ARTICLE: Christianity Is No "Leap of Faith"

[STR Ambassador]

Christianity Is No Leap of Faith
Greg Koukl

I noticed something stunning a few years back while paging through Frederick Coppleston’s landmark work, A History of Philosophy, for a class. Virtually every major thinker in the history of western civilization since Aristotle was a deeply committed Christian theist.

The list is impressive: Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, John Duns Scotus, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz. It isn’t until the Enlightenment that God and the Bible are not a standard part of the philosophic equation.

For 18 centuries, those who thought deeply and carefully about reality did so with the conviction that God was real, that Jesus was His messiah, and the Gospel was the power of God to change lives.

Let me tell you why this discovery was so important to me. As you may know, I used to think I was too smart to be a Christian. As an Honors College student in pre-law at Michigan State University, I thought Jesus was for socially unacceptable fools who needed someone to do their thinking for them.

So when I was drawn into the Kingdom, it was an epiphany of sorts to realize how wrong I was. Early on I discovered Francis Schaeffer and his seminal trilogy—The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason, and He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Then there was C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, J.P. Moreland, and a host of others since.

These luminous minds convinced me that Christianity is worth thinking about. It’s a phrase I know you’ve heard me use often. I open my talks at radically liberal schools like Cal Berkeley, UC San Diego, UCLA, and Ohio State with those words.

It’s become almost synonymous with STR. In fact, I frequently use both phrases together: “Stand to Reason—Christianity worth thinking about.”

Even with the popularity of the so-called “new atheists” – Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins— it’s clear to me that it’s no leap of faith to believe in God. In fact, the more we learn about science, the more credible Christianity becomes. Recently the number one philosophical atheist in the world, Antony Flew, did a dramatic about-face and embraced theism—against his will, as it were—on the strength of the scientific evidence for a designer.

Believing in leprechauns is a leap of faith. Believing in God is like believing in atoms. You follow the evidence of what you can see to conclude the existence of something you cannot see. The process is exactly the same. The effect needs a cause adequate to explain it.

There is nothing unreasonable about the idea of a personal God creating the material universe. A Big Bang needs a “big Banger,” it seems to me. A complex set of instructions (as in DNA) needs an author. A blueprint requires an engineer. A moral law needs a moral law giver. This is not a leap. This is a step of intelligent reflection.

It’s also not a leap to believe in the Jesus of the Gospels. Eminent historian Will Durant, author of the 11 volume set, The Story of Civilization, after a careful assessment of all the evidence, concluded:

No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.

All views and religions give you a picture of the world. That’s what a worldview is. The more I read, the more I study, the more I thoughtfully reflect, though, the more I’m convinced that Jesus doesn’t just give us a view of the world. He gives us a view of reality. When you follow Him, you’re not wishing on a star, you’re living in the real world.

Stand to Reason - Equipping Christian ambassadors with knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org

[JamieO]

Faith is Christianity's greatest strength but you tend to downplay it as if you are embarrassed.

[Longstreet]

Faith is Christianity's greatest strength but you tend to downplay it as if you are embarrassed.

Wow.

That swishing sound you just heard? That was the point whistling right over your head.

[technomage]

I noticed something stunning a few years back while paging through Frederick Coppleston’s landmark work, A History of Philosophy, for a class. Virtually every major thinker in the history of western civilization since Aristotle was a deeply committed Christian theist.

This is going to sound offensive--I don't want it to, and I don't mean it to, but I have no way to avoid it.

So what?

Coppleston's work concentrates on Western culture--by definition, the culture where Christianity was most prevalent--so such a conclusion does not come as any surprise. It would be equally accurate (though offensive to many) to state that "virtually every major thinker in the history of western civilization was white."

My statement, though technically accurate, carries a connotation of undeserved disparagement for those who fall outside of that category, and would be roundly condemned by most people today. Please, can anyone tell me why Greg's statement is not equally offensive?

[robertb]

This is going to sound offensive--I don't want it to, and I don't mean it to, but I have no way to avoid it.

So what?

Coppleston's work concentrates on Western culture--by definition, the culture where Christianity was most prevalent--so such a conclusion does not come as any surprise. It would be equally accurate (though offensive to many) to state that "virtually every major thinker in the history of western civilization was white."

My statement, though technically accurate, carries a connotation of undeserved disparagement for those who fall outside of that category, and would be roundly condemned by most people today. Please, can anyone tell me why Greg's statement is not equally offensive?

It is and seems to have only been made to prop up the rest of the house of cards the OP has assembled.

Just another wish and a prayer, I suppose.

[apophenia]

It’s also not a leap to believe in the Jesus of the Gospels. Eminent historian Will Durant, author of the 11 volume set, The Story of Civilization, after a careful assessment of all the evidence, concluded:

No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.

With all due respect to the man, Durant is simply flat out wrong. Not only do we not have any evidence to support the idea that the Jesus story was solidified within a generation, we have considerable evidence that it was not. The Pauline epistles were not even started until a generation after Christ's death. And what do they contain? Not testimony to a unified body but squabbles, debate, and unconformity in the budding churches. It would take another generation before we find corroborating testimony to, not one, but four different Christs; each Gospel, the lot being composed over many decades, took pieces from the oral tradition, and from each other, and generated visions of Christ which, while in some ways similar, are in many ways unique and divergent in exactly who Christ was and what his life meant. But that's not the end of it even then! Many of the things which we include in basic Christology have their origins not in Paul or the Gospels, but in the politically charged atmosphere of the first few centuries of the Church. Sure, apologists go back to the text and back-patch the orthodox doctrine into the text, but if it was there to begin with, why did the church fathers have to fight so hard to make people see it? The simple answer is that it wasn't there to begin with; it was added later, sometimes centuries later. If the text really was such a clear and unified story of Christ, why all the horrid history of the Church persecuting heretics (Arianism, Ebionitism, Parapassianism, Gnosticism, Nestorianism -- all Christological debates). What's more is that Durant is engaging in a blatant Argument from Silence. We don't know what the views of the Christians of the first two centuries are, nor whether they are unified or flattering, because much simply wasn't preserved, and that which was preserved was likely preserved less because it was representative than because it embodied a politically favored viewpoint (orthodoxy). But even then we're not finished! Many cults form over such a short time span. David Koresh and the Branch Davidian's, Ti and Doe of Heaven's Gate fame and countless cults throughout history formed rapidly, though most dissappeared as rapidly, many did not. We have another argument from silence if we compare the features of the development of the Christ cult to that of other cults because in many instances, we simply don't have sufficient information to make the comparison. The Eleusinian Mystery cult lasted over a millenia -- was it remarkable in Durant's sense? We'll never know. (And before the Theist cries foul that these lack the positive aspects of the Christ story, be prepared to demonstrate both that a) positivity is an impediment to cult formation, and b) that the Christ cult is positive in the sense which you consider cult-retarding.)

In a nutshell, Durant is acting not as a Historian here, but as an Apologist, and a bad one at that. In order to make his case he has grossly distorted history, suppressed contrary evidence and engaged in a fallacious argument from silence. Shame on you, Mr. Durant. And shame on you, Mr. Koukl, for presenting a shameless Argument from Authority (an appeal to emotion) as an Argument from Reason (which it is not). There may be good reasons to believe in Christ, Mr. Koukl's aren't among them. Stand to reason, indeed.

[How_Takei]

A Big Bang needs a “big Banger" that's very circular argument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo this video did more for me then the 8 years of theology classes that i took as a teen and as an adult. Now, i'm new to this forum, and my only purpose here is to ask the same questions i asked my teachers, one of which is a bishop. i want more answers then "now you're getting into deep theology" then i was brushed off, after a few weeks i learned to keep my mouth shut, it made class not last longer then what it needed to be.

[Josheb]

Early on I discovered Francis Schaeffer and his seminal trilogy—The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason, and He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Then there was C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, J.P. Moreland, and a host of others since. These luminous minds convinced me that Christianity is worth thinking about... it’s clear to me that it’s no leap of faith to believe in God. In fact, the more we learn about science, the more credible Christianity becomes... There is nothing unreasonable about the idea of a personal God creating the material universe.

I too was greatly influenced by Schaffer's trilogy and consider it necessary reading for any Christian. His description of the person stranded in a snowstorm in the alps hearing a voice to step into the mist to reach the ledge to safety is simple and profound (I'll post it when I get home from work). I'm afraid I disagree with the claim that complex inherently-existing information like DNA requires an Author. It could simply be an astronomically improbably realized potentiality. That's not the most likely explanation; just the most likely explanation the defiant man stranded in the blinding blizzard is willing to accept.

I liken faith to a tool: if one desires to see extremely small things you must use a microscope. That's the tool used to see very small objects. In order to see things very, very far away one must use a telescope. That's the appropriate tool for that task. Using a telescope to observe very small things or a microscope to observe very far away things is useless and therefore foolish. Similarly trying to see God with either is useless and foolish. Those tools can show us evidence of God's existence but they cannot show us God. God has seen fit, in His providence and grace, however, to provide a tool by which He may be known: faith. Without it we are incapable of knowing Him but with it we know not only Him but an entirely expanded world not visible or experiential through any other way but through the "tool" of faith. Just take a look. It will cost you nothing but everything: your blindness, your pride, your bias, your delusion, your enslavement, your life. In return you get an immeasurably increased understanding of God, self, others, love, peace, and your life back eternally.

[Josheb]

Here's what Schaeffer wrote about faith in "He is There and He is Not Silent"

"One must analyze faith and see that it can mean two entirely different things."

"Suppose we are climbing in the Alps and are very high on the bare rock and suddenly the fog shuts down. The guide turns to us and says that the ice is forming and that there is no hope; before morning we will all freeze to death here on the shoulder of the mountain. Simply to keep warm, the guide keeps us moving in the dense fog further out on the shoulder until none of us have any idea where we are. After an hour or so, someone says to the guide: “Suppose I dropped and hit a ledge ten feet down in the fog. What would happen then?” The guide would say that you might make it until morning and thus live. So, with absolutely no knowledge or any other reason to support his action, one of the group hangs and drops into the fog. This would be one kind of faith, leap of faith. "

"Suppose, however, after we have worked out on the shoulder in the midst of the fog and the growing ice on the rock, we had stopped and we heard a voice which said, 'You cannot see me, but I know exactly where you are from your voices. I am on another ridge. I have lived in these mountains, man and boy, for over sixty years and I know every foot of them. I assure you that ten feet below you there is a ledge. If you hang and drop, you can make it through the night and I will get you in the morning.' "

"I would not hang and drop at once, but I would ask questions to try to ascertain if the man knew what he was talking about and if he was not my enemy. In the Alps, for example, I would ask him his name. If the name he gave me was a name of a family from that part of the mountains, it would count a great deal to me… In my desperate situation, even with time running out, I would ask him what to me would be sufficient questions, and when I became convinced by his answers, then I would hang and drop."

"This is faith, but obviously it has no relationship to the first instance… The historic Christian faith is not the leap of faith in the post-Kierkegaardian sense because “he is not silent,” and I am invited to ask the sufficient questions in regards to the details but also in regards to the existence of the universe and its complexity and in regard to the existence of man. I am invited to ask sufficient questions and then believe him…"

[Soyeong]

I see a leap of faith as the gap between evaluating evidence and believing that a certain conclusion is true. As in the story where the person is not given strong evidence but concludes that jumping off is the best course of action, it can be quite a leap. But when the gap is filled with more evidence and the person is able to ask questions, it becomes more of a step of faith.

[Josheb]

I see a leap of faith as the gap between evaluating evidence and believing that a certain conclusion is true. As in the story where the person is not given strong evidence but concludes that jumping off is the best course of action, it can be quite a leap. But when the gap is filled with more evidence and the person is able to ask questions, it becomes more of a step of faith.

Yes, and I think the Feser quote is correct. Whether "step" or "leap" it is not blind or irrational.

[David Hayward]

Not only do we not have any evidence to support the idea that the Jesus story was solidified within a generation, we have considerable evidence that it was not. The Pauline epistles were not even started until a generation after Christ's death. And what do they contain? Not testimony to a unified body but squabbles, debate, and unconformity in the budding churches. It would take another generation before we find corroborating testimony to, not one, but four different Christs; each Gospel, the lot being composed over many decades, took pieces from the oral tradition, and from each other, and generated visions of Christ which, while in some ways similar, are in many ways unique and divergent in exactly who Christ was and what his life meant. But that's not the end of it even then! Many of the things which we include in basic Christology have their origins not in Paul or the Gospels, but in the politically charged atmosphere of the first few centuries of the Church. Sure, apologists go back to the text and back-patch the orthodox doctrine into the text, but if it was there to begin with, why did the church fathers have to fight so hard to make people see it? The simple answer is that it wasn't there to begin with; it was added later, sometimes centuries later. If the text really was such a clear and unified story of Christ, why all the horrid history of the Church persecuting heretics (Arianism, Ebionitism, Parapassianism, Gnosticism, Nestorianism -- all Christological debates). What's more is that Durant is engaging in a blatant Argument from Silence. We don't know what the views of the Christians of the first two centuries are, nor whether they are unified or flattering, because much simply wasn't preserved, and that which was preserved was likely preserved less because it was representative than because it embodied a politically favored viewpoint (orthodoxy). But even then we're not finished! Many cults form over such a short time span. David Koresh and the Branch Davidian's, Ti and Doe of Heaven's Gate fame and countless cults throughout history formed rapidly, though most dissappeared as rapidly, many did not. We have another argument from silence if we compare the features of the development of the Christ cult to that of other cults because in many instances, we simply don't have sufficient information to make the comparison. The Eleusinian Mystery cult lasted over a millenia -- was it remarkable in Durant's sense? We'll never know. (And before the Theist cries foul that these lack the positive aspects of the Christ story, be prepared to demonstrate both that a) positivity is an impediment to cult formation, and b) that the Christ cult is positive in the sense which you consider cult-retarding.)

Sounds like an Earl Doherty rehash. See JPH's counter-arguments.

David