Everyone Lives by Faith
"I guess I just don't get the whole 'belief' thing," my father-in-law
said as we drove to the brewery. We had been discussing the legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage, the new pope, and the question of suffering (not all at once, thankfully). Before I could respond thoughtfully, I
realized that we had missed our turn. Yet another philosophical
conversation cut short by alcohol.
On the one hand, he had a point. If you don't believe something, you probably find it difficult to understand why others do. But at the same time, he actually committed a logical fallacy (which is understandable when you are slightly lost and very hungry).
Secularists like to claim that they live by reason alone. There is one problem with such an approach to life: it is logically impossible.
In 1931, as the field of mathematics was undergoing a crisis of confidence, Kurt Godel published his Incompleteness Theorem. Widely regarded as the most important contribution to fundamental logic since Aristotle, Godel's theorem proved what mathematicians and philosophers had begun to secretly fear: you can't build any system of thought by logic alone. Specifically, he demonstrated that within any set of statements or claims, it is impossible to prove them all logically from each other - you have to start by assuming (believing) some things to be true, and only then can you use logic to prove anything else. In rigorous and irrefutable logic, he proved that man cannot live by logic alone.
Logic is, of course, only one type of reasoning. But Godel's conclusions are just as dire for reason in general. Reason can get you from point A to point B, maybe even all the way to point Z - but how do you get to point A?
The fact is, we all live by faith - in someone or something. You can't function in daily life without some level of trust. You can't have any meaningful thoughts about anything without first taking at least a few things on faith.
Secularists and atheists in fact have some very strong beliefs, which they often do not appreciate being questioned. Just look at what happened to Mark Regnerus when he published strong evidence that children raised by same-sex couples suffer negative outcomes in multiple areas (as compared to their peers). Try asking an honest critical question about Darwinism and watch a formerly objective scientist get emotional. Consider how resistant physicists were to the Big Bang Theory, with its implication of a universe created by someone outside of space and time, until the evidence was finally overwhelming. Read the vehement statements of atheist "evangelists" such as Richard Dawkins, and ask yourself if they are speaking from cool reason or the raw emotion of someone whose cherished beliefs are threatened. The same people who boast of their self-sufficiency apart from the "crutch of religion" also place an extraordinary level of faith in human political leaders (or aliens from outer space, in the case of Carl Sagan).
We all believe things we can't prove. But we can test any system to belief in two ways. We can check it for logical consistency, searching for clear contradictions and incoherence. And we can ask whether it concurs with those few things we can clearly observe about the world around us.
The belief that the natural world was governed by a rational but contingent order, grounded in the Christian faith, gave rise to science. As a precocious young scientist, Hugh Ross was astonished to discover that Genesis 1 correctly ordered all of the key events in the history of the Earth, leading him to place his faith in Jesus and ultimately obtaining a doctorate in astrophysics. Francis Collins placed his belief in Jesus while earning his second doctorate and ultimately came to regard DNA as "the language of God," which caused angry atheists such as Sam Harris (to whom the natural world is simply a "mystery") to question his appointment as head of the National Institutes of Health. From the fine-tuning of an extraordinary number of fundamental constants and physical attributes of the universe, to the intricately interlocking design of biochemical pathways and complex physiological control loops, the world we study is astonishingly consistent with the Biblical description of the creator.
Similarly, many thinkers have marveled at how only the gospel of Jesus holds in tension both the innate dignity of human beings and their actual depravity. We are "glorious ruins," in the words of John Calvin: made in the image of God, yet often behaving like monsters. No one was more compassionate to "the least of these" or merciful to sinners than Jesus - yet the nicest thing he said about human nature (that parents like to give nice things to their kids) was preceded by the qualifier, "though you are evil." Only the Bible describes a perfect and good initial creation, with human beings endowed with nobility and freedom, followed by a chosen descent into self-destruction. Only Christianity gives a basis for the nobility of every human being without flinching from the reality of human nature.
I believe what I believe because it corresponds best to what we can observe about the natural world, human nature, and the stubborn idea that there are such things as objective right and wrong. And I believe what I believe because of the overwhelming historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus - evidence which is not so much disputed, as avoided.
One might argue that the resurrection contradicts what we know, because people don't rise from the dead. But the Christian claim is only that one person rose from the dead at one time. (Yes, the Bible records the raising of a few individuals, but these other events are not essential to our faith). The resurrection of Jesus was a singularity in history - just like the Big Bang, the origin of life, the appearance of human beings, and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall.
Everyone chooses to believe in something, even the most ardent skeptic or vociferous atheist. Everyone lives by faith, even the most committed rationalist. Our entire lives are grounded on assumptions. Any good engineer knows that you can't proceed without assumptions - but there is a world of difference between good ones and poor ones.
My fundamental assumptions are internally coherent, externally consistent, and grounded in public history. But as Godel proved, you can start with any assumptions you wish. Just don't be surprised if you wake up one day to find yourself trying to prove that 1+1=5.
On the one hand, he had a point. If you don't believe something, you probably find it difficult to understand why others do. But at the same time, he actually committed a logical fallacy (which is understandable when you are slightly lost and very hungry).
Secularists like to claim that they live by reason alone. There is one problem with such an approach to life: it is logically impossible.
In 1931, as the field of mathematics was undergoing a crisis of confidence, Kurt Godel published his Incompleteness Theorem. Widely regarded as the most important contribution to fundamental logic since Aristotle, Godel's theorem proved what mathematicians and philosophers had begun to secretly fear: you can't build any system of thought by logic alone. Specifically, he demonstrated that within any set of statements or claims, it is impossible to prove them all logically from each other - you have to start by assuming (believing) some things to be true, and only then can you use logic to prove anything else. In rigorous and irrefutable logic, he proved that man cannot live by logic alone.
Logic is, of course, only one type of reasoning. But Godel's conclusions are just as dire for reason in general. Reason can get you from point A to point B, maybe even all the way to point Z - but how do you get to point A?
The fact is, we all live by faith - in someone or something. You can't function in daily life without some level of trust. You can't have any meaningful thoughts about anything without first taking at least a few things on faith.
Secularists and atheists in fact have some very strong beliefs, which they often do not appreciate being questioned. Just look at what happened to Mark Regnerus when he published strong evidence that children raised by same-sex couples suffer negative outcomes in multiple areas (as compared to their peers). Try asking an honest critical question about Darwinism and watch a formerly objective scientist get emotional. Consider how resistant physicists were to the Big Bang Theory, with its implication of a universe created by someone outside of space and time, until the evidence was finally overwhelming. Read the vehement statements of atheist "evangelists" such as Richard Dawkins, and ask yourself if they are speaking from cool reason or the raw emotion of someone whose cherished beliefs are threatened. The same people who boast of their self-sufficiency apart from the "crutch of religion" also place an extraordinary level of faith in human political leaders (or aliens from outer space, in the case of Carl Sagan).
We all believe things we can't prove. But we can test any system to belief in two ways. We can check it for logical consistency, searching for clear contradictions and incoherence. And we can ask whether it concurs with those few things we can clearly observe about the world around us.
The belief that the natural world was governed by a rational but contingent order, grounded in the Christian faith, gave rise to science. As a precocious young scientist, Hugh Ross was astonished to discover that Genesis 1 correctly ordered all of the key events in the history of the Earth, leading him to place his faith in Jesus and ultimately obtaining a doctorate in astrophysics. Francis Collins placed his belief in Jesus while earning his second doctorate and ultimately came to regard DNA as "the language of God," which caused angry atheists such as Sam Harris (to whom the natural world is simply a "mystery") to question his appointment as head of the National Institutes of Health. From the fine-tuning of an extraordinary number of fundamental constants and physical attributes of the universe, to the intricately interlocking design of biochemical pathways and complex physiological control loops, the world we study is astonishingly consistent with the Biblical description of the creator.
Similarly, many thinkers have marveled at how only the gospel of Jesus holds in tension both the innate dignity of human beings and their actual depravity. We are "glorious ruins," in the words of John Calvin: made in the image of God, yet often behaving like monsters. No one was more compassionate to "the least of these" or merciful to sinners than Jesus - yet the nicest thing he said about human nature (that parents like to give nice things to their kids) was preceded by the qualifier, "though you are evil." Only the Bible describes a perfect and good initial creation, with human beings endowed with nobility and freedom, followed by a chosen descent into self-destruction. Only Christianity gives a basis for the nobility of every human being without flinching from the reality of human nature.
I believe what I believe because it corresponds best to what we can observe about the natural world, human nature, and the stubborn idea that there are such things as objective right and wrong. And I believe what I believe because of the overwhelming historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus - evidence which is not so much disputed, as avoided.
One might argue that the resurrection contradicts what we know, because people don't rise from the dead. But the Christian claim is only that one person rose from the dead at one time. (Yes, the Bible records the raising of a few individuals, but these other events are not essential to our faith). The resurrection of Jesus was a singularity in history - just like the Big Bang, the origin of life, the appearance of human beings, and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall.
Everyone chooses to believe in something, even the most ardent skeptic or vociferous atheist. Everyone lives by faith, even the most committed rationalist. Our entire lives are grounded on assumptions. Any good engineer knows that you can't proceed without assumptions - but there is a world of difference between good ones and poor ones.
My fundamental assumptions are internally coherent, externally consistent, and grounded in public history. But as Godel proved, you can start with any assumptions you wish. Just don't be surprised if you wake up one day to find yourself trying to prove that 1+1=5.
Labels: Philosophy
posted by Scott M Roney | 9:40 PM
1 Comments:
Excellent!!
Post a Comment
<< Home