Let me explain to you how I think knowledge and faith relate to each other
Think of the word “faith” as being “trust.” I think that knowledge leads to faith. In the plane example, you can see the plane, but you can't “see” yourself getting to your destination in the future. That takes trust. You have faith in the plane's ability to get you there based on evidence. With God, you can't see Him with your eyes, but you can see other evidences (historical, philosophical, scientific, etc.). Based on those evidences, you can come to a reasonable conclusion that He exists and then place your trust (faith) in Him. You may not be able to “prove 100%” that He exists, but we–as reasonable people–put our faith in things we can't “prove 100%” all the time. The plane ride is just one example of this. Naturalists have faith that there is no God. Can they “prove 100%” that there is no God? No. But they have come to a conclusion, and they are placing their trust (faith) in that–even though they can't prove it 100%.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is evidence of God's existence. From that evidence, we can derive knowledge (just as people in a courtroom derive knowledge from evidence). Because of that knowledge, we can then put our trust (faith) in God. This is the same kind of process we all go through every day in many situations–we put our faith in things we can't prove 100% in a lab. This doesn't mean our faith is placed there unreasonably. We can–and ought to–be reasonable about where we put our trust (faith). Based on the evidence, I think it's far more reasonable to think that God exists and Jesus was resurrected than to not. Therefore, I have put my trust in God.

So to respond to your statement, “Regarding God you have a faith-based 'knowledge,'” I would say instead that I have an evidence-based knowledge of God that leads to faith (trust) in Him. I hope I've been able to better clarify my position for you.

There are a lot of questions that humans have asked about “God” and “meaning” throughout the ages. I can remember as far back as second grade–I remember exactly where I was sitting–when I asked myself those very same questions you mentioned. You're right that there's no way we humans could ever come to know anything on our own about a God who is greater than our universe. How could we ever know? There's only one way. The only way we could ever know God would be if He were to reveal Himself to us. This is what He's done. And it's not surprising, really. Any God that would take the time to create such a beautiful, incredible world would care about that world and want it to know Him. There are answers, and they're richly satisfying intellectually and emotionally. Do I know *all* the answers? Heck, no! But the crucial ones have been settled for me.

I can't fully describe the feeling I experience when I see truth–when everything falls into place, makes sense, becomes clear, and resonates as truth to the core of my soul. It's like the beauty of a chess game when you look at the board and suddenly the logic of the strategy is clear to you and you see the answer. Don't settle for the questions, Han. The answers are glorious.

Thanks again for being so respectful of me. You'll always be welcome here.

I could continue to harangue you on this issue, but I do not want to wear you out. It’s been fun. I do have plenty of arguments left that I do not think you can answer, but I don’t want to consume all your time and energy. So I will end it here, and then if you want to continue at some other point we can. But suffice it to say that I have accepted your original point, even if it seems you still may not entirely grasp the thurst of my response. Perhaps I still didn’t articulate clearly enough. I will try once more in a different light.

Do you believe faith equals knowledge? That’s my philosophical question to you. Are they one in the same? Your analogy of the airplane of faith is faulty here because we can see airplanes, but we cannot see God. You have an informed first-hand knowledge of airplanes, but a faith-based knowledge concerning God. Regarding God you have a faith-based “knowledge.”

That is, unless you believe faith and knowledge are one in the same. If that’s the case, then I have to agree to disagree with you.

Also, I am not coming at you from an atheistic position, just to be clear. I am defending the case of agnosticism, which I think is a far more honest point of view. There are things that we simply cannot know. That is why I ask if you believe faith and knowledge are one in the same, as you seem to imply by your lines of reasoning. But if you get on an airplane and have faith that it will take you where you want to go, it is a far cry from absolutely knowing with total certainty that it will take you there.

Do you disagree with this point? Or do you believe that as a religious person “the more one knows, the more he knows?”

If God exists then there is a limitless number of possibilities concerning the nature of reality. And how much do we really know about life beyond this one? Do you not look in the mirror on occasion and wonder just what kind of creature you really are? Do you ever wonder where you are headed as you lay awake at night, knowing that the meaning of life is actually a mystery to you? All these are questions that cannot be answered by human beings, Face. These are the questions that people live with their entire lives, and as they grow old they realize the more they know the more questions they have.

You’re a bright one I have to say. But what do you think of this issue? I will let you have the final word now. It’s been a pleasure.

Cheers,
Han

You're welcome!

You said, ” You do indeed put much pressure on science to come up with theological conclusions.”

I'm asking science to come up with conclusions about reality. The reality is that God exists, and the evidence of the physical world points to this. Science can only speak about what science can show. The study of things like DNA shows that the world was designed. (There are scientific ways of detecting intelligent design. We know from observation that things that are complex, specific, and carry information are created by intelligence.) The study of things like astronomy shows that the universe had a beginning. From things such as these, we infer a designer who existed before time and space (i.e., timeless, non-physical, and powerful). This basic information can be inferred from the physical world. The specifics about the designer must be reached in other ways, as I said.

You said, “But even still, I am glad to hear you say, 'The empirical study of the natural world can't prove Christianity is true–only that a first initiator exists (and a few of this initiator's characteristics).' It shows that ultimately religious people do rely on faith, which was my original point.”

I think you're missing my counterpoint. There are other ways of knowing things besides scientific tests (as you now agree). Just as people find a verdict in a court case by studying the evidence (evidence that is not strictly made up of scientific tests) and come to a conclusion that is not “relying on faith,” but is actual knowledge, I'm saying that you can examine religions in the same way–particularly a religion like Christianity that stands or falls on an historical event–by thinking clearly about the probability of that religion. Christianity does not rest only on faith–if by “faith” you mean a blind leap without evidence. Christian faith is trust in Jesus; and for the truthfulness of his claims, we have much evidence. Some of that evidence can be demonstrated through science, some through historical study, etc.

In other words, I think you have an incorrect view of faith. It's not just saying, “Well, I can never know, so I'll just believe by force of will!” Here's an illustration: Imagine you're going on a trip, and you need to take a plane. You've never been on a plane before, and you're a little suspicious. So you study planes–you see how they work. Once you're convinced that planes really work and aren't just made up, wishful thinking, you're able to put your faith in the plane and get on board. Do you 100% know for *sure* that you'll make it to your destination? Of course not. You could be wrong about the plane–it could crash. But you are making a reasonable decision to trust the plane. You're not just basing your decision to fly on wishful thinking. Some people may require less convincing to get on the plane, but the evidence is still there to support their decision, whether or not they know about it. In the same way, there is enough evidence for Christianity for you to make a reasonable decision to trust (have faith) in God.

So just to sum up, science can study the empirical evidence of the world around us to postulate an intelligent designer just as it can postulate the existence of other entities it can't see or directly test. There is evidence of the effects of God in the natural world. For more specific evidence for Christianity, you have to look to other fields of knowledge including history, logic, and philosophy. All of these are valid ways of knowing things. I'm glad you agree that there are other valid ways of knowing things besides scientific experiments.

You said, “Regarding the question of why the burden of proof should be put on you, as a religious person, the answer to that should be obvious. You are the one who claims there is a God.”

But you are the one who claims there is not a God. Why should your position be the default position? Like I said, that certainly has not been the case throughout history. The atheist position seems much less likely–how did life come from non-life? Intelligence from rocks in the universe? Order from chaos? How did anything come from nothing–not just empty space, but literally *nothing.* All we know from the laws of science argues against any of these things happening. Can you make a positive case for these things happening on their own?

You said, “How do you know this God you believe in is not just some lower servant of yet an even higher supernatural cause?”

Just apply all the arguments I gave for a first initiator to your question. You can't have an infinite number of past creator gods. There has to be a *first* initiator. This is the God I worship.

You've definitely been a good sport to read all of my long posts!

Amy

I am taken aback by your understanding of science. I am not a scientist myself, but I think I do understand and respect it’s limitations. And although I am forced to agree with your humorous and poignant first point, that we need not all be “black hole agnostics,” I feel compelled to press a little further on the second.

When I stated that “if every possible answer was on the table we would never get the right answer,” I was referring specifically to the inclusion of the supernatural. Were I a scientist, I myself would personally be willing to give credence to the notion that the supernatural may indeed have caused the universe to come into existence. But can science rightly assert that to be the case with full authority? (No.)

This was my main point and question posed to Face, whom I’m sure after reading this is now only somewhat relieved to have been bailed out by your greater understanding.

Cheers,
Han

In a final response I would like to be clear and say that I do not think you are a “nutter.” I think you are a fairly nice and somewhat reasonable humanoid.

That being said, I also want to be sure to say yes, I do agree, and have agreed, with a portion of what you have been asserting all along. I do agree that it is possible that a personal initiator formed the universe. I never asserted otherwise. But even still, I am glad to hear you say, “The empirical study of the natural world can’t prove Christianity is true–only that a first initiator exists (and a few of this initiator’s characteristics).” It shows that ultimately religious people do rely on faith, which was my original point.

So my main point to you still stands. You do indeed put much pressure on science to come up with theological conclusions when in fact the existence of God is a matter of faith, not something science can rightly speak on. Furthermore, regarding the question of why the burden of proof should be put on you, as a religious person, the answer to that should be obvious. You are the one who claims there is a God. Am I mistaken in that?

Therefore we do agree in part, and you did make an excellent philosophical point in saying that I cannot prove in a test tube that, “you can’t know anything that can’t be studied in a test tube.” Touche! I must concede that one can indeed know things without tangible physical evidence, even if they are only known in a philosophical and theoretical sense.

Lastly, with all of that being said, I would like to throw one final wrench into your machine if I may.

Let’s assume, just for the sake of discussion, that you are entirely correct in all that you say. Let’s go way far out on a limb and imagine the supernatural does exist, and that he (it?) “made” the universe. If indeed that’s the case, and if this first cause is truly beyond the realm of men and of observation, how do you know this God you believe in is not just some lower servant of yet an even higher supernatural cause?

I am simply aching with anticipation to hear your answer, as I trust you will likely rise to the occasion and respond in typical crusading and zealous Christian fervor.

Cheers to you,
Han

I have been very interested in the exchange between you and Amy, and I just have a couple of comments on your posts.

1. First of all, as an astronomer, I'd like to clarify something about Dark Matter. Most astronomers believe Dark Matter to be physical matter with mass and substance, not a force such as gravity. It may be invisible or undetectable by its electromagnetic radiation, but that does not mean there isn’t something physically there. We know there is something there, because we see the effects of its gravity. The point is that just because we may not be able study a particular object directly in a scientific manner doesn’t mean we can’t make very scientific studies of the effects it has on its surroundings, and thereby infer a great deal of information about what the object itself must be like.

Black holes are another good example. A black hole is also invisible to us. Electromagnetic radiation can’t escape from it, so we can’t get any information back from it. A person could never personally examine a black hole and return, so we could never get any first-hand information describing a black hole. But we can make theoretical predictions on what a black hole must be like, based on what we know about the laws of the universe in which we live, and how matter behaves in it. We can say with a reasonable amount of scientific certainty that we have discovered black holes, based on the way they affect the universe around them. And yet, no one–no one–will ever actually see a black hole, even if they could stand right next to one and survive. It is a physical impossibility. So must we all be “black hole agnostics,” or is there a point where the evidence points strongly enough to what cannot be seen that we can believe in them?

2. You also make the point of being thorough. According to you, we would have to exhaust an infinite number of natural causes before even considering a supernatural cause for an event. And yet, in a previous post, you said that “if every possible answer is on the table…then you will never find the right answer,” because that would allow us, when we don’t have an explanation for something, to throw up our hands and say, “maybe God caused it!” I have to ask you, how scientific would it be to ignore a perfectly logical explanation for something–even if all the evidence points to it–simply because your own personal belief system doesn’t agree with it? By saying that there may be an infinity of naturalistic possibilities, and one of them we may never even think of could be the answer, aren’t you, in effect, throwing up your hands and saying, “maybe Nature caused it!”?

I’m glad you agree that there is actually a true answer to be found when it comes to the origin of the universe, and of life. And you’re absolutely right when you say that if we have to sift through an infinite number of natural causes, the vast majority of which are meaningless, plus all of the possible supernatural causes, we will most likely never find the truth. But I’ll tell you an even more certain way to never find the truth, and that’s for the truth to be eliminated as a possibility in the first place, so that it never makes it to the table at all. Doesn’t it make much more sense to examine the few theories—whether natural or supernatural—that are supported by the scientific evidence available to us?

So, you have to ask yourself, is your goal to find the best naturalistic answer to the questions at hand, or is it to find the truth, natural or supernatural, wherever the evidence leads you?

If you focus on the original subject of my posts (not later issues we brought up in the comments), you'll see that my point was that it is possible for science to point to the existence of a first initiator and still be science, so I'm glad you now agree that's possible. It actually was not the point of these particular blogs to argue for the Christian God. I only brought up different aspects of the evidence for Christianity as possible pieces of evidence for a spiritual reality. The empirical study of the natural world can't prove Christianity is true–only that a first initiator exists (and a few of this initiator's characteristics). You would need to bring in philosophy and history to give more specific evidence for Christianity (as I did when you asked–not that I made a full case by any means). But where I think you're mistaken is this: You think we can only know physical things that can be put in a test tube. I think we can know non-physical things like mathematics, logic, moral law, and memories. I also think we can know something about history, though we can't put that in a test tube either. Non-physical things–and yes, mathematics and logic are non-physical just as all the other examples I gave are non-physical (my categories were “physical/non-physical,” not “provable/non-provable in a lab setting”)–are not necessarily “emotional” (by which I assume you mean “not as real or true as the physical world”).

This is why I can say that my thinking that Christianity is true is not merely “subjective religious faith because [I] didn't see Jesus,” as you claim. This is simply not the case. Think about a common, everyday trial at a courthouse. People are called to the stand, they explain their (non-physical) memories of events, evidence is presented, logic is applied, and a verdict is reached. Now, the jury didn't see the crime, did they? But does that mean their decision is only “subjective religious faith?” I think you are mistaken in your logic here. Just because you didn't see something doesn't mean you can't build a reasonable case to prove it happened. Even though “proving” in a court setting is a different process from “proving” in a lab setting, I don't think it is an any less valid way to approach truth.

You said, “Yet you, and others like you, speak as if you have proven God exists. Do you not see how flimsy all this is?”

Yet you, and others like you, speak as if you have proven God does not exist. Why put the burden of proof on us? The default position for humanity throughout time has been thinking God exists. You act as if we should assume God doesn't exist; but you can't just assume this, ignoring the existence of evidence to the contrary. You can't just pretend like arguments (such as the “Mousetrap” argument I offered) do not exist. All I'm saying is that even if you, personally, don't believe in God, you can still consider it reasonable to do so–there are scientific reasons, there are philosophical reasons, there are historical reasons, and yes, there are experiential reasons. (The subject of my post, however, was only regarding the scientific part. I only brought in the other supporting evidence at your request.) I haven't just made “an assumption” here. Since you see my reasons as only “assumptions,” my guess is that somewhere along the line you must have been thoroughly indoctrinated in how to “think like a naturalist.” 😉

You call my thinking a “strange mix of logic and personal beliefs,” and you don't seem to give much credence to philosophical statements. But please understand that philosophy is not just made up. Philosophy is about using logic to think clearly and come to accurate conclusions. I don't see why you should dismiss philosophical arguments if they are sound. You rely on philosophy all the time. For example, you're making a philosophical statement when you say you can't know anything that can't be studied in a test tube. I'd like to see you prove that statement in a test tube! Can you empirically prove you can't know anything but this? And yet, even you think you can know this statement is true without proving it empirically.

You said, “Instead of willingly exhausting all natural causes you hide behind philosophy and duck the fact that there may very well be an infinite number of natural causes.” I'm not interested in “willingly exhausting all natural causes,” I'm interesting in finding the truth. Do you see the difference? If the truth does not entail a non-personal cause, it would be silly to continue to suggest non-personal causes until the end of time. The fact is that it is as logically impossible to have an infinite number of events in a series as it is to have a square circle. (For details on this, see _Reasonable Faith_ by William Lane Craig.) But I don't even need philosophy to prove that the universe had a beginning. Look up the Big Bang. By scientifically studying the light between the stars, scientists can see that the universe is expanding, and that it originally exploded into existence at a single point. Scientists who believe the universe is eternal are few and far between, and there is no scientific evidence to support this (they believe it based on their philosophy of naturalism, but not as a reasonable inference from the evidence).

You said, “So until God is proven to exist it is actually more plausible to study the possibility that the universe is in fact 'eternal.' At least that's something that can be observed.” Like I said, the opposite is true–it has been observed that the universe is *not* eternal. It is finite. It had a beginning. This can be shown both scientifically and philosophically. To continue to act as if it did not have a beginning is unscientific. You must deal with the beginning. If you can, as a naturalist, explain to me how a natural cause could begin the universe before nature existed, then I will gladly grant that a naturalist explanation is possible. Until then, as a reasonable person, I must go with the theory of a personal agent who started the process.

But I think we've come to some sort of agreement here. You said you can accept the notion of a possible first initiator, and that's all I was asking when I began this discussion. Please stick around, though. We're probably going to begin a section for people to submit questions and topics for future blogs, and you can ask more questions or give more challenges there. You've been very reasonable and respectful. That's pretty good for someone who thinks I'm a nutter!

However, I must point out to you that you yourself admitted agnostics subscribe to the ID theory. That's the lynchpin of my main contention with what you have been saying. I can accept the notion that a first initiator may exist at some point in time past, but what I am seeing from you is a bald assumption that this first cause is the Christian God.

Yet you cannot prove that he exists. So you lean too heavily on a strange mix of basic logic and personal beliefs which hold no weight in science and in the minds of those who have no such faith. Yet you, and others like you, speak as if you have proven God exists. Do you not see how flimsy all this is?

1. How can you say that some writer thousands of years ago predicted something, therefore that proves God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just silly.
It still comes down to your subjective religious faith because you didn't see Jesus, even if some storyteller did “predict” his coming.

As for those other things, none of them prove a thing. Face it Face, you're on shakey ground here. And as for Dark Matter, who cares? It's just a term used to describe something invisible, like gravity. But at least we know that the results of gravity are evident. You on the other hand point to “results” which could be attributed to several other things besides the Christian God.

Do you see my point?

2. Personally, I've seen some amazing answers to prayer and experienced God's presence in my life.

Like what? How do you know that's not just your imagination?

3. Something else to consider is that you have this habit of trying to blur the lines. You lump faith in with science, and things like love and friendship you lump in with mathematics. When you do that you sound more like a new age hippy than a militant fundamentalist. And therein lies your contradiction, because math, science, calculations, all these are concrete and provable in the actual physical world. Religion, love, memories, all of these are emotional, and that's the problem with bringing them into any lab setting. My guess is that somewhere along the line you must have been thoroughly indoctrinated in how to “think like a Christian.”

The other point I make in the interest of simply being thorough. You mentioned in another post that philosophically speaking there cannot be an infinite number of previous causes, and that the universe is not eternal. It occurs to me upon further reflection that this theory works just fine in philosophy and logic, but falls flat on it's face in the lab because until we have exhausted all possible causes there are still alternatives to giving up and dreaming about the supernatural.

In other words, you are continually blurring the lines, Face. Instead of willingly exhausting all natural causes you hide behind philosophy and duck the fact that there may very well be an infinite number of natural causes. So until God is proven to exist it is actually more plausible to study the possibility that the universe is in fact “eternal.” At least that's something that can be observed.

Cheers,
Han

Even if you follow the physical chain of natural causes back to the beginning of time, you cannot continue to endlessly attribute a natural cause to a previous natural cause.
Why not? Have we exhausted all natural causes?

You continue by saying, “The universe is not eternal. At some point there is no nature. Only an agent can begin something when there is nothing. Why is this idea not scientific?”

Amy, it may be a valid theory, but it is not functional in a lab setting because the force which caused that “some point” you refer to has not yet been empirically proven to exist as an actual entity. If theists can prove that “some point” (ie, God) is the beginning cause of the universe, then perhaps the scientists can stop looking at natural causes for this “ultimate truth” solution which you so desire them to find.

Do you follow my thinking here?

Cheers,
Han

by Amy at 09:13PM (PST) on Apr 1, 2005
Militant fundamentalist, huh? Heh, heh. Don't rightly know how to respond to that one! You're a good sport too.

You said, “Why not [endlessly attribute a natural cause to a previous natural cause]? Have we exhausted all natural causes?”

No, you can't do it because it's not possible to have an infinite series of events from eternity until now (for philosophically demonstrable reasons I won't get into now.) Every series of events (e.g., the series of moments of time in our universe) has to have a first event in the series. Also, scientifically speaking, the evidence points to a beginning of the universe. There's a point when time, space, and matter began to exist. Before this point, time, space, and matter did not exist. In order to have a first event, you have to have an agent who decides to cause the event (since there is nothing before that event to mechanistically cause the first event.) It's not possible to have a natural, mechanistic cause before nature exists.

Think of that old game “Mousetrap” where each event causes the next event until the trap falls over the mouse. All of the events in the series are completely explainable by mechanistic natural laws (the ball rolls down the stairs, it hits something at the bottom which causes something else, etc., etc.) All of the events are explainable this way, that is, except the first one. The first event is not caused by forces of nature–it's caused by you, a personal agent, choosing to begin the series by starting the ball rolling. No force is mechanistically acting on you to cause you to start the series as it is for the later events. If you never choose to give the ball a push, the ball will never roll, and the chain will never begin. It takes an initiation by you, a personal agent, to begin the series. Now, this is a short chain, but no matter how long the chain is (remember, it's not eternal), the principle is still the same. Does that make sense?

Regarding your second point, I'm not saying that all scientists have to give up looking for a natural cause. I'm just saying that it's valid to propose an intelligent being if the evidence points that way. I think there's reasonable enough evidence for it to be in the running–even if everyone doesn't accept it. (Even in the ID movement there are agnostics. They merely recognize the marks that point to an intelligent designer.) Now, if the previous “Mousetrap” paragraph is the case, then the scientific evidence does point to an intelligent agent (who began everything) as the best explanation. Also, this would mean that a natural explanation will always be insufficient–no matter what it is–because, from what we know about reality scientifically, a personal agent is necessary to begin a series.

It's important to remember that, in science, you don't need to prove something empirically (touch it, see it, etc.) before you propose its existence as a possible solution. This happens all the time. I've given the example of dark matter before, and it fits in this category as well. It's submitted as a possible entity to explain the evidence at hand–even though they can't see it, touch it, taste it, etc.

The fact is, there's good enough evidence to infer the reasonable hypothesis that God exists. Antony Flew, a famous atheist philosopher for 50 years, was just recently convinced by arguments from science that God exists. He has changed his mind because he recognizes the signs that point to an intelligent being crafting the universe–just as in my illustration, the man in the jungle should have recognized the signs that the artifact was created by an intelligent being.

Does my argument make more sense now? I hope you'll stick around on this blog and comment when you like.