Faith and Reason
Is there a relationship between faith and reason? For starters, there needs to be a definition of the terms involved in this topic. Reason or rationalism can be an ambiguous term whose meaning may vary greatly according to the context in which it is used in. To say one is rational is to be guided by legitimate reasoning. Reason can be defined as the relatively neutral human function for assessing evidence and arguments. It is important to realize that reason assesses knowledge claims; it does not generate them. (1) Hence, to assert that humans only know things by reason is a circular argument. And contrary to what many people think, faith is not the opposite of reason or irrationality. Biblically speaking, the opposite of faith is unbelief while the opposite of rationality is irrationality.
A worldview is an explanation of why things are the way they are. A worldview must explain all of the pieces of the puzzle we call reality. One aspect of reality is that humans have the ability to reason. Reason is generally manifested in three areas: philosophy, logic, and systematic criteria (see more below).
There is a direct relationship between epistemology (the study of knowledge), and ontology (the study of reality and being). In other words, logic is prior to God in the order of knowing, but God is prior to logic in the order of being. Logic, along with other metaphysical truths are part of what are called first principles. Without first principles, there would be no knowledge. In other words, since first principles are self-evident truths they require no foundation. Here are some first principles:
I. Self-evident propositions about logic
A. Law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A).
B. Law of identity (A is A).
C. Law of excluded middle (either A or non-A).
D. Laws of valid inference.
II. Self-evident propositions about knowledge
A. Something can be known.
B. Opposites cannot both be true.
C. Everything cannot be false.
III. Self-evident propositions about existence
A. Something exists (e.g., I do).
B. Nothing cannot produce something.
C. Everything that comes to be is caused.
There are two types of causes: natural and intelligent. In a biblical worldview, a human's ability to reason does not originate from mindless matter. Instead, a humans ability to reason reflects an intelligent Mind. In his book, Naming The Elephant: Worldview as Concept: James Sire says,
The Word, who is the Logos is the very principle of rationality, purpose and meaning, that characterizes God himself. The Logos made the world, that is, reasonability, intelligibility, and meaningfulness. It is by the Word that all things were made. Human knowledge is only possible because he who created knows all things exhaustively is also the “light of all people” (John 1:4). Jesus the Messiah is the “true light which enlightens everyone” (John 1:9). This is why we can know.
As Norman Geisler says: God is a rational Being, and man is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Since God thinks rationally, man was given the same capacity. Brute beasts, by contrast, are called “irrational” (Jude 10). The basis laws of human reason are common to believer and unbeliever; without them, there would be no writing, thinking, or rational inference. Nowhere are these laws spelled out in the Bible. Rather, they are part of God’s general revelation and special object of philosophical thought.(2)
In their book, 101 Key Terms In Philosophy And Their Importance For Theology, authors K.J Clark, R. Lints, and James K.A. Smith define rationality as the quality of an individual who has done her best to acquire true beliefs. Rationality is a matter of how one believes, not what one believes. In philosophy, the pre-modern period is categorized as the Judeo-Christian period before the Enlightenment. In a pre-modern epistemology, it is assumed that God exists that there is no starting point of knowledge apart from Him. As of today, many in our culture have opted for a form of rationalism that was birthed during the Enlightenment period. Some of the thinkers of the Enlightenment were theists and deists. But most importantly with the birth of Darwinian evolution, philosophical naturalism came to be a dominant view of many modern scientists and thinkers. The type of rationalism birthed during this period can be labeled as what Francis Schaeffer termed "autonomous reason," which is the haughty human attempt to build a worldview without recourse to God. (3) In epistemology, instead of starting with God, it began with the finite “I.” In other words, it was time to not be dependant on God for the knowing process. While the Christian is called to use good reason (hence, he is called to be rational), which the Bible commends to discover truth (Isa. 1:18; Matt. 22:27;1 Pt. 3:15), he is also called to avoid the rationalism of the Enlightenment.
Philosophical or metaphysical naturalism refers to the view that nature is the “whole show.” The universe is a closed system. There is no such thing as any intelligent, or miraculous intervention. In the debate over science, there is also great confusion about the difference between primary and secondary causes. Biblical theism does acknowledge that while God is the primary Cause of all things, He also works through secondary causes. In other words, God acts in the world through direct intervention (a miracle such as creation or the resurrection of Jesus) and natural causes or indirect actions (preservation). And if you study the history of modern science, there was a period where the some of the founders of modern science did not allow for all causes to be explained by natural, or secondary causes. In other words, they allowed for both a primary Cause (that being God as the originator of things ) and secondary causes-the operation of the world. But as of today, the primary Cause which was once God has now been replaced by Blind Chance. Oh well! To read more about this issue, see- Miracles and Modern Scientific Thought: Norman Geisler. The following chart is an illustration of what I am talking about:
The Problem with Evidentialism
Part of the debate about reason and rationality in relationship to faith centers around evidentialism, which maintains that one must have evidence and arguments for one's beliefs (in God) to be rational. The Enlightenment created a challenge for Christian philosophers to answer the evidentialist’s objection to religious belief. Philosopher William Clifford made the evidentialist objection famous by stating the following: "If a belief has been accepted on insufficient evidence, the pleasure is a stolen one. Not only does it deceive ourselves by giving us a sense of power which we do not really possess, but it is sinful, because it is stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind.That duty is to guard ourselves from such beliefs as from a pestilence which may shortly master our body and spread to the rest of the town. To sum up: It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." (4)
Many people attempt to apply Clifford’s objection to religious belief. However, as much as the skeptic likes to rely on the Clifford objection, it is nothing but a self-defeating statement. When a statement is included in its own subject matter and fails to satisfy its own standards of acceptability, it is self-defeating. Some examples of self-defeating statements are seen in statements such as “I cannot write a word of English;” “there is no truth;” and “there are no truths that cannot be verified scientifically, with the five senses."
Therefore, in the case of God, who isn't a physical object but a invisible divine being, it is imperative to clarify what qualifies as evidence. It is during these types of debates where the "strong rationalism" of many skeptics and atheists rears it's ugly head. The atheist or skeptic can be overly focused on the verification principle. Verification has to do with how to test the meaning or truth of a claim.
The evidential issue is sometimes seen as the need to find some sort of airtight argument for God’s existence. One of these keys to engaging in conversations such as these is to clarify terms. In evaluating terms such as proof and evidence, we need to remember the equivocation issue. Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense.
When a proof is given, it is many times given in the form of a deductive or inductive argument which includes two premises and a conclusion. While deductive logic looks at the cause (or condition) and determines its effects/consequents, inductive logic evaluates the effects and attempts to find the causes. For example, the horizontal cosmological argument is as follows:
1. Everything that comes to be is caused by another.
2. The universe came to be.
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by another.
The theist is not opposed to providing evidential support for their beliefs. However, before an individual evaluates the evidence, it must be acknowledged that a person’s response to an argument will always be influenced by their past and present personal history. Hence, it is folly to divorce the objective and subjective nature of evaluating arguments and evidence for God's existence. Therefore, arguments for God's existence will always have both a logical and psychological element. One of the best solutions to handling the issue of evidence and arguments for God's existence is to utilize what is called inference to the best explanation. This type of explanation is commonly called "abduction" since it is a type of reasoning that is different from induction and deduction. Inference to the best explanation is commonly utilized by apologists that use the cumulative case method. In a cumulative case method, each argument has evidential value but will never lead to any kind of mathematical or logical certainty. The inference to the best explanation model takes into account the best available explanation in our whole range of experience and reflection. To read more about this- see God:The Best Explanation by Paul Copan.
Sometimes, people confuse rationalism with empiricism. Rationalism can be most easily understood by contrast with empiricism. While rationalism stresses the mind in the knowing process, empiricism lays emphasis on the senses. It is important to note that the Bible takes for granted that God has constructed humans in such a way that they can trust their senses. The New Testament writers do appeal to objective eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:2-4; John 1:14; 19:31-35-36; 20:24, 30-31; 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 John 1:1-3).
Many people assume it is irrational to believe in God unless they can use the empirical method to verify that God exists. In other words, many skeptics reject God because they cannot verify that God exists by utilizing their five senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching). So for something to be real, it must be visible. The “principle of empirical verifiability,” which was formulated by the philosopher A.J. Ayer was a dominant view in philosophy departments during the 1960’s. Once again, in critiquing this view, we need to use the principle of logic called self-refutation. In relation to empiricism, if we look at the proposition that we have to believe something is only true if it can tested by the five senses, this statement is self-refuting. The statement alone cannot be tested by the five senses. If I accepted the statement “I only believe what I can see,” then he or she would not be able to accept the statement itself, because the belief is not visible- it can’t be seen. Furthermore, there are several nonempirical things exist that can’t be seen such as numbers, sets, our own thoughts, the laws of logic, propositions, etc.
Arguments can be helpful with some people. But what if an individual does not have the time to examine the arguments for God's existence? Following Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas set forth five reasons why we must first believe what we may later be able to provide good evidence for (Maimonides, 1.34):
1. The object of spiritual understanding is deep and subtle, far removed from sense perception.
2. Human understanding is weak as it fights through these issues.
3. A number of things are needed for conclusive spiritual proof. It takes time to discern them.
4. Some people are disinclined to rigorous philosophical investigation.
5. It is necessary to engage in other occupations besides philosophy and science to provide the necessities of life (On Truth, 14.10, reply).
Aquinas said it is clear that, “if it were necessary to use a strict demonstration as the only way to reach a knowledge of the things which we must know about God, very few could ever construct such a demonstration and even these could do it only after a long time.” Elsewhere, Aquinas lists three basic reasons why divine revelation is needed.
1. Few possess the knowledge of God, some do not have the disposition for philosophical study, and others do not have the time or are indolent.
2. Time is required to find the truth. This truth is very profound, and there are many things that must be presupposed. During youth the soul is distracted by “the various movements of the passions.”
3. It is difficult to sort out what is false in the intellect. Our judgment is weak in sorting true from false concepts. Even in demonstrated propositions there is a mingling of false. (5)
Rationality is not identical with truth since a person may hold a belief for "good reasons" and yet believe what is false. Also, what is rational for one person at a particular sociohistorical time and place might not be rational for another person at a particular time and place. For example, it used to be rational for most people to believe the earth is flat, but that is no longer acceptable.(6)
Faith
Biblical faith is belief, trust, or commitment in God through Jesus the Messiah. Joseph Thayer says,
"To believe" means to think to be true; to be persuaded of; to credit, [to] place confidence in. [And in] a moral and religious reference, pisteuein [from pisteuo] is used in the N.T. of a conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of his soul. (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 511).
Biblical faith involves an objective element (the existence of God, Jesus' resurrection), and a subjective element (the individual must appropriate the objective truths through a subjective act). There have been three aspects of faith expressed throughout church history: notitia (knowledge), fiducia (trust), and assensus (assent). Notitia refers to the data or doctrinal element of faith. Assensus refers to the assent of the intellect of the truth of the Christian faith. According to the book of James, the demons have intellectual assent to the fact that God exists but not have saving faith. That is why a person must exercise fiducia- this is the aspect of faith that involves the application or trust in the faith process. (7)
In other words, fiducia allows a person to go beyond merely intellectual assent. Fiducia involves the will, emotion, and intellect. In the Tanakh (the acronym that is formed from the first three parts of the Hebrew Bible: Torah (the first five books of the Bible), Nevi’ im (the Prophets), and K’ tuvim (the Writings), the Hebrew word for heart is "leb," or "lebad." While the word "heart" is used as a metaphor to describe the physical organ, from a biblical standpoint, it is also the center or defining element of the entire person. It can be seen as the seat of the person's intellectual, emotional, affective, and volitional life. In the New Testament, the word “heart” (Gr.kardia) came to stand for man’s entire mental and moral activity, both the rational and the emotional elements. Therefore, biblical faith involves a commitment of the whole person.
Therefore, there is a relationship between belief that and belief in. As already stated, in James 2:19, it says that the demons believe that God exists. While apologetics may serve as a valuable medium through which God can operate biblical faith is never the product of historical facts or evidence alone. Objectively speaking, the Holy Spirit works in conjunction with the evidence for the truthfulness of the Christian faith to enable us to understand that God exists. However, from a subjective perspective, the Holy Spirit also enables an individual to place his trust in God. (John 16: 12-15).
A good example of this is seen in Acts 17:1-4, “And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ. And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women." In this passage, we see that the Holy Spirit worked through the objective evidence (the Tanakh), which caused some of Paul's audience to not only acknowledge that Jesus is Jewish Messiah, but also to place their trust in Him for their salvation.
Faith and History
There is no doubt that Christianity is a historical faith. Therefore, it has been common for apologists to appeal to the historical evidence of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as a verification of its claim to be true. In 1 Cor 15: 1-17, Paul discusses the truth of Jesus' resurrection. It is important to note that a Christian's faith in the resurrection of Jesus will not change whether Jesus objectively rose from the dead in the context of time, space, and history. In other words, a Christian's faith cannot change the history of the past. The first followers of Jesus had a clear understanding about the relationship between faith and history. As New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III says:
Any position in which claims about Jesus or the resurrection are removed from the realm of historical reality and placed in a subjective realm of personal belief or some realm that is immune to human scrutiny does Jesus and the resurrection no service and no justice. It is a ploy of desperation to suggest that the Christian faith would be little affected if Jesus was not actually raised from the dead in space and time. A person who gives up on the historical foundations of our faith has in fact given up on the possibility of any real continuity between his or her own faith and that of a Peter, Paul, James, John, Mary Magdalene, or Priscilla. The first Christian community had a strong interest in historical reality, especially the historical reality of Jesus and his resurrection, because they believed their faith, for better or for worse, was grounded in it. (8)
Science and Faith
In relation to faith, one issue that is causing a tremendous amount of confusion in the relationship between faith and knowledge is what is called scientism. Because of the misunderstanding between theology and science, faith is tend to viewed as “private and subjective” which has no objective basis to it. As Ian Barbour says in his book, Religion in an Age of Science,"Science starts from reproducible public data. Theories are formulated and their implications are tested against experimental observations. Additional criteria of coherence, comprehensiveness, and fruitfulness influence choice among theories. Religious beliefs are not acceptable, in this view, because religion lacks public data, such as experiential testing, and such criteria of evaluation. Science alone is objective, open-minded, universal, cumulative, and progressive. Religious traditions, by contrast, are said to be subjective, closed-minded, parochial, uncritical, and resistant to change."
While the Christian worldview is not opposed to science, it does recognize the limitations of science in relation to the discovery of human knowledge. In some cases, scientism tends to reduce all legitimate knowledge (epistemology) to the scientific method. Therefore, this form of science ends up committing the reductive fallacy by taking one area of study and reduces all reality to this one area alone. Furthermore, to assert that all truth claims must be scientifically verifiable is a philosophical assumption rather than a scientific statement.
In his book The Limits of Science, Nicholas Rescher offers a helpful comment about this issue. Rescher says, "The theorist who maintains that science is the be-all and end-all –that what is not in science textbooks is not worth knowing-is an ideologist with a peculiar and distorted doctrine of his own. For him, science is no longer a sector of the cognitive enterprise but an all-inclusive world-view. This is the doctrine not of science but of scientism. To take this stance is not to celebrate science but to distort it.” To read more about this- see Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?- This is taken from our blog
Misunderstood Passages About Faith and Reason
In relation to faith and reason, one passage that is misunderstood is Matthew 18:3-5 when Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.” In interpreting this passage, it is important to note that Jesus challenged his followers to be like children morally, not intellectually. Christians are called to exhibit childlikeness in being sensitive to evil and sin, in being humble and contrite in spirit. Jesus contrasts the need for humility with tough-mindness in Matt. 10:16, when He says, " Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves." (9)
Another passage that causes the confusion between faith and reason is 1 Corinthians 1: 19-21:" For it is written, I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." I have heard many people use this passages as a proof-text that God is against reason. Is this correct? It is important to note that Greek orators prided themselves with possessing “persuasive words of wisdom,” and it was their practice to persuade a crowd of any side of an issue for the right price. So, since Paul is most likely condemning hubris (which is the Greek word for a form of pride that is arrogant, self-confident and overbearing), Paul is against false pride, or prideful use of reason, not reason itself. (10)
Fideism
Religious fideism asserts that faith and religious belief are not supported by reason. One must simply believe. Faith, not reason, is what God requires (Heb. 11:6). Since there is very little discipleship about the relationship between faith and reason, most Christians fall into the mindset of fideism. (11)
Reason and Revelation- Why God Expects His Children To Use Reason
As already stated, reason is generally associated with three things: philosophy, logic, and systematic criteria.
Philosophy comes for the Greek words phileo, which means "to love" and sophia, meaning "wisdom." Philosophy has various disciplines such as metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, logic, etc. At the present moment, Christian philosophy is flourishing. There are organizations such as The Society of Christian Philosophers and The Evangelical Philosophical Society.
Reason also utilizes the laws of logic (the law of non-contradiction- A is not non-A; the law of identity- A is A; the law of excluded middle- either- A or non-A). When speaking about logic, most of Western culture appeals to formal logic which is the study of the principles and methods of argumentation. This method of logic finds its origin in the ancient Greek philosophers Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates. In Greek logic, we use the methods of valid thinking that enable us to draw proper conclusions from premises. In many cases, this kind of logic it is very helpful.
One objection may be that logic makes God subject to human logic. Is not God beyond logic? This objection confuses the source of logic; logic flows from the nature of God, not from humans. God determined logic; Aristotle discovered it and put it into writing. Since we see in Scripture that the God of Israel is a rational being, principles of good reason do flow from his very nature. For example, “It is impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18), and God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13). (12) Furthermore, since humans are created in the image of God, logic is not opposed to revelation; it is part of it. Learning the rules of clear and correct reasoning play an integral part in our service to our Lord. (13)
There is another aspect to logic that Marvin Wilson talks about in Our Father Abraham: The Jewish Roots of Christianity. The Jewish people often made use of block logic. That is, concepts were expressed in self-contained units or blocks of thought. These blocks did not necessarily fit together in any obviously rational or harmonious pattern, particularly when one block represented the human perspective on truth and the other represented the divine. This way of thinking created a propensity for paradox, antinomy, or apparent contradiction, as one block stood in tension—often illogical relation—to the other. Therefore, we see that a polarity of thought or dialectic often characterized block logic.(14)
As we look to the Bible, do we see anywhere where Jesus utilized critical thinking methods? After examining several passages about this very issue, Douglas Groothuis concluded:
Our sampling of Jesus’ reasoning, however, brings into serious question the indictment that Jesus praised uncritical faith over rational arguments and that He had no truck with logical consistency. On the contrary, Jesus never demeaned the proper and rigorous functioning of our God-given minds. His teaching appealed to the whole person: the imagination (parables), the will, and reasoning abilities. For all their honesty in reporting the foibles of the disciples, the Gospel writers never narrated a situation in which Jesus was intellectually stymied or bettered in an argument; neither did Jesus ever encourage an irrational or ill-informed faith on the part of His disciples. (15)
Reason also includes systematic criteria. In using systematic criteria, an individual appraises the truth of a system of thought. These criteria do not produce systems of thought; instead they judge them. David Wolfe has identified four ways in which one may judge a system of thought: consistency (meaning ideas do not contradict each other) and coherence (the ideas have a positive fit). These are the rational criteria. Comprehensiveness (a system of thought that incorporates the broad range of experience) and congruence (the idea fits human experience) are part of the empirical criteria. (16)
The Bible calls for a balanced view between reason and revelation. In relationship to a biblical worldview, the word “revelation” comes from the Greek word “apokalupsis” which means “an “uncovering,” or “unveiling.” One of the most important themes of the Bible is that since God is infinite and transcendent while man is finite, God takes the initiative in revealing himself to mankind. Either people see or they remain blind. Therefore, the "hard rationalism" of the Enlightenment is nothing more than what philosopher Paul Moser calls a "cognitive idolatry." (17) Read more on this here: Cognitive Idolatry and Divine Hiding: Paul K. Moser
Furthermore, the Bible stresses that sin can hinder the cognitive faculties that God has left people to help find Him. This is sometimes called the noetic effects of sin. This phrase denotes the damaging consequences human sin has on the knowing process (Isa. 6:9-10; Zech. 7:11-12; Matt. 13:10-13; 2 Cor. 4:4). How people respond to God's revelation depends on several factors including their personal history (both past and present), as well as how well they have developed their intellectual virtues. People can be hardened towards God; sin dampens a person's ability to being receptive to God's invitation to them.
As the late Jewish scholar Abraham J. Heschel said, “The God of Israel is a God who acts, a God of mighty deeds."(18) God has taken the initiative to reveal Himself to mankind through general revelation (the created order, the conscience), as well as special revelation (miracles, theophanies, the Messiah, the Bible, and messengers who share the Messiah with others).
There are reasons as to why the “revelation only” view has some criticisms. There are several faiths that claim to be founded on divine revelation. It is evident that it is impossible to not use the law of non-contradiction which states that two opposite views cannot be true at the same time. Without the law of non-contradiction, we could not say God is not non-God (G is not non-G). While there are some similarities in faiths such as truth, a God, a right and wrong, spiritual purpose in life, and communion with God, they all also have some glaring differences such as the nature of God, the afterlife, the nature of man, sin, salvation, and creation.
Therefore, the Chrisitan cannot possibly avoid using reason in examining the evidence for each religious claim. Norman L. Geisler and and Paul D. Feinberg show the relationship between reason and revelation in their book Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective: (1) “Reason is over revelation” is correct in that reason is epistemologically prior to revelation. The alleged revelation must be tested by reason. (2) “Revelation is over reason” is right in the ontological sense. God created reason and it must be His servant, not His master. (3) “Revelation only” is correct in the sense that ultimately and ontologically all truth comes from God. (4) “Reason only” has some truth, since reason must judge epistemologically whether the alleged revelation is from God. (5) “Revelation and reason” is correct because it properly assigns a role to each and shows their interrelationship. One should reason about and for revelation, otherwise he has an unreasonable faith. Likewise, reason has no guide without a revelation and flounders in error.
Final thoughts: A False Dichotmomy Between Faith and Reason?
As stated, biblical faith also involves a commitment of the whole person. In his book Worldview: History of Concept, author David Naugle says the following:
Ways of knowing the world complementing the capacities of sight and mind should be also be embraced by believers in order to do justice to their complete God-given natures and allow them to comprehend the totality of reality in its rich multiplicity and fullness. Naugle goes onto quote what spiritual writer Palker Palmer calls “wholesight,” which fuses sensation and rationality into union with other, yet often neglected ways of knowing such as imagination, intuition, empathy, emotion, and most certainly faith. In God’s epistemic grace, he has provided a variety of cognitive capacities which are adequate for and to be employed in grasping the diverse modes of created reality, and ancient concept known as adaequatio. All capacities ought to be well employed when it comes to apprehending the truth about God, humankind, and the cosmos, else one suffers from metaphysical indulgence. As E. P Schumacher explains: "The answer to the question, what are man’s instruments by which he knows the world outside him? is….quite inescapably this: “Everything he has got”- his living body, his mind, his self aware Spirit…It may even be misleading to say that man has many instruments of cognition, since in fact, the whole man is one instrument…..The Great Truth of adaequatio teaches us that restriction in the use of instruments of cognition has the inevitable effect of narrowing and impoverishing reality.
Naugle goes on to say,
Thus, the heart of any Christians worldview worthy of the name ought to be the lodestar of wholeness which offsets any form of epistemic myopia and reconnects human subjects and created objects into sympathetic relation which appropriately honors the diversity, unity, and sacred character of all aspects of reality.
We see that epistemology plays a significant role in how people approach their search for God. There is a difference between the way we know reality (epistemology) and what we know about reality (ontology). When we divorce God’s revelation out of the process, we begin to see the other ways we know reality such as scientism, rationalism, empiricism, naturalism, etc, all have limitations. We may want to ask if it is a waste of time to separate epistemology from ontology. Is it wrong to think that if humans have been created by God, he would give us reliable, cognitive faculties to find Him? But what if the sin has dampened our cognitive faculties in the searching process? Therefore, it seems that epistemological questions about theistic belief are not beneficial apart from the ontological issue. The two issues are intermittently intertwined. One of the pressing questions about the debate between atheism and theism is how naturalism accounts for truth. Naturalistic evolution is interested in fitness and survival, not true belief. If we are blindly hard wired by nature to form certain beliefs because of their survival enhancing value, then how do we have confidence about the truth status of these beliefs? If human ideas and beliefs have evolved, do naturalists think these ideas have evolved? If all ideas are products of naturalistic evolution, and thus not really true but only useful for survival, then how is evolution itself true?
Sources:
1. Clark, D.J. Dialogical Apologetics: A Person Centered Approach to Christian Defense. Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books. 1993,84-87.
2. Geisler, N.L. Systematic Theology: Vol 1. Bloomington, MINN: Bethany House Publishers. 2002, 91.
3. Clark, 14.
4. Delaney, C.F. Rationality and Religious Belief. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979, 10.
5. Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 1999, 242.
6. Clark, K.J., Lints, R., and James K.A. Smith. 101 Key Terms In Philosophy And Their Importance For Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004, 78-79.
7. Moreland, J.P Love Your God With All Your Mind. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress. 1997, 60.
8. Ben Witherington III. New Testament History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 2001, 167.
9. Clark, 20-21.
10. Moreland, J.P and Craig, W.L. Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 2003, 18-19.
11. Geisler, N. L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 1999, 634.
12. H. Wayne House and Joseph M. Holden. Charts of Apologetics and Christian Evidences. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2006, C
13. Geisler, N.L. and Brooks. R. Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.1990, 5.
14. Wilson M. Our Father Abraham: The Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Co.1989, 150-153.
15. Jesus: Philosopher and Apologist by Douglas Groothuis. Available at www.theapologiaproject.org/JesusPhil.pdf.
16. Clark, 85-86.
17. See Moser, P. Why Isn't God More Obvious: Finding the God Who Hides and Seeks. Available at http://www.luc.edu/faculty/pmoser/idolanon/GodMoreObvious.pdf
18. Heshel, A.J. The Prophets. New York, N.Y: 1962 Reprint. Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers. 2003, 44