A Jesus Creed post (via Through a Glass Darkly) asks an excellent question about faith vs. reason. Here are the 4+1 categories:
(1) Faith requires the renunciation of intelligence. Any elaboration here would detract from my principle point – so I will forbear.
(2) Intellectual integrity requires the renunciation of faith. This is a growing view in our world today. Secular humanism and atheism may not be in ascendancy (Alister McGrath, NT Wright, Tim Keller, and Brian McLaren all make this point in various ways) – but the view has become the de facto operating principle for many; the point of departure. More importantly, the accepted alternatives to atheism or materialism do not usually include orthodox Christian faith.
(3) By the skin of one’s teeth one can hold to both faith and integrity. But within this position there is a constant tension. We bracket off the questions and continue to function – barely. Many stories – both of those who “lost faith” and those who “retained faith” include this approach in the mix.
(4) Intellectual integrity demands faith. A modernistic “evidence that demands a verdict” approach. (Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Hugh Ross, …)
I would add a fifth response to this taxonomy:
(5) Intellectual integrity is fully compatible with faith but requires honest interaction. There is no proof - some ambiguity remains. Of course honest grappling with all the questions and issues is somewhat unnerving to many. It seems inevitable that some views will be refined or even abandoned in the process and this prospect causes concern. Perhaps it is not true that everything is clear cut. Nonetheless there is a way forward. Exploring the issues does not lead inevitably to deism or liberalism or apostasy.
First, my little rant. I do not mean to offend anyone who considers herself or himself in Category 4, but I have written about Josh McDowell elsewhere on this blog and I have a difficult time admitting he has intellectual integrity. I find his arguments illogical and his conclusions difficult to embrace. He strikes me as one who has pre-determined the result and tries to make an argument which supports this conclusion even when the argument does not make sense. I find his language in some arguments almost deceitful. He holds a conservative, fundamentalist view of scripture and that is fine. But to masquerade his faulty arguments as logical proof that he is correct is damaging to the Christian faith, in my opinion.
Now that my little tirade is over …
I grew up in a Fundamentalist family and church. Back then, I would have considered myself in Category 4, right along side Josh McDowell. But it was all one-sided. I read Christian literature which bashed evolution but never anything written by anyone holding a different viewpoint. I would have considered myself as reasonably supporting my faith with scientific evidence but, in hindsight, I wasn’t. The “other side” was wrong from the get-go because it did not correspond to our interpretation of the Bible and so there was no point in getting their opinion or listening to them. They listen to someone you know is wrong?!
Senior year in high school, I served my parents’ God with divorce papers and proceeded into Category 2. All religion was poppycock and the only intelligent position was secular and atheistic.
It took me until just before my 40th birthday to realize that there was something missing. And now I’m in Category 5. And RJS describes the situation very well. “Exploring the issues does not lead inevitably to deism or liberalism or apostasy.” True! True!
However, from my parents’ point of view it does because it has lead me away from their point of view and they don’t acknowledge any other as valid. And this is part of the problem. For some people, anything that makes them question what they believe is a heresy. They hold so tightly and desperately to one interpretation and maintain that they must believe what they believe in its entirety. Any deviation in any way would make them question everything.
Yes, what is needed “honest interaction” but both sides need to be willing and able to change. One side cannot be molded to fit the rigid ideas of the other. The result of this is either atheism or fundamentalism and neither is an option for me any more. What is needed is a folding of the two together with the result that the tenets of both evolve together. Kind of like stereo vision. Each eye sees a different scene. There is some overlap but each eye sees some things the other doesn’t. But combined, the resulting image is much more powerful and holds more information than either eye’s separate image.
But I would add that both sides also must realize that it does not hold the possibility of answering all the questions. There are questions that the Bible cannot answer and there are questions that science cannot answer. If everyone would understand this and agree to it, I think a lot of problems would simply vanish.
Sphere: Related Content
