Is it possible to have an irrational yet saving faith?

[nightbringer]

Here's a little something to think about.

Many of us Christians on this forum complain about how irrational some people's basis for faith is. Some Christians believe for "emotional reasons" we lament. Or, some Christians who do believe on a more intellectual ground nonetheless do not do so well. Perhaps they were converted by reading YEC material, which is suspect, or because they read some old material on the resurrection which contains arguments that contemporary scholarship has thrown considerable doubt upon.

Fine. But usually, to say that a person has a poor foundation for a given belief, or that he/she is irrational in holding it, is to say that he/she ought not really have it. That he/she isn't entitled to that belief. Indeed, we might go as far as to say that he/she ought to drop that belief. If your friend has poor grounds for thinking that Obama is a muslim, we'd encourage him/her to drop that belief. So, are our "irrational" Christian friends not really justified in believing Christianity? Should they not hold to Christian belief? It is outside their rational entitlement? Ought they drop it until they get their intellectual game together?

You might say that we should simply help them out. We should give them a little N.T. Wright, or Bill Craig. Then they will be no longer flouting their intellectual duty. But suppose that this Christian is actually unconvinced by these apologetic heavy weights. Suppose that he/she finds the older, weaker apologetic stuff to be far more convincing, or that the feeling of warmth and joy this person experiences when hearing the gospel is, to him/her, the real basis for Christian faith. What then? Should we encourage this Christian to drop the faith? After all, their basis for it is irrational (so we are hypothesising). It is their epistemic obligation to surrender their irrational belief?

Surely, as Christians, it would be hard for us to seriously consider advising them to do that. If we were to so encourage him/her, might we not be encouraging them outside of great spiritual gain? Perhaps even salvation itself? Is it really sometimes one's intellectual duty to stop following Christ? Is it our duty to inform of their duty to do this?

There are some ways to potentially resolve this tension between intellectual duty and spiritual duty (to make a crude distinction).

1) We can think that, sometimes, it is not bad to hold irrational beliefs. There can be goods that outweigh the negatives of not being rationally up to scratch. A Christian, then, can have an irrational faith in Christ, but they should not be deterred from it despite that.

2) We can think that, if a person has genuine, living, saving faith, then that person's faith will be rational (however the positive epistemic status of that faith is in fact achieved). As a result, there will never be a conflict between intellectual and spiritual duty.

I'm actually open to both options but I think that taking (2) has some interesting consequences. Say you are an evidentialist. You think that to be rationally justified in believing P, you must have good evidence for P, of an objective and publically accessible kind. If you an evidentialist and you take option (2) then to be consistent you'll have to think that only Christians with good evidence of the right kind for their Christian belief are in fact saved. But this is surely an incredible minority of Christians.

It seems to me that to take (2) one must not have a model of the rationality of Christian faith which is too exclusive. The bar must be set low (unless you want to bite the bullet and say that, yes, only very tiny fraction of professing Christians are in fact saved). Something like Plantinga's model of warranted Christian belief could pass. But not something like evidentialism (or presuppositionalism I'd be inclined to say). In so far as a Christian agrees that there could be a conceivable tension between the two duties here, and in so far as he/she finds (2) the only attractive solution, he/she has reason to reject any model of rational Christian belief which excludes most Christians.

What d'ya reckon?

[Xru]

Here's a little something to think about.

Many of us Christians on this forum complain about how irrational some people's basis for faith is. Some Christians believe for "emotional reasons" we lament. Or, some Christians who do believe on a more intellectual ground nonetheless do not do so well. Perhaps they were converted by reading YEC material, which is suspect, or because they read some old material on the resurrection which contains arguments that contemporary scholarship has thrown considerable doubt upon.

Fine. But usually, to say that a person has a poor foundation for a given belief, or that he/she is irrational in holding it, is to say that he/she ought not really have it. That he/she isn't entitled to that belief. Indeed, we might go as far as to say that he/she ought to drop that belief. If your friend has poor grounds for thinking that Obama is a muslim, we'd encourage him/her to drop that belief. So, are our "irrational" Christian friends not really justified in believing Christianity? Should they not hold to Christian belief? It is outside their rational entitlement? Ought they drop it until they get their intellectual game together?

You might say that we should simply help them out. We should give them a little N.T. Wright, or Bill Craig. Then they will be no longer flouting their intellectual duty. But suppose that this Christian is actually unconvinced by these apologetic heavy weights. Suppose that he/she finds the older, weaker apologetic stuff to be far more convincing, or that the feeling of warmth and joy this person experiences when hearing the gospel is, to him/her, the real basis for Christian faith. What then? Should we encourage this Christian to drop the faith? After all, their basis for it is irrational (so we are hypothesising). It is their epistemic obligation to surrender their irrational belief?

Surely, as Christians, it would be hard for us to seriously consider advising them to do that. If we were to so encourage him/her, might we not be encouraging them outside of great spiritual gain? Perhaps even salvation itself? Is it really sometimes one's intellectual duty to stop following Christ? Is it our duty to inform of their duty to do this?

There are some ways to potentially resolve this tension between intellectual duty and spiritual duty (to make a crude distinction).

1) We can think that, sometimes, it is not bad to hold irrational beliefs. There can be goods that outweigh the negatives of not being rationally up to scratch. A Christian, then, can have an irrational faith in Christ, but they should not be deterred from it despite that.

2) We can think that, if a person has genuine, living, saving faith, then that person's faith will be rational (however the positive epistemic status of that faith is in fact achieved). As a result, there will never be a conflict between intellectual and spiritual duty.

I'm actually open to both options but I think that taking (2) has some interesting consequences. Say you are an evidentialist. You think that to be rationally justified in believing P, you must have good evidence for P, of an objective and publically accessible kind. If you an evidentialist and you take option (2) then to be consistent you'll have to think that only Christians with good evidence of the right kind for their Christian belief are in fact saved. But this is surely an incredible minority of Christians.

It seems to me that to take (2) one must not have a model of the rationality of Christian faith which is too exclusive. The bar must be set low (unless you want to bite the bullet and say that, yes, only very tiny fraction of professing Christians are in fact saved). Something like Plantinga's model of warranted Christian belief could pass. But not something like evidentialism (or presuppositionalism I'd be inclined to say). In so far as a Christian agrees that there could be a conceivable tension between the two duties here, and in so far as he/she finds (2) the only attractive solution, he/she has reason to reject any model of rational Christian belief which excludes most Christians.

What d'ya reckon?

Hi NB . . . haven't seen ya around lately. Nice to see you. Maybe I've been hanging in the wrong places.

Fisrt, I'd ask myself "What's so great about being Rational." I value rational behavior but I'd probably place reasonable behaviour above it.

Also, I'd be very wary of discounting anyones way of Knowing in favor of any other way. I don't know all the big words you do concerning this. I'm just a humble peasant boy from the Frigid Highlands.

I am aware that this is contrary to the way most would approach the problem . . not necessarily on Tweb but generally . . . I think. The scientific method has society by the short-hairs and dominates thinking from what I've read.

But as I've pointed out many times before, empiricism is only one of many ways of valid knowing.

[Chrawnus]

Here's a little something to think about.

Many of us Christians on this forum complain about how irrational some people's basis for faith is. Some Christians believe for "emotional reasons" we lament. Or, some Christians who do believe on a more intellectual ground nonetheless do not do so well. Perhaps they were converted by reading YEC material, which is suspect, or because they read some old material on the resurrection which contains arguments that contemporary scholarship has thrown considerable doubt upon.

Fine. But usually, to say that a person has a poor foundation for a given belief, or that he/she is irrational in holding it, is to say that he/she ought not really have it. That he/she isn't entitled to that belief. Indeed, we might go as far as to say that he/she ought to drop that belief. If your friend has poor grounds for thinking that Obama is a muslim, we'd encourage him/her to drop that belief. So, are our "irrational" Christian friends not really justified in believing Christianity? Should they not hold to Christian belief? It is outside their rational entitlement? Ought they drop it until they get their intellectual game together?

You might say that we should simply help them out. We should give them a little N.T. Wright, or Bill Craig. Then they will be no longer flouting their intellectual duty. But suppose that this Christian is actually unconvinced by these apologetic heavy weights. Suppose that he/she finds the older, weaker apologetic stuff to be far more convincing, or that the feeling of warmth and joy this person experiences when hearing the gospel is, to him/her, the real basis for Christian faith. What then? Should we encourage this Christian to drop the faith? After all, their basis for it is irrational (so we are hypothesising). It is their epistemic obligation to surrender their irrational belief?

Surely, as Christians, it would be hard for us to seriously consider advising them to do that. If we were to so encourage him/her, might we not be encouraging them outside of great spiritual gain? Perhaps even salvation itself? Is it really sometimes one's intellectual duty to stop following Christ? Is it our duty to inform of their duty to do this?

There are some ways to potentially resolve this tension between intellectual duty and spiritual duty (to make a crude distinction).

1) We can think that, sometimes, it is not bad to hold irrational beliefs. There can be goods that outweigh the negatives of not being rationally up to scratch. A Christian, then, can have an irrational faith in Christ, but they should not be deterred from it despite that.

2) We can think that, if a person has genuine, living, saving faith, then that person's faith will be rational (however the positive epistemic status of that faith is in fact achieved). As a result, there will never be a conflict between intellectual and spiritual duty.

I'm actually open to both options but I think that taking (2) has some interesting consequences. Say you are an evidentialist. You think that to be rationally justified in believing P, you must have good evidence for P, of an objective and publically accessible kind. If you an evidentialist and you take option (2) then to be consistent you'll have to think that only Christians with good evidence of the right kind for their Christian belief are in fact saved. But this is surely an incredible minority of Christians.

It seems to me that to take (2) one must not have a model of the rationality of Christian faith which is too exclusive. The bar must be set low (unless you want to bite the bullet and say that, yes, only very tiny fraction of professing Christians are in fact saved). Something like Plantinga's model of warranted Christian belief could pass. But not something like evidentialism (or presuppositionalism I'd be inclined to say). In so far as a Christian agrees that there could be a conceivable tension between the two duties here, and in so far as he/she finds (2) the only attractive solution, he/she has reason to reject any model of rational Christian belief which excludes most Christians.

What d'ya reckon?

Personally I'd say that 2) is the way to go, specifically something like Plantinga's model of warranted Christian belief, or WLC's argument from the testimony of the Holy Spirit, i.e the witness of the Holy Spirit gives an affirmation of the truth of Christian belief.

EDIT - Also, not having intellectual reasons for Christianity does not necessarily translate into having an irrational faith.

[nightbringer]

Hi NB . . . haven't seen ya around lately. Nice to see you. Maybe I've been hanging in the wrong places.

Yo! I actually visit the site pretty frequently (when its actually online... lol) but I only post in drips and drabs. And even then, usually only within the Apologetics, Philosophy and Christianity sections. Where do you tend to "hang out?"

Fisrt, I'd ask myself "What's so great about being Rational." I value rational behavior but I'd probably place reasonable behaviour above it.

That's an interesting distinction to make! Can you explain a bit about the difference between the two?

Also, I'd be very wary of discounting anyones way of Knowing in favor of any other way. I don't know all the big words you do concerning this. I'm just a humble peasant boy from the Frigid Highlands.

I am aware that this is contrary to the way most would approach the problem . . not necessarily on Tweb but generally . . . I think. The scientific method has society by the short-hairs and dominates thinking from what I've read.

But as I've pointed out many times before, empiricism is only one of many ways of valid knowing.

I'm a bit cautious of how "relativistic" you've made your general stance sound, but I sympathise with problem of the over-emphasis on science. And not just science as such, but a particular manner of "disengagement" that dominates our thinking about reason and knowledge generally.

[RBerman]

This question gets to the heart of pastoral care: discerning what will help a particular person grow in their walk with the Lord. Sometimes that will mean pushing for greater intellectual consistency. Sometimes it will mean encouraging greater discipline in some area, or a less critical spirit, or a grander vision of God's promises that makes the worries of the world pale in comparison. In general I find myself tempted to try to "help" people in the way that I would find most helpful myself, but that's often the wrong approach.

[Xru]

That's an interesting distinction to make! Can you explain a bit about the difference between the two?

Rightly or wrongly I associate rational with materialistic empiricism or the scientific method, whereas Reason must include consideration for all methods of knowing including the measurable (although some thing that religious is testable by the scientific method), inspiration, mysticism if I'm using that word right, revelations, etc.

I'm a bit cautious of how "relativistic" you've made your general stance sound, but I sympathise with problem of the over-emphasis on science. And not just science as such, but a particular manner of "disengagement" that dominates our thinking about reason and knowledge generally.

How is it relativistic? I don't like to be relativistic at all and try not to be.

Simply all ways of knowing should and can be allowed in coming to beliefs. I'm not suggesting that that is no way to determine which beliefs are right or wrong . . ..only that all ways of determining it should be given consideration.

Please comment on how I am being relativistic. Thanks NB.

[Soyeong]

I think if there is at least one reason for having faith, then that faith is a rational faith, even if it is a really poor reason or they don't even know what the reason is. The only way to have an irrational faith in something is if there are absolutely no reasons for having it, which is only possibly achievable by the clinically insane (and even then it is questionable whether there still are absolutely no reasons for having faith or we just don't understand what those reasons are).

You might say that we should simply help them out. We should give them a little N.T. Wright, or Bill Craig. Then they will be no longer flouting their intellectual duty. But suppose that this Christian is actually unconvinced by these apologetic heavy weights. Suppose that he/she finds the older, weaker apologetic stuff to be far more convincing, or that the feeling of warmth and joy this person experiences when hearing the gospel is, to him/her, the real basis for Christian faith. What then? Should we encourage this Christian to drop the faith? After all, their basis for it is irrational (so we are hypothesising). It is their epistemic obligation to surrender their irrational belief?

Even here the example is of a rational faith supported by poor reasons, so they have no obligation to surrender their faith, only the obligation to seek the truth.

[Chrawnus]

Rightly or wrongly I associate rational with materialistic empiricism or the scientific method, whereas Reason must include consideration for all methods of knowing including the measurable (although some thing that religious is testable by the scientific method), inspiration, mysticism if I'm using that word right, revelations, etc.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rational

You're welcome.

[Xru]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rational

You're welcome.

Thanks I guess

Seems I've gotten all fowled up in my thinking . . wouldn't be the first time.

Evidently what I had in mind is that empiricism as a type of reason . . . I guess, but radical empiricists might discount some experiences that are Rational.

Does that seem rational and Reasonable

[Chrawnus]

Thanks I guess

Seems I've gotten all fowled up in my thinking . . wouldn't be the first time.

Evidently what I had in mind is that empiricism as a type of reason . . . I guess, but radical empiricists might discount some experiences that are Rational.

Does that seem rational and Reasonable

[Jedidiah]

What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Xru]

I think if there is at least one reason for having faith, then that faith is a rational faith, even if it is a really poor reason or they don't even know what the reason is. The only way to have an irrational faith in something is if there are absolutely no reasons for having it, which is only possibly achievable by the clinically insane (and even then it is questionable whether there still are absolutely no reasons for having faith or we just don't understand what those reasons are).



Even here the example is of a rational faith supported by poor reasons, so they have no obligation to surrender their faith, only the obligation to seek the truth.

I suppose SoyMan.

[Chrawnus]

I suppose SoyMan.

I see what you did there.

[Soyeong]

I suppose SoyMan.

I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find someone to certify you as clinically insane so we could test it out..for science!*

[Xru]

I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find someone to certify you as clinically insane so we could test it out..for science!*

ohhhhhhhhheeeeeeeee . . . I'd do anything for SCIENCE!!!!!!!

And NO . . . It'd be easy to find someone to certify me as clinically insane. I just want to be on TV!!!!!