, or various evidence of Jesus as work in the world today. But unlike believing that the world is round, which doesn't require you to do anything about it, believing Jesus rose from the dead presents a further challenge - will we trust his claims about himself and therefore entrust ourselves to him? ..So you are right that the difference between .religious. beliefs and other types of belief might be different in the details of how we come to acquire those beliefs and how we act on them. I was trying to disagree with the view held by people like Dawkins that there is one kind of belief that is .rational, objective, evidence-based. and another wholy different kind of belief that has no such warrant. The types of evidence may be different, but the rationality of those beliefs cannot be so easily dismissed...Not sure if that made things clearer or not!
Steve Haines 14 December 2008

Yeah, I think I get it! Thanks for taking the time to work through this :)