Role of evidence and/or faith
☔Disclaimer!!☔ I’m selfishly writing this for myself but i want to welcome you into my world of thought as i explore this wide and complex topic. I’m no expert in Philosophy, Theology or Religion. Just a student. Read previous introductory article.
Most cosmologist (across all religions) agree that the universe had a beginning at a point of temperature and high density. Call it the big bang or whatever. The idea is that the universe is expanding: Edwin Hubble (original idea was from Gorges Lemaitre-a roman catholic priest and physicist) observed that objects further away from the earth moved away faster. The space between galaxies was stretching. Today there’s a finite distance between galaxies so know that the universe couldn’t have been expanding forever.
In philosophy, the Kalam cosmological argument states:
- Premise 1: whatever begins to exist has a cause
- Premise 2: the universe began to exist
- Premise 3: therefore the universe has cause
The 3rd premise is necessarily true because the first two premises are true.
If the universe a.k.a book of nature (time, space and matter) had a beginning, that means that the cause must be timeless, space-less, and immaterial. From the go, we are already outside naturalism. In cosmology, there’s the concept of fine-tuning i.e., there exist (very many) cosmological constants supporting life on earth like gravity’s inward pull, speed of light in a vacuum, universal gas constant, mass of the electron, electron charge, etc. The fine-tuning argument; whether it convinces you or not, one must ask oneself how all these parameters came to be so precise if no intelligence was involved and it was just a result of a random big bang from ‘nothing’. I think the 2nd law of thermodynamics would disagree though. It states that any spontaneous occurring process will lead to an escalation of the entropy of the universe.
Of course there’re opposing arguments e.g., the multiverse theory; if they compete, that’s for you to find out and deduct your own conclusion.
The theory of intelligence is further by supported by the evidence of mathematics language of the universe. Mathematics (conceptual/mental and objective) preexist the universe, and it’s used to describe the physical universe. If you’re like Sam Harris, neuroscientist and philosopher, who believes we have a physical brain and no mind (consciousness); that mind and free agency is an illusion; I guess the question we should ask is, where does the math exist? In whose mind/ whose concept is it? Discovered or invented? Why does the reason within the mathematics we develop on the basis of our deductive reasoning match and describe precisely the reason built into or design of the universe? What is the best explanation? Because this is how we can do science. This principle of intelligibility and all the great theist who were the early founders of modern science; to name a few, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, believed that nature was intelligible and could be understood by the human mind; because the design in nature issued from the same intelligence i.e., God made our mind in His likeness so we could understand nature.
Looking at the book of life too i.e., DNA. Prof John Lennox: “It is the longest word ever discovered (3.5 billion letters in exactly the write order); computer science language is used to describe it. If you see your name (letters) written somewhere, you immediately infer to an intelligent input no matter the mechanism used.” I find it absurd too when some scientists attribute this to chance as they wouldn’t do it in the case of a name written on a beach or something. While still in Biology, we have to explain how life came from non-life and why biological life has appearance of design (this is non-controversial); even Dawkins agrees with appearance of design.
The evidence in the world is used to infer to the best explanation. The mind/intelligence is only invoked as it’s uniquely known to have the ability to create and compose language in our experience. (The causal adequacy principle). Stephen Meyers, “The information contained in an English sentence or computer software doesn’t derive from the chemistry of the ink or physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. In both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium…”
From this point, i want to speak to my Christian kin so if you’re not one, you are free to stop here or read on. Up to you.
Many people say Christianity is a faith-based religion and i agree. Where we depart is when faith is defined as belief without evidence. I beg to differ. Let’s see why from the Bible.
Note that i’m not making a case against trust and hope. I do believe they have a place in Christianity and all other religions as well (atheism included). Examples; in the Bible we consistently see God proving to us that Christ is The son of God via the works he did and this includes the resurrection. In John 5:36, and John 10:38 Jesus is calling for people to believe him on the basis of His works that witness for Him. In John 20: 27, 30, 31 Jesus convinces Thomas of his resurrection with evidence; He didn’t leave him out. Nevertheless, we are blessed today because we believe without having seen the risen Christ ourselves. In other words, don’t let not seeing make you unbelieving. Christ appeared to the disciples to prove His resurrection, performed many signs in their presence and called them to spread the news as eye-witnesses. Apostle Paul in Acts 17 is found reasoning with philosophers all the time. He commended the Bereans for investigating the scriptures daily to prove what he and Silas preached was true.
I cannot conclude without mentioning Heb 11 which i find misunderstood to mean blind faith. Now faith is the substance of the things hoped for, the evidence not seen. Even directly translating it, the verse says that belief is the foundation via which things unseen/yet to be seen are hoped for. Is it defining or describing faith: What do you think? (Check Greek translation and commentaries- Bible hub is my go to.)
Assume i take you into an empty room blindfolded and tell you there’s a chair in the room. Would you believe me? I then remove the blindfold and you see that there’s indeed a chair. If i blindfold you again and tell you there’s a chair in there, how much more would you believe me? Evidence results in more faith in.
My conclusion is that the idea of blind faith is far from Christianity and the Bible has abundantly offered reason and proof to support the claims it presents. We are called to use all our senses to image God in the world. It’s possible to stumble accidentally on the truth BUT there are inexhaustible evidences you can look into that can cement your confidence in what you believe and be able to proof in ‘court’ to be reasonable and true.
KJV / Psalm 19: 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handy-work.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use
– Galileo Galilei
God is the author of life, and the free establisher of the laws of motion
– Robert Boyle
That analogy of a blindfold is good.
But then over time you’ll start expecting a table which no one told you is there
Hehe, i think people do justifiably (if it was there in the first place), expect a table which no one told them is there. They just miss the next step of actually confirming if it’s true/false.
I would like to read on what you think is the difference between hope and faith.
We have faith that God exists and that there is a heaven though we have not seen it n might not see it in our lifetime,in this regard I feel that it really is belief in things unseen but hoped for
I’m struggling a bit to answer this question; in my opinion faith in the unseen has nothing to do with God’s existence and i think this is where the question of what you consider to be evidence arises. I strongly disagree that i should see God to know He exists. The common way to put is, “i don’t need to see a builder to know he exists when i see a building.” That said, hope, in the christian sense is the continual looking forward to God’s promise (heaven; in your example). Faith is the confidence/trust in the promise or certain facts. It’s difficult to divorce the two. You hear, have faith, then hope. I have not seen anything in Christianity that encourages ‘wishful thinking’. Did i answer your question?