PDA

View Full Version : ARTICLE: Never Take a Leap of Faith


STR Ambassador
April 4th 2005, 12:23 PM
Never Take a Leap of Faith

by Greg Koukl

I encourage Christians to ban words like “faith” and “belief” from their vocabulary. They’re too easily misunderstood. In today’s culture, people take “faith” and “belief” as religious wishful thinking, not the kind of intelligent step of trust the Bible has in mind when it uses those words. Instead, use the language of truth during your moments of truth so there’s no confusion. Simply put: Talk about facts, not faith.

Well, I just had a chance to put that advice into practice in one of my own “moments of truth”—for a national TV audience.

The occasion was the taping of a full hour of crossfire-style debate hosted by Lee Strobel for PAX TV. My opponent was New Age guru Deepak Chopra, the best-selling author of more than 20 million books. (This episode of “Faith Under Fire” will air on PAX-TV on April 30.)

Strobel’s opening question to me was, “Greg, what do you think the future of faith looks like?”

This is exactly the kind of situation I'm talking about—the word “faith” twisting in the wind in all its troublesome ambiguity. Here was the essence of my response:

"Lee, we have to be clear on what we mean by “the future of faith.” We could mean “the future of religion”—faith as a noun—or we could mean “the future of acts of trust”—faith as a verb.

"In one sense, the future of religion is the same as it’s ever been. If your religious beliefs are accurate, there is tremendous hope. But if your religious views are false, if you’re taking a leap of faith trusting in fantasy, there is no hope.

"Whatever was true 1000 years ago about religion is true today. Reality doesn’t change just because beliefs change. And reality has a way of bruising those who don’t take it seriously. This is why Christianity has never encouraged a leap of faith.

"If we get reality wrong and trust in a fantasy, a mistake, we’re going to get injured. Our job is to do the best we can to get the facts right, to have accurate religious views—faith as a noun—then act consistently with those facts—faith as a verb.

"So, if truth is your goal, I’m optimistic about the future of faith. If it’s not, if people turn instead to leaps of faith and wishful thinking, then I’m pessimistic."

This was my opening salvo. A vigorous debate followed. From the outset, though, I wanted to set the tone. Regardless of whatever Dr. Chopra had in mind, as a Christian I was interested in reality, in truth—not in rosy fantasies or wishful thinking.

By contrast, Chopra championed feelings and experience over religious doctrine and dogma. This is dangerous advice.

Mark this: Feelings make life beautiful, but careful thinking—reason—makes life safe.

Feelings are misleading indicators. People can feel safe even when in desperate peril. They can also feel completely conflicted and distraught when doing what is right.

This is like the used car salesman who tells you, “Drive the car, but don’t look under the hood.” You may enjoy the ride, but you’ll never know if he’s selling you a lemon or not.

Never trust anyone who tells you to rely on experience over right thinking. Most requests to banish judgments come just before someone says or does something that ought to be judged.

They say, “Experience, not reason is the best guide for truth,” just before making claims you should be inspecting very carefully, but they’re telling you not to. They rob you of the tools necessary to separate good from evil, wisdom from silliness, safety from peril.

In life there are lots of lemons. And many of them are spiritually deadly. “Look before you leap” is sage advice. It applies especially to leaps of faith.

Stand to Reason - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org

technomage
April 4th 2005, 12:57 PM
By contrast, Chopra championed feelings and experience over religious doctrine and dogma. This is dangerous advice.

Is it? Greg, with all due respect, I feel that both you and Dr. Chopra mis-characterised the issue--not through deliberate deception, to be sure, but I feel you have both failed to grasp the crux of the matter.

Let's take a look at the Bible: it has several specific historical claims, some of which can be verified. Of those claims that can be verified, some are not accurate (a further discussion is probably necessary, but needs to take place in a separate thread). The "core values" of Christianity rest on certain unverifiable historical claims that we are told are accurate, and and many Christian apologists direct the enquirer to examine the verifiable claims ... yet object when the enquirer questions the unverifiable claims, based on the incomplete accuracy of the verifiable claims.

I can (and have) made the same observation regarding Dr. Chopra's preferred texts--the Ayurvedic texts, the Vedanta, and the Gitas in general. I have made the same observations of the Q'uran; the Book of Mormon; and even of various versions of the Book of Shadows. You agree that these should be examined critically, yet when I apply the same standard of critical examination to the Bible, I generally encounter resistance from the Christian community.

The crux of the issue is that all religious learning--even learning the doctrines and dogma of a specific religion--is filtered through the student's worldview. Experience and feelings play a tremendous part of our quest for truth ... and they can be just as deceptive in a Christian worldview as you assert they are in any other worldview.

Greg, with all due respect, despite your rejection of "leaps of faith," you have taken that leap ... and to achieve parity with your beliefs, others must do the same.

Justin

lee_merrill
April 4th 2005, 11:07 PM
Hi everyone,

Justin: The observation that objective knowledge is difficult (perhaps nearly impossible) for an individual to attain is a philosophical statement, based on subjective knowledge, observation, and logic.

Fancy meeting you here!

Well, I would ask (déjà vu!) if this ("The observation that objective knowledge is difficult (perhaps nearly impossible) for an individual to attain is a philosophical statement") is your own subjective view here. Or if instead, you consider this to be objective knowledge.

Koukl: By contrast, Chopra championed feelings and experience over religious doctrine and dogma. This is dangerous advice.

Justin: The "core values" of Christianity rest on certain unverifiable historical claims that we are told are accurate, and many Christian apologists direct the enquirer to examine the verifiable claims ... yet object when the enquirer questions the unverifiable claims, based on the incomplete accuracy of the verifiable claims.

But isn't the point at issue here, the question of whether Christianity can be really true? Yes, we have to examine evidence for any given claim, but if it's known there is no way there can be such a place as Atlantis, or El Dorado, or Pittsburgh, then we can save ourselves some time by not looking for it.

Justin: The crux of the issue is that all religious learning--even learning the doctrines and dogma of a specific religion--is filtered through the student's worldview.

Oh, I agree! And nobody's glasses are perfect. And yet we aren't all completely blind, and we can indeed see real pumpkins and parakeets. And Pittsburgh.

Justin: Experience and feelings play a tremendous part of our quest for truth ... and they can be just as deceptive in a Christian worldview as you assert they are in any other worldview.

I would agree again, we have to do the best we can. And setting aside propositional truth, seems to be setting ourselves up for less than best, here.

Blessings,
Lee