Why I am a Christian: The Credibility of Christian Faith (Part 2)
Despite what we often hear, it is completely reasonable to profess faith in Jesus Christ. Christian belief is coherent, useful, rational, and backed up by experience.
In Logos Letter #3, I began to lay out the reasons for my Christian faith. In brief, I continue to profess Christianity because I believe it to be true, and I believe that I possess solid, reasonable grounds for the truth of Christianity. In Letter (#3), I discussed the criteria for determining the credibility of Christianity and it is very important to recognize that the criteria for determining the credibility of Christianity is nothing extravagant or esoteric; we employ the same criteria when examining any other momentous belief: coherence, utility, rationality, and experience. In part one of this series I discussed a few of the philosophical arguments for Christian belief. In this Letter, I will turn to the empirical (experiential) evidence for the truth of Christianity; I will consider the coherence and utility of Christian belief at some point in the future.
Socio-Religious Experience
I have stated previously that various rational arguments for the existence of God have played a crucial role in confirming my faith. Nevertheless, my faith, such as it is, did not begin with philosophical arguments. I readily admit that those arguments came later. I heard about Christianity from others. This should be no surprise. An enormous amount of our learning is based on the testimony of others, whether practical, spiritual, or theoretical. Indeed, natural “faith,” that is, believing the testimony of others is a necessary element of ordinary human experience. Without ever trusting the word of another, we could hardly learn or achieve anything. We rightly trust teachers, friends, doctors, and others all of the time.
Of course, I first learned about the Christian faith from my parents. My parents professed the existence of God, trusted in God’s provision, aspired to obedience, and experienced God in prayer and worship. They claimed to have been called by God; they claimed to have been born again by the Holy Spirit and to know God, not abstractly but personally (or as philosophers put it, “by acquaintance”). I was taught the doctrines of creation, sin, redemption, and my need for Jesus Christ. My parents claimed that they had received all of this from the written word of God. Was their testimony credible? Both then and now, it seems so.
They witnessed to something that happened in their lives, namely, the conviction of sin, repentance, joy, hope, and love, and their lives bore this out. They were not perfect, but they lived in a way that was consistent with the experience they professed. This evinced and supported their claims. For this reason, I have credible witnesses to rebirth through the Spirit — to being born again. This does not prove the truth of Gospel, but it is consistent with its truth and, as such, confirms the hypothesis, so to speak. Of course there are many examples of Christians who fail to live godly lives, but this does not discredit Christianity. Inconsistency and failure is the human norm, and again this condition is consistent with the Biblical doctrine of original sin At the same time, sincere, fruitful, and solid Christians give credible witness to the truth of the gospel — to the truth of being born again.
Try to think of it this way, if Christianity is true then we should find some saints and many sinners and frankly a mixture of light and darkness. And in fact we do. Of course, this does not deductively prove the truth of the hypothesis; to claim that it does would be fallacious. Nevertheless, from an inductive perspective, I can say that the doctrines of sin and regeneration have been tested and verified.
Should I have readily accepted the belief of my parents? Certainly as a child, it is perfectly reasonable to accept my parents' beliefs, after all children rightly learn to follow their guidance on many things. My parents proved their sagacity, care, and credibility throughout my childhood, and I would have been foolish not to trust them. Fine, you may say, but surely you should grow out of this? Well, maybe, but we must begin somewhere and it is important to remember that the words of my parents were confirmed by how they lived. Should I discard my inherited belief just because it is inherited? I began with my parents’ belief and although I have modified it in many ways, I have never found it falsified by experience; more importantly, my inherited faith has been made all the surer with each passing year and each new experience. From the experience of personal betrayal, divorce, friendship, sin, repentance, professional failure, joyful fatherhood, and everything else, it all chimes well with Christian faith. Of course, my experiences could be explained otherwise, but that does not rob them of evidential power. Almost all data could be explained in a variety of ways. What matters most in inductive reasoning is whether the data of experience falsifies the thesis. In my life, Christian faith has been tested against experience, and it has not been found false. I have had endless questions, but never a single day of sincere doubt.
Experiencing God in Nature
In this section, I do not intend to rehearse the great philosophical arguments of classical theism. Rather I want to point out something obvious that often goes overlooked. It is true that some natural phenomena may be reasonably explained in a way that is consistent with materialism, reductionism, evolutionary naturalism, etc. Nevertheless, the very same phenomena are consistent with the hypothesis, the belief, in the God of the Bible. I am not claiming that the Bible is in line with natural science, but rather that natural phenomena are very much as I would expect if the Bible is true. I experience nature as an efficient, beautiful, and well-ordered system, which is just what I would expect if the Bible is true. And, it should be noted, this is not obscurantism, but a belief that has motivated the great number of early of scientists. Indeed trust that the universe could be understood in scientific terms was often inspired by the belief that God had designed the universe to reveal Himself.
One may object that my view violates Ockham’s razor, that is, it multiplies explanations unnecessarily — big bang cosmology and naturalistic evolution explain natural phenomena without any need for recourse to the supernatural. This objection seems plausible, but it presupposes that naturalistic explanations are preferable to supernatural explanations and that I should only choose the latter, unless I am forced to do otherwise. But there is no non-question begging way to defend this imperative. Natural phenomena may be explained by more than one hypothesis. This is not special pleading, for philosophers of science have long recognized this problem. The “confirmation” of hypotheses is nothing more than non-falsification. Hypothesis X is confirmed if it is not falsified by experimental outcomes. But this may be the case with multiple, non-compatible hypotheses and there is no scientific way for deciding the matter. One may opt for the hypothesis most in line with naturalism, but to do so reflects a philosophical commitment rather than a scientific outcome. I am not here trying to refute naturalism, but simply show that natural phenomena is perfectly consistent with my own Biblical worldview. Yes, there are other ways to explain the phenomena, but the phenomena is consistent with a holy, wise, and loving Creator, who wishes to reveal Himself to man. In addition to this objective state of affairs, this is the way that I subjectively experience nature. I believe that I am compelled to see God in natural phenomena by the Holy Spirit. This is certainly subjective, but it is my experience nonetheless and as such it is properly basic for me in much the same way as my experience of memory or pain.[1] And again, it is precisely what we would anticipate if the God of the Bible is real. You may not have this experience yourself, but that does not count against its evidential power in my own case; similarly, you may have never felt the wind against your face on the west coast of Ireland, but I can assure you that I have and the experience is both real and thrilling. But much more important than this evidence is the witness of my own moral experience.
Moral Experience
The New Testament clearly depicts man as a lost sinner. Do I have any reason to believe this is so? Yes. I know that I am a sinner. Many wise Christians have observed that the doctrine of original sin needs no proof by argument. This is no doubt the truth. It is right there, just open your eyes and look at history; or better yet look at yourself. There is in me a deep-seated, ego-centric selfishness that makes itself manifest in a million ways, and I cannot shake free of it entirely. Psychology, education, law, etc. can mitigate it, but nothing eliminates it. The devil may be a roaring lion, but I am most directly acquainted with the roaring lion of my own depraved heart. I know, that I am a sinner. I am convicted. This personal fact is consistent with the truth of the gospel; it confirms the doctrine of original sin.
Now by the conviction of sin I do not only mean the feeling of guilt, but also the fact of guilt — although the two are closely related. I have done things that I must not do. This realization immediately points me beyond guilt to a law, for the curious thing about the word “must” is that it only directly follows from an imperative, that is a law, and the obvious thing about a law is that it requires a command. Neither ferns nor rocks command. Lords command. And this law that I find within, I find without in men and women across time and cultures, which of course suggests a universal and abiding Lord; moreover the force of this “must” is absolute, which again suggests an absolute Lord. But if there is such a Lord, who is He and what are the grounds of His authority? Quite obviously the Bible supplies a clear answer to this. The Lord of all is the Creator (because He is the creator). This is consistent with the Christian doctrines creation, general revelation, and divine sovereignty. I know that there are putatively “naturalistic” explanations of conscious and conviction but I do not find them convincing. Indeed there is an emerging consensus among philosophers to reject efforts to reduce psyche and moral categories to natural properties. So in very important ways Christianity explains my experience.
However, the conclusion that I have sinned against the sovereign Lord of the universe is hardly good news in the normal sense. Indeed, once I have come so see things in this way I experience a crisis of conscience. The good news is that God in His gracious love has not left us in this position, but sent His own Son to fulfill the law and pay the price of sin. Christianity is consistent with my experience, it explains my experience, and offers a clear solution to the central problem of my experience, namely, myself. I am the greatest problem in my life because I am sinner in rebellion against the one who matters most, God — the horizon and ground of all. And this is precisely what I experience.
Final Thoughts
Taken in isolation the various evidences presented in this series may not impress, but taken together, they amply demonstrate the credibility of Christianity. Remember, the argument does not seek to demonstrate that Christianity is necessarily true. Rather, my aim is to show the cumulative evidence that makes it reasonable for me to believe that Christianity is true. And remember this is no case of “special pleading.” Belief is a normal and necessary part of human life, but we must distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable belief. Although I do not know that my neighbor is not an alien robot, it would be unreasonable for me to believe it is so. By contrast, although I cannot strictly prove the truth of Christianity, it is a reasonable belief (credible) because it is supported by rational argumentation and empirical evidence. At the very least, the combination of rational arguments for the existence and attributes of God, taken together with my experience, justifies my own belief. Logical argument compels my mind to affirm the existence of God, along with His great attributes, and my experience — social, religious, natural, and moral — all confirm the truth of Christianity. I do indeed possess reasons for the hope that is within me. (1 Peter 3:15)
[1] This line of thinking is broadly based on Alvin Plantinga’s view of basic beliefs.