MOVED TO FAITH BY DIRECT EXPERIENCE

In support of the Central Thesis:

No one can actually believe in something blindly.

Direct Experience is perhaps the most common route to faith articulated in the Bible, and quite possibly by Christians the world over.  Seeing something “with your own eyes” is the quickest route to establishing “a fact”, something you can put your faith into.  However, even if one has not “seen” Christ with their eyes, many would claim to have seen His work directly through the lives of Christians that they know and His work directly in their own lives.  But does this count?

“All we know are the facts, ma’am.” –Joe Friday

How do we get these types of Direct Experience facts, and are these proper grounds for belief?

Primarily, we use our five senses, which must be properly functioning and properly sensitive to the experience, and Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has written much on this topic.

“an immediate ground of a belief is an experience, on the basis of which the belief is formed.” – Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, p105.

This is in line with the experiences of Jesus’ Disciples after his resurrection.  Thomas touched him.  They saw him eat.  They heard his voice.  Their belief in the resurrection was based upon direct physical interaction, as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

In fact, a relationship would be a case where belief is warranted, thus, requiring no further justification.  For instance, I don’t have to prove my mother exists using documentation. Her existence is not up for debate because I know her and have had a mother-son relationship with her for many decades.  I have an unshakable and properly basic belief in her existence.  My faith in her existence is not BLIND, even though I do not remember her giving birth to me.

(I am not claiming that this belief makes her truly my biological mother.  I could have been deceived.  I am merely addressing the false characterization that this is blind faith.  It is not blind if it is based upon direct experience of a relationship.)

What of the Christian’s claim of direct experiences with Christ?  No doubt, these form a basis for strong belief, falsifying the claim that these Christians are believing blindly.

But do these claims of a relationship leading to properly basic beliefs satisfy our quest for direct experience fact?

The point is almost inarguable.  For those who are convinced that they sense God’s presence, hear his voice (in their inner dialog with conscience), respond to His prompting, and obtain His blessing in good times and bad, there is no debate.  “God exists because I have met Him” becomes the ultimate apologetic from the perspective of the believer.

But this is not well understood by those who are not convinced that they sense God’s presence, etc.  A description of a relationship with my mother with an emphasis on the inputs from my five senses seems to be qualitatively different than a description of my relationship with Christ with emphasis on inner-dialog, answered prayer, and peace in troubled times.  There is fertile ground to explore how best to describe a relationship with Christ. Perhaps that will be another blog post.

Whether Christian or not, hopefully you can see that when someone claims to have a relationship with Christ, they are basing that belief on what they deem to be direct experiences, which are properly basic.  This is not blind faith.

You may still ask, “OK, so faith is not BLIND, but is a person’s faith well placed?”  “Is what they believe actually true?”  And for that I must refer you to the materials available at www.thepoachedegg.net, www.apologetics315.com, and other blog entries on our site www.ratiochristi.org where the case is made for the TRUTH of the Christian world view.

:DW

ROADMAP FOR THE SERIES

This series of blog posts will explore what is meant by Christians when they say they have “faith” in Christ.

• Part 1 – Introduction to my “No Such Thing as Blind Faith” series of posts
• Part 2 – What is the Biblical concept of the word “faith”?
• How does one come to have “faith” in something?
  • Part 3 – Sources they trust – parents, pastors, professors, publications, papers, posts
  • Part 4 – Intuition – putting the pieces of life together (least “explainable” but still not “blind”)
  • Part 5 – Reaction to stress or joy – mountain tops and valleys in life
  • Part 6 – Experience – direct experience with Christ in some way
• Part 7 – Conclusion, support of the central thesis, and how we come to change our minds

MOVED TO FAITH BY THE MOUNTAINS AND VALLEYS IN LIFE

In support of the Central Thesis:

No one can actually believe in something blindly.

VALLEY

“There is no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole.” – Father William Cummings

Chances are good that you have heard the above quote (often misattributed to Dwight D. Eisenhower), especially in light of the latest stink raised by those who would purge religious speech from anyone employed in government service.  Here is an excerpt from an article giving context to Father Cummings’ famous statement.

“In one of my many discussions with Roy, he distinctly remembered a period on the “Hell Ships” – these were ships the Japanese used to bring POWs from the Philippines back to Japan. They were unmarked and thus ‘fair game’ for attacks from the allies from the air and sea.

Of the 3,000-plus POWs listed on the ships, only 180 survived the journey.

“When our own planes were attacking us,” Roy said, “I remember Father Cummings calming us down by reciting the Lord’s Prayer and offering up prayers on our behalf. For a brief moment I did not hear the yells and screams of dying men as our boat was attacked by our own men.” He went on to say, “There was a peaceful quiet during the attack that I cannot explain nor have experienced since.”

Later on during the trip to Japan, Cummings, after giving his food to others who needed it more, succumbed to his own need and died of starvation.”

MOUNTAIN

In contrast to the despair of impending death, there is the mountain top experience of the Spiritual Retreat. The fact that spiritual retreats are not merely a Christian phenomenon is interesting.  There appears to be some value in the practice for bringing people to faith or for strengthening the faith of those who already believe.  Here are the typical features of the Christian retreats I have seen:

• Large gatherings for worship, which give a sense of belonging to something much larger than a circle of acquaintances and a sense of love from complete strangers.
• Small groups for discussion, which allows the ability to know and be known by others.
• Time alone for reflection, which allows the processing of the information and emotion gathered by the other experiences.

This often results in the attribution to God the love felt and conveyed during the retreat.

BACKFIRE

Mountains and valleys can also have the opposite effect.  The despair of helpless situations has caused many to scream at God, demanding answers, “right now”.  Likewise, sadly, some have gone to spiritual retreats, seen the love shared all around them and they have “felt nothing”.  They have concluded that it was all an act, an exercise in socialization.  Not getting answers from God, not “getting” retreats, and not getting clear reasons why others do is a big sticking point for those who don’t or feel like they can’t believe.

There is only one “magic bullet”, and it is not the mountain top, nor the valley.

RELATIONSHIP

Both examples – the fox hole and the retreat – have relationships as the common factor.  One who comes to faith because of that relationship is NOT acting blindly.  They are moved to faith by what they perceive as true and foundational, namely, “The inexplicable love I feel in this place (from Father Cummings or from complete strangers who love the Lord) is evidence that Christ loves me also.”

But let us go back to Chaplain (Lt. Col.) Kenneth Reyes:

“Everyone expresses some form of faith every day, whether it is religious or secular. Some express faith by believing when they get up in the morning they will arrive at work in one piece, thankful they have been given another opportunity to enjoy the majesty of the day; or express relief the doctor’s results were negative. The real question is, “Is it important to have faith in ‘faith’ itself or is it more important to ask, ‘What is the object of my faith?'”

Faith itself may factor into one’s general health, but this is not about lowering your blood pressure, or meditating to relieve one’s stress levels.  What is the object of the Christian faith?

“For I can testify about them that they [the Israelites; but also applies to others who] are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.  Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.  Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” [Meaning fulfillment of the law will bring life. But perfect living is impossible.]

But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).  But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim:

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.  – Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 10, V 2 – 10 with [my comments].

In a nut shell, we are powerless to live a perfect life which is necessary to have a relationship with a perfect God.  So God himself became man in Jesus and became the culmination of the law.  We didn’t invent this scheme, but rather it has been revealed to us in the Bible that God has laid our punishment onto Christ, thus covering our imperfections and allowing us to have a RELATIONSHIP with the one true and perfect God.  Amazing.

I know it is unlikely and confusing and probably doesn’t make sense if this little post is all you know about Christianity.  So before you make a judgment, do two things:

1. Read the Gospel of John and
2. Really get to know a Christian who studies apologetics.  If you ask a Christian acquaintance if they study apologetics, and they say “Huh?”, then respectfully move on.  Those who are studying apologetics are studying how to answer your deepest questions and they SHOULD want to be your friend and treat you with Christ’s love and respect regardless of what you believe.  If they don’t.  If they treat you like a project and not a person, then respectfully move on.  You are on a QUEST FOR TRUTH, and you shouldn’t extrapolate too far from one or two bad encounters.
3. The non-helpful “option 3.”  Read tons of blogs and watch tons of debates online.  This will inform you some, but God seeks a RELATIONSHIP with you, and this often starts with a RELATIONSHIP with one of His believers.

WEEKLY MOUNTAINS AND VALLEYS

Finally, what we see on Sunday Mornings is a retelling of the “valley of the shadow of death” typically in the form of the Confession and Absolution [in liturgical settings, but also prevalent in non-liturgical worship].  We also sing, say, or read about Christ’s victory over death on the cross.  This is the ultimate mountain top experience for the Christian.  We welcome and celebrate the deepest despair and the highest joy at least once a week, and you are welcome to join us.

Our faith resulting from the relationship we have with Christ, from the love in Christian circles, from the historicity of the Scriptures, and from the evidence of Christ’s death on the Mountain of Calvary and His resurrection is not a blind leap into the unknown, for unknown reasons, or against evidence to the contrary.  It is a strong foundation, as strong as the very rocks that form mountains and valleys.

:DW

Since the Air Force has already removed the article once, I am posting the full article here to ensure its preservation:

“Commentary by Chaplain (Lt. Col.) Kenneth Reyes, JBER Chaplain

7/17/2013 – JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, Alaska —

The “Chaplain’s Corner” offers perspectives to enhance spiritual/religious resiliency in support of Air Force and Army Comprehensive Fitness programs.

[Comments regarding specific beliefs, practices, or behaviors are strictly those of the author and do not convey endorsement by the U.S. government, the Department of Defense, the Army, the Air Force, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, or the 673d Air Base Wing.]

‘No atheists in foxholes’: Chaplains gave all in World War II.

Many have heard the familiar phrase, “There is no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole.”

Where did this come from?

Research I verified in an interview with former World War II prisoner of war Roy Bodine (my friend) indicates the phrase has been credited to Father William Cummings.

As the story goes, Father Cummings was a civilian missionary Catholic priest in the Philippines.

The phrase was coined during the Japanese attack at Corregidor.

During the siege, Cummings had noticed non-Catholics were attending his services. Some he knew were not Catholic, some were not religious and some were even known atheists.

Life-and-death experiences prompt a reality check.

Even the strongest of beliefs can change, and, I may add, can go both ways – people can be drawn to or away from “faith.”

With the pending surrender of allied forces to the Japanese, Cummings uttered the famous phrase “There is no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole.”

In one of my many discussions with Roy, he distinctly remembered a period on the “Hell Ships” – these were ships the Japanese used to bring POWs from the Philippines back to Japan.

They were unmarked and thus ‘fair game’ for attacks from the allies from the air and sea. Of the 3,000-plus POWs listed on the ships, only 180 survived the journey.

“When our own planes were attacking us,” Roy said, “I remember Father Cummings calming us down by reciting the Lord’s Prayer and offering up prayers on our behalf. For a brief moment I did not hear the yells and screams of dying men as our boat was attacked by our own men.”

He went on to say, “There was a peaceful quiet during the attack that I cannot explain nor have experienced since.”

Later on during the trip to Japan, Cummings, after giving his food to others who needed it more, succumbed to his own need and died of starvation. Everyone expresses some form of faith every day, whether it is religious or secular. Some express faith by believing when they get up in the morning they will arrive at work in one piece, thankful they have been given another opportunity to enjoy the majesty of the day; or express relief the doctor’s results were negative.

The real question is, “Is it important to have faith in ‘faith’ itself or is it more important to ask, ‘What is the object of my faith?'”

Roy never affirmed or expressed whether his faith was rooted in religion or not, but for a moment in time on the “Hell Ships,” he believed in Cummings’ faith.

What is the root or object of your faith?

Is it something you can count on in times of plenty or loss; peace or chaos; joy or sorrow; success or failure?

What is ‘faith’ to you?“

ROADMAP FOR THE SERIES

This series of blog posts will explore what is meant by Christians when they say they have “faith” in Christ. Roadmap for the series:

• Part 1 – Introduction to my “No Such Thing as Blind Faith” series of posts
• Part 2 – What is the Biblical concept of the word “faith”?
• How does one come to have “faith” in something?
  • Part 3 – Sources they trust – parents, pastors, professors, publications, papers, posts
  • Part 4 – Intuition – putting the pieces of life together (least “explainable” but still not “blind”)
  • Part 5 – Reaction to stress or joy – mountain tops and valleys in life
  • Part 6 – Experience – direct experience with Christ in some way
• Part 7 – Conclusion, support of the central thesis, and how we come to change our minds

MOVED TO FAITH BY INTUITION

In support of the Central Thesis:

No one can actually believe in something blindly.

Having a new-born infant in the house is one of the greatest blessings imaginable.  But there are also some very disorienting aspects of the newborn that make a computer-programmer-type person a little crazy.  Lack of sleep is not a big deal compared to the lack of a functioning user interface.  Here’s what I mean.

See the issue?  I remember being at a loss wondering what the crying signal meant.  I quickly made a mental decision tree: 1. Check diaper, 2. Check eating times, 3. Check for localized pain of any sort, 4. Try consolation, 5. Try distractions, 6. Find “Mom”.  It worked like a charm most of the time.

Shifting focus, let us try to imagine the thought process of the infant as she struggles with learning the concept of hunger.  A strange craving appears.  She gets irritated and begins to cry.  Mom, Dad, Babysitter come to the rescue with something to drink.  Strange craving is satiated.  Eventually, the caregivers put a word to this by asking, “Are you feeling hungry?”

Hunger is not a physical entity, but it is very real.  Who would be bold enough to claim that hunger is “not real” when so much of the world’s population is desperately and constantly hungry?  It is the term we give to the craving for food.  You can locate hungry people, but you cannot locate hunger.  You might isolate the location in the brain where the craving signal resides, but “hunger cannot be reduced to ion exchanges in neurons”. The concept of hunger only makes sense in the context of craving and satiation.

Now for something completely different…  ~ Monty Python

Ever see a breathtaking sunset?  Have you been moved to tears by an act of kindness, valor, or self-sacrifice?  Are you a fan of great music, great art, or great architecture?  Why do you want to travel the world to see the great sites, when these sites are available instantly on the Internet?  These things are satiating.  But what word do we place on the craving that is satiated in these life-enriching situations?  Words like aesthetics, beauty, and meaning come to mind, but there is not a handy word like “hunger” to describe our craving the fulfillment of these desires.  This is unfortunate, because without a term, the concept is easily denied.

You can try to deny the existence of the craving for beauty.  But you will be easily disproven with one simple observation – the World of Color at Disney’s California Adventure.  Crowds do NOT pay thousands upon thousands of dollars twice a day to experience longitudinal waves (sound), coherent light (lasers), two-dimensional imaging (movies), and the abnormally high surface tension of water.  They came to see the love scenes of Disney played upon ghost-like walls of water with blasting fountains, laser flashes, and musical flourishes.  See for yourself:

http://youtu.be/xbzJ0R9Q-h8

With art and beauty we seem to have a grasp of the object we crave, but we are inarticulate when describing the craving.  With spiritual matters we have a grasp of the craving, but left to our own devices, we become unsure of the object.  Our cravings for the “Holy” show up in our cravings for ritual, for proper words (piety of sorts), for an ordering sovereignty of some kind.

What evidence is there of these cravings?  You mean besides the fact that every known civilization has had some sort of spiritual practice?  What about the need we feel to have ritual at weddings and funerals?  Certain phrases are craved as if they seal some spiritual deal.  When disaster strikes, even the most strident anti-theists have been known to cry, “Where’s God!!”  We crave a higher power even if it is to have someone to accuse.  We do not have a word like “hunger” for this craving, but it is real.

What is it then that this desire and this inability proclaim to us, but that there was once in man a true happiness of which there now remain to him only the mark and empty trace, which he in vain tries to fill from all his surroundings, seeking from things absent the help he does not obtain in things present?  But these are all inadequate, because the infinite abyss can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God Himself.  ~ Blaise Pascal – Mathematician, Physicist, Inventor, and Christian Philosopher – Pensees, E.P. Dutton &Co Inc, 1958, page 367.

This passage of Pascal has been paraphrased into the familiar:

There is a God-shaped hole in all of us. ~ Plumb
(http://youtu.be/pAXxgWZMDHU < song with lyrics below)

There are many Christians who base their faith on this filled void.  They know their craving, and they know the satiating object of their craving.  Since it is not easily put into words, many of them say,

I just believe.

That is not a satisfying response for them because it does not do justice to the fulfillment they have from lining up their hunger with the object of their affection.  It is not a satisfying response for the questioner, either, because a questioner wants more detail, more information, and more concrete terms with which to wrestle.

Perhaps I have described you.  If your faith is one of spiritual hunger satiated in Christ, then take some time to put into words a description of the hunger that was satisfied.  It doesn’t have to read like the Lawyer’s Case for Christ , the Detective’s Case for Christ , or the Journalist’s Case for Christ . This is YOUR case for Christ, and it is one that someone needs to hear.  “I just believe” is not the whole story, and I suspect you know it.  But nobody is exempt from 1 Peter 3:15,

…always be prepared to give an answer (apologetic) to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  But do this with gentleness and respect,… ~ 1 Peter, Chapter 3, Verse 15.

Pro Tip

Operating on intuition involves special care.  It is evident from the above post that these cravings do not even have universally-agreed-upon terms.  They seem to avoid description.  Do not be afraid to find additional reasons to believe.  This is the natural maturation process as one goes from trusting Mommy to trusting one’s own feelings.  One should move beyond feelings to more rigorously testable facts.  There are three advantages to this:

1. You can avoid errors and avoid being misled by your fickle feelings.
2. You can test the claims of others (and yourself).
3. You can provide yourself a “fortress of facts” for those times when you don’t “feel” especially spiritual.  If your faith in Christ is based upon “feeling His presence”, then you WILL have a crisis of faith when for whatever reason you interpret your feelings as “not feeling His presence”.  This fortress of facts is constructed from reliable sources.
   (cf. www.apologetics315.com and www.thepoachedegg.net for more!)

:DW

ROADMAP FOR THE SERIES

This series of blog posts will explore what is meant by Christians when they say they have “faith” in Christ. Roadmap for the series:

• Part 1 – Introduction to my “No Such Thing as Blind Faith” series of posts
• Part 2 – What is the Biblical concept of the word “faith”?
• How does one come to have “faith” in something?
  • Part 3 – Sources they trust – parents, pastors, professors, publications, papers, posts
  • Part 4 – Intuition – putting the pieces of life together (least “explainable” but still not “blind”)
  • Part 5 – Reaction to stress or joy – mountain tops and valleys in life
  • Part 6 – Experience – direct experience with Christ in some way
• Part 7 – Conclusion, support of the central thesis, and how we come to change our minds

Moved to Faith by Reliable Sources

In support of the Central Thesis:

No one can actually believe in something blindly.

What do you consider a reliable source of information?  We put our trust (faith) in others all the time.  Eating at a restaurant shows our faith in the cooks, the health inspectors, or even the friend who tell us, “It looks terrible, but try it!  You’ll love it!”

Faith is evidenced by action.  We depend upon reliable sources to bring us to the point of taking an action like actually putting some disgusting looking food in our mouths.  There is a difference between acknowledging that your friend survived eating at a nasty-looking restaurant, and actually eating the food yourself.

Faith is NOT magic.  It does not “make something true.”  Nasty-looking (and clean-looking) restaurants can make you very sick even if you REALLY believe they won’t.  But your actions are evidence of your faith and what you trust.

In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.  (James, Chapter 2, Verse 17)

Being a chemist, I am bothered by those who mistakenly claim that science is devoid of faith.  Let me speak to the scientist.  An honest scientist realizes that testing a theory requires a quantity of faith.  You are expending time, precious days of your life, and often other people’s money and time to see if a theory holds or fails in a controlled set of circumstances.  You are “sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see”.  But, notice the subtlety.  You are not sure of the result or certain of the result, but rather, you are sure that nature is repeatable, logical, and knowable.  How did you come to trust in the stability, the logic, and the “knowability” of nature?  Reliable Sources.

A scientist comes to know about the behavior of nature through reliable sources.  For me, it began with parents explaining the seasons, teachers suggesting books to read, and the books themselves.  I didn’t just learn facts.  I came to trust the philosophy that nature was knowable and that rational thought was trustworthy. This is not an empirical result.  It is a secondary conclusion and the foundation of empiricism.

Hence the flawed logic of scientism’s claim,

If it cannot be empirically proven, then it cannot be objectively true.

That claim cannot be empirically proven, so that claim commits suicide.

This example is not a straw man, either.  Here is the claim written in a more popular form,

It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove a claim false.

This is most certainly a claim that is non-falsifiable.  Further, in the same article the statement is made:

Any claim that could not be falsified would be devoid of any propositional content; that is, it would not be making a factual assertion — it would instead be making an emotive statement, a declaration of the way the claimant feels about the world. Nonfalsifiable claims do communicate information, but what they describe is the claimant’s value orientation. They communicate nothing whatsoever of a factual nature, and hence are neither true nor false. Nonfalsifiable statements are propositionally vacuous.

Therefore, “It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false” is propositionally vacuous.

If that makes your head explode, good. You should realize that science rests on top of philosophy.  Why do we trust our 5 senses?  Philosophy.  Where does logical experimentation originate?  Philosophy.  And it is philosophy that tells us what is logical, what is reasonable, and what sources (including empirical results) are likely to be trustworthy.

Back to the question.  We use reliable sources to bring us to the point of taking action on our beliefs (faith).  We may not have studied philosophy in school, but we learned it in the school of hard knocks.  Who hasn’t felt the pain of betrayal and learned something about who to trust?  Who hasn’t sniffed old-ish milk trusting their senses to reflect the true nature of the substance?

So the scientist trusting her mentors and the literature, the child trusting his parents, the Christian trusting her ministers have more in common than they think.  When it comes to achieving faith in something, we all have to choose our sources and our philosophical framework.

The question remains, “are the sources we have faith in truly reliable?”  Check out J. Warner Wallace’s book Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels or Lee Strobel’s book The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus.  They searched the source documents and interviewed experts until their objections were answered.  Even though they could not see God with their physical eyes, they could clearly see their sources.  Their faith was NOT blind.  And then it came down to action.  They trusted in Christ.  They actually “ate at the restaurant.”

Taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him. (Psalm 34, Verse 8)

:DW

Roadmap for the Series

This series of blog posts will explore what is meant by Christians when they say they have “faith” in Christ. Roadmap for the series:

• Part 1 – Introduction to my “No Such Thing as Blind Faith” series of posts
• Part 2 – What is the Biblical concept of the word “faith”?
• How does one come to have “faith” in something?
  • Part 3 – Sources they trust – parents, pastors, professors, publications, papers, posts
  • Part 4 – Intuition – putting the pieces of life together (least “explainable” but still not “blind”)
  • Part 5 – Reaction to stress or joy – mountain tops and valleys in life
  • Part 6 – Experience – direct experience with Christ in some way
• Part 7 – Conclusion, support of the central thesis, and how we come to change our minds