Think for Christ

So, what is philosophy anyway? In this introductory episode we take a look at the nature of philosophy, its characteristics, and its various fields. We then consider a working definition of philosophy. Philosophy is generally divided into three broad fields. First there is Metaphysics, or the study of being; then epistemology, or the study of knowledge; finally there is value theory, or the study of value in general and ethics in particular. Logic is also sometimes classed as a philosophical field, but it's better to think of logic as a tool or instrument that philosophers us rather than as a field of study. The nature of philosophy is somewhat brought to light when we see the general fields of inquiry that philosophers concern themselves with. It can also be helpful to see philosophy at work insofar as it functions as second-order discipline. A second order question is a question about another question, a so-called first-order question. So, for example, a first-order question will have the structure “What is X?” whereas a second-order question will be structured as a question about the first-order question: “What is the meaning of the question, ‘What is X?’” Likewise, a second-order discipline is an inquiry that studies another discipline, a first-order discipline. First-order disciplines are subjects of study that concern themselves with some particular aspect or order of reality; these are familiar to us: mathematics, biology, psychology, history, etc. Second-order disciples, on the other hand, inquire into the nature of these first-order disciplines by examining their underlying assumptions, criticizing their methods, clarifying concepts that they deploy, and evaluating the truth claims made. Philosophy can be defined as the attempt to think rationally and critically about the most important questions.There are three elements to this definition and each one captures something essential to the nature of philosophy. First, philosophy is a rational enterprise. To be rational is to be guided by reason, to hold views that are based on reasons; that are supported by evidence and argument. Philosophers strive for clarity and precision in language and carefulness in reasoning. Philosophers don’t just make claims and hold opinions, they try to provide cogent and sound arguments to support their claims and opinions. Philosophy is also a critical enterprise. To be critical in this sense is to subject all claims to truth to rigorous analysis. Philosophers examine assumptions, clarify concepts, require justification, and test all claims against the light of reason, evidence, and arguments. Finally, philosophy deals with the most important questions in life. It’s hard to imagine more important questions than those that deal with the fundamental nature of reality, knowledge, and morality. Philosophy is also for everybody and it's something that everybody does. At various points in our lives, we all consider the most important questions of life, questions related to the nature of reality, to knowledge, to ethics and morality. Moreover, we all want to hold views that are rational and we all criticize views that we disagree with and scrutinize them in the light of reason. Philosophy is not a domain exclusive to scholars in ivory towers, it’s not something that only professionals can engage in. Now, the fact that we all do philosophy from time to time doesn’t mean that we all do it well. To be honest, most people in our intellectually shallow society are pretty crappy at thinking rationally and critically about the big questions in life. So, since philosophy is actually unavoidable for you in life, you may as well try to get better at it.

It’s instructive to think about human reason as a kind of light. Light enables our eyes to have access to the world––it illuminates things so that they may be seen by us. Likewise, by the light of reason human beings are able to see/understand that which is intelligible in things.By means of physical light we are able to see physical things in reality (a tree, a dog, a human); by means of the light of reason we are able to see the intelligible natures of things in reality (treeness, dogness, and humanness); the mind has the fundamental and irreducible power to abstract the universal natures of things from particular instances. This is just to say that the human mind has been made to understand that which is intelligible in nature.By the way, this is what makes the human mind unique and utterly distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom; non-human animals lack the light of reason. The light of reason also makes the human mind irreplicable by any machine; no matter how sophisticated artificial intelligence becomes in mimicking certain kinds of human thought processes, it will never be able to attain the ability to reason.So, by the light of reason we come to know that which is intelligible in nature; now, as we’ve seen in an earlier episode in this series, by the same light we can also come to know some things about the source and creator of nature. Although we cannot see God directly by means of the light of reason, we can see him indirectly through his effects; we can reason from the creature to the creator, from the effect to the cause. Of course, what we can know about God through the light of reason is going to be limited.Yet, again as we’ve seen, there is another kind of light that is given to believers; it’s a light by which we can see more clearly the nature of the divine––we can call this the light of faith.

Recently I was out of town and away from my local church and I was watching a sermon on tv being delivered by a local pastor from the city in which I was staying. This was a very popular pastor in the city and the head of a large church with several satellite campuses, so he was speaking to thousands of people. He made a statement in his sermon that I found to be deeply problematic. He said, “Those who come to God must be willing to take a step of faith that is, in part, unreasonable.” He had the word ‘unreasonable’ projected on the screen in all caps, bold, and underlined. He then said this, “If it were only always reasonable, what then would be the point of faith?” He was saying that you have a choice to make: is it going to be faith OR is it going to be reason? You are either going to be guided by reason or guided by faith. Apparently, it can’t be both. So, here we have an evangelical Christian pastor with significant influence over thousands of people implicitly perpetuating the idea that there exists a conflict between faith and reason: that faith is contrary to reason. If you’ve been following this series so far you will know that this is just an unfortunate, and sadly, all-too-common, confusion. As I have tried to show over the course of three episodes, faith properly understood, is not contrary to reason, faith is contrary to sight. The writer of Hebrews doesn’t say that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things that are unreasonable, but rather of things that are not seen. As I have tried to show, faith is a mode of knowing that relies on the testimony of another rather than on that which is “seen” through sensation or intellection. We exercise faith when believing something we cannot see either with the “eye” of sensation (by which we know beings in the world), or with the “eye” of the intellect (by which we understand first principles and what follows from them). It is critical for us to understand that believing something in the absence of sight is not the same as believing something in the absence of reason. It is always appropriate and rational to believe something in the absence of sight when that belief is based on the testimony of a trustworthy witness. It is never appropriate or rational to believe something in the absence of reason––we ought never to believe something that is unreasonable. Now, there are things that go beyond reason, things that are suprarational, things we cannot fully comprehend with our finite intellects. But, once again, believing something that is beyond reason is not the same as believe something that is unreasonable; believing something that is suprarational is not the same as believing something that is irrational. Many of the things that we believe as Christians are beyond the ability of our intellects to fully comprehend (our finite minds can never fully comprehend the infinite God); yet it is reasonable for us to believe things that we cannot fully comprehend for ourselves as long as we rely in the testimony of one who can comprehend them and who can therefore bear witness to them. So, when properly understood, there is no conflict between the notion of faith and the notion of reason, as such. The truth of the matter is that the relationship between Christian faith and reason is not one of conflict, but of harmony. In fact, despite what we hear all the time from well-meaning pastors, Christian faith is not, in any way, a blind, an illogical, or an irrational faith, rather, Christian faith is a an eminently reasonable faith.

My intention in the last two episodes has been to disabuse us of the idea that faith and reason are somehow fundamentally at odds with one another or that faith is an exclusively religious phenomenon, by showing that faith is a natural, rational, and practically unavoidable mode of human knowing. We believe things by faith when we trust in the testimony of another. If the person that we believe is trustworthy, then our faith will be, to that extent, reasonable.But what about theological faith, or what has traditionally been called the theological virtue of faith? Is there anything unique or special about the kind of faith that Christian believers have in God and in his redemptive work in Christ? It is now time for us to consider this important question.

Last time we looked at defective view of faith, which is the idea that faith is a kind of noncognitive, irrational, and emotional activity that is entirety distinct from and even in opposition to reason. We also briefly considered a much better definition of faith that accords with our ordinary, commonsense usage: faith is belief based on the authority and testimony of another. In this episode we are going to take a deeper look at faith by analyzing it further as a natural and rational mode of human knowing.

In my experience, one of the most poorly understood relations among believers is that of faith and reason. Few have a clear understanding of the nature of faith, fewer still have a clear understanding of the relationship between faith and reason in the life of a Christian. So, over the next several episodes we’re going to tackle the subject head-on and try to work our way out of this confusion. Perhaps you’ve heard some well-meaning believer say something like this: “Christianity is all about faith, or the heart, and not about reason, or the head. I don’t need evidence, argument, or reasons. I just have faith.” This sentiment may seem pious, but it actually perpetuates the false and dangerous notion that faith and reason are mutually exclusive and even in conflict with each other. The idea here is that faith takes over where reason leaves off; one must make a “leap of faith into the dark” in order to be a Christian; one must “check the brain at the door” when they enter the church. I think that many Christian believers unreflectively assume a view of faith like this; that faith is just a kind of a raw act of the will or a decision to believe that requires little involvement from the intellect. But this conception of faith is just confused and completely misguided. To see this, let’s just consider for a moment our everyday, common notion of faith. When we say that we have faith in a person, we usually mean simply that we trust that person; when we take on faith what a person tells us, we are simply accepting the person’s testimony as being trustworthy. Our everyday, commonsense notion of faith is simply this: believing something based on the authority or testimony of another. That’s it. There’s no notion here of a blind leap into the dark, or of a suspension of our rational faculties, or of gullibility. These are all ideas that we often associate with the idea of faith, but that are no part of the notion of faith as such or in itself. Whether or not our faith or trust in the authority or word of another is rational or reasonable is a separate question. If the authority or witness in whom we have placed our faith is trustworthy, if we have good reason to believe that they are an authority in what they say, then our faith is reasonable, it is rational to trust them. If, on the other hand, the authorities or witnesses in whom we have placed our faith are untrustworthy––if we have no good reason to trust what they say, or if we have good reason to doubt that they are an authority in what they say––then our faith will be to that extent unreasonable; it will be irrational to put our faith in them. Faith as trust or belief based on the authority or testimony of another will be reasonable or unreasonable depending on the quality of the witness. Credible witnesses make for a reasonable faith. Faith is not a defective act of the mind, it is a natural and legitimate mode of human knowing.

In the last episode I addressed the common concern that deep intellectual engagement leads to doubt and a crisis of faith. Here I consider a second concern often raised by well-meaning Christians. It is sometimes claimed that a focus on the intellectual side of the faith will result in intellectualism. By ‘intellectualism’ I mean a kind of an emotionless, affection-less, or dispassionate pursuit of knowledge. There is a worry that too much of a focus on the mind can produce a dryness of soul and a passionless faith. Moreover, some maintain that the pursuit of knowledge distracts believers from what is really important, namely personal devotion. Now, these are valid concerns that we should take seriously, we certainly do not want our intellectual pursuit to devolve into a stale intellectualism. Happily though, a life of intellectual engagement doesn’t have to lead to intellectualism and can instead lead to a deeper devotion and a more profound religious experience. And this brings us to the final and the greatest benefit that comes from pursuing a life of the mind for Christ: elevate your worship.

Many people share the general assumption that intellectual pursuit is dangerous to the Christian soul; there is a fear that too much worldly wisdom, or secular learning will lead to doubt; that science and philosophy in particular are antithetical to faith. I understand why people think this way; it seems that today “experts” in every academic discipline are making claims that seem to be at odds with Christianity. This seems especially true in the fields of philosophy and science; philosophers today seem to be in the business of doubting and criticizing everything we’ve ever held dear and there is a general feeling that science and faith are at war with each other. But I’m convinced that deep intellectual engagement is actually good for the Christian soul. Cultivating your intellect can actually reinforce and fortify your faith. In fact, I think that this is one of the most important benefits of pursuing a life of the mind; engaging your mind for Christ is one of the very best ways to strengthen your faith.

Christians are engaged in a spiritual war. This is not a war of bombs and bullets, but of ideas. Since the intellect is the realm of ideas, the spiritual war is, to a large extent, a war that wages on the battleground of the intellect. There is a spiritual clash of ideas happening all around us. False ideas make up the arsenal of the enemy, and to fight back, Christians have been armed with the truth. We attack false ideas by exposing them to the light of reason and Scripture. So, if you want to be well-trained spiritual soldier on the battleground of the intellect, you’ll need to be proficient in the use of your intellectual weaponry. Christians today find themselves in the middle of a global spiritual war; we’re caught in the crossfire of ideas that in one way or another come straight from hell. This is not mystical or invisible war being fought in some dimension inaccessible to our sight; the battles in this war are being fought right before our eyes, every day in the places we are most familiar with; in our homes, in our schools, in our churches, in our government, in our own minds. In this hour, the church needs soldiers well-equipped to engage in this war of ideas, intellects that are dedicated to Christ and skilled in the art of spiritual battle, who can effectively wield the weapon of truth to demolish intellectual strongholds, to destroy arguments, and to cast down every opinion raised against the knowledge of God.

The next benefit that comes from pursuing a life of the mind is the learning of intellectual humility. The most arrogant people around are usually the ones who think that they know more than they actually know. Having some knowledge or a little learning can often lead to overconfidence and self-assurance. As Alexander Pope once wrote, "A little learning is a dangerous thing." One of the very best remedies for intellectual arrogance is to gain true understanding, to gain wisdom. Wisdom brings humility since it includes an understanding of the nature of reality, the order of things, and one's place in it all. To have wisdom is to know the limits of your own knowledge. It is to understand the boundaries of your own understanding. It is to be aware of your own ignorance. This sobering state makes possible the priceless perception of the relation one bears to the world, to others, and to God. As the life of Socrates so vividly illustrates, humility is the reward of true wisdom.