Unthinking faith? (part 2)

So many people, when they argue against faith, suggest that believers are easily deluded, because they don't think, that they accept what they're told without looking at the evidence. I've had several conversations where people have implied that's true about me. If you must argue against faith, and Christianity in particular, please don't say that it discourages thought, or that it teaches people not to think. In the past, this may have unfortunately been true of the church in some places, but it's neither healthy nor encouraged by the mainstream church today. I think far too much. I just don't think the rationalist way of looking at things should be seen as the only way.


Historically people have been aware that "there are more things in heaven and earth" than are dreamt of or given credence in the rational or scientific philosophy that has characterised the last few centuries. The rational thought movement grew from roots in Renaissance Europe and to it we owe many great advances in thought and scientific knowledge. The empirical method of research (basically gathering evidence to test a hypothesis) and thus the idea that before you accept the truth of something, before you believe it, you must be convinced by the evidence, is one reason why many people today say they don't believe in God.

There is, I think, evidence for the existence of God. The testimony of people who believe they have experienced his power in their lives, miracles, arguments constructed by theologians and philosophers. But none of it- not even all of it together- proves beyond doubt that there is a God.

But it's no good saying "I don't believe in God because there isn't enough independent evidence." It's not a question of evidence. God, by his very nature as supernatural and uncreated, is outside normal human experience and explanation. So we can't unthinkingly apply the usual rules to his existence. Evidence can help us decide whether the idea of God is worth taking seriously or not, but there's another factor to consider before deciding whether God exists.

That elusive, mysterious quantity called faith. That something that means you can be sure of something which you can't prove. That lets you trust in the unknowable. It isn't rational, isn't reasonable. And that, I think, is one reason why people often struggle with it. It's counter-cultural to believe something you can't know. It can be dangerous. Even if you can think of some evidence or reasons for you faith, it can still be scary.

If God's existence could be proven, there would be no need for faith. If God's existence was evident, if we were made with an awareness of him, if there was no mystery, we would have no option but to do as he commanded. We couldn't choose. We couldn't love. God doesn't want robots, he wants children. So we have to be free to choose to love, or to reject him.

But other cultures (for example the far east) have always acknowledged a broader viewpoint. Some aspects of modern culture also seem to be coming back to that point of view-(for example the various meditation groups) although not always in a helpful way.


So just because Christians, or people of other faiths, believe things they can't empirically prove, that doesn't mean they can be criticised for not thinking. There's more to thought than rationalism.