Sola Fide or “Faith Alone”. Of the original five Solas, this one has stood the test of time and seems to be the defining principle of the Reformation. And the reason for its prevalence I think lies primarily in its exonerative nature. This is why we see religions all over the world, not just Christianity, that have principles rooted in faith. And so today I want to address three key points surrounding belief by faith. Firstly, we need to see what it even means to believe something in this way, or how does it function as an epistemology. Second, I think we need to examine why this question even matters. I mean, if faith is actually beneficial to human well being, this might be a rather dangerous publication. And finally, I want to propose an alternative way of understanding truth claims, that I believe to be far more effective regardless of religious background.
Faith As An Epistemology
At a glance it may seem a bit odd to call faith an epistemology. Epistemologies are a descriptor of how we know things, and faith is a belief in something. Faith doesn’t really say anything about how you know something, just that you believe you do. However, within a Christian context, faith can function as an epistemological framework. Let’s take a well established epistemology as example. Empiricism is the position that our knowledge comes from sensory experiences. This essentially equates to the idea that the scientific method of observation and experimentation is the path to truth. Now let's compare this to a matter of faith within Christianity, and talk about maybe the most common issue in this debate, the problem of evil. Now of course not all rebuttals to the problem of evil are exclusively faith based. There are theodicies that philosophers have been debating for decades. But generally speaking, this issue can be dismissed with faith. The Christian has faith that God is perfectly good, and thus must have just reason for evil in the world. Regardless of the fact that we don’t seem to have any direct evidence to support this.
A common rebuttal to this view is the argument that it represents a misunderstanding of faith. An accusation that I am attempting to burden the Christian with a blind faith. But in reality faith is not blind, it is based in evidence. But this is precisely where I believe the distinction between faith, and something like empiricism comes into play. The philosophical bedrock for an evidence based epistemology, is going to be evidence. But with faith, there is evidence at play, but it is not at the foundation. This is where I think atheists and Christians alike tend to get this wrong. The atheist will commonly assert that there is simply no evidence to support the claim that say, the problem of evil is justified. Which is of course ignorant due to the fact that there is evidence to justify it. But the Christian also wrongly suggests that their belief in a justification is grounded in evidence. Faith is what holds up the justification, and evidence comes in to support that faith. Not the other way around.
Why It Matters
Considering I am an atheist, I could see it being very easy to imagine my position on this would be rather surface level. I also would imagine you would think that I want people to abandon faith, to become atheists. But this is not true. Epistemologies do not dictate beliefs, they merely describe how you came to have them. And I would actually argue that the faith based framework is not only bad for our society, but even for Christianity specifically. To illustrate this let’s look at what I think is the most extreme case of this here in America, young earth creationism. The most popular proponent of this idea is probably Answers In Genesis, and their founder Ken Ham. And when asked during a Q&A “If anything, what would change your mind”, Ken said
“Well, the answer to that question is, I’m a Christian, and as a Christian, I can’t prove it to you, but God has definitely shown me very clearly through His word, and shown Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, that the Bible is the word of God. I admit that that’s where I start from. I can challenge people that you can go and test that. You can make predictions based on that. You can check the prophecies in the Bible. You can check the statements in Genesis. I could go on and talk about that for a long time, but ultimately, it’s God that convinces somebody. And so, the Bible is the word of God. I’ve got that foundation. That’s my starting point”
This to me is the perfect example the type of faith that is dangerous to Christianity as a whole. He clearly outlines that the evidence is not the foundation, the faith that the Bible is the word of God is. And that is not subject to change by evidence. This type of thinking is precisely the reason Christianity is losing followers. What happens is that issues are presented purely as a dichotomy. In the case of Answers In Genesis and Ken Ham, it’s that either evolution is true, or the Bible is true, with no room for other options in between. And so kids are being fed this information, growing up and being presented evidence for evolution, and as a result leaving the faith entirely. Because they were never prepared to handle the evidence, they were raised to have faith, and then given poor evidence to support it.
This is just the most egregious example. I am sure many of the Christians reading this either are some form of old earth creationist or intelligent design advocates. But I think this same line of reasoning applies to other, more common aspects of the belief. Who authored the gospels? How do we justify evil in the world? Is the Bible infallible? All of these issues can be rooted back into some form of a faith based argument, when reasonable, evidenced based alternatives exist.
An Alternative To Faith
If asked, ‘What would change your mind?’ and the response is ‘nothing,’ it logically follows that evidence is subordinate to preconceived convictions. That does not mean you have no evidence, but that evidence is secondary to your convictions. This is not unique to religion, we are all guilty of this in some regard. It is completely contrary to human behavior, to try to breakdown every little belief into some sort of philosophical framework. But, when it comes to large decisions in our lives, this is when we not only tend to be more rigorous, but we have a moral obligation to do so. Which political party will you vote for? What township will you raise a family in? Which car has the best safety features? These are things where we demand higher quality evidence to form our judgements, because there are real world ramifications that come from them. And this is where I fear we become too lax with regard to religion. We have painted this picture that religious belief is an exclusively personal thing. After all, if you want to just have a Christian household where you raise a family in this lifestyle, who are we to judge? That’s just their decision. And this true, but its misses a great deal of context.
Consider a scenario in which 81% of Americans believed in witchcraft, reminiscent of certain historical periods. And imagine that 40% believed the apocalypse was coming in our lifetime, and a gate to the ethereal plane was going to open. Imagine 73% believed that there was not just a supernatural plane that witchcraft could help you connect with, but spells and incantations were real. Would we not want to demand support for these beliefs? Especially if these people are electing government officials who also believe in witchcraft. Fighting for witchcraft education in schools. Providing shows and books to their children that promote witchcraft. These stats are true of our society today but instead in the form of Christianity. And instead of a gate to the ethereal plane, it is the return of Jesus. And instead of spells and incantations, its miracles.
If that comparison of witchcraft to Christianity bothers you, good. Know that this is precisely the way it feels for an atheist to watch the country, and the world, function in this way. But please also know, that I am not closing the door on Christianity. Witchcraft had its time, and we have since learned through modern science that this is not something we need to worry about. We put it through trials, and we thought critically about it. I am not calling for abolishment of Christianity or religion. I advocate for a critical analysis grounded in reason and evidence. The truth will stand up to criticism, and if you believe Christianity to be true, I think you have a moral responsibility to justify it empirically, not just through faith.
Conclusion
So if you are raising your kids to be Christian, and you want to arm them to be able to defend this idea through sound epistemology, consider teaching them about just that. Epistemology. Teach them how to critically evaluate the Bible, and why they can still believe in light of what that reveals. Evolution is real? No problem, here is how this works with science, not against it. The gospels are anonymous? We know, but here is how we know we can still trust the accounts. There is a lot of evil in the world, how can He allow this? Here are some theodicies that tell us it's not just allowed, but necessary.
It would be disingenuous to suggest that my intent is to bolster Christianity. I believe that once you go under this critical lens, the truth is that none of this is true. But, I am not being dishonest when I say that if Christianity, or any religion, is to have a chance, it needs to adapt. And I know that has had poor connotations in religious communities, the idea of violently reinterpreting text to conform to society. But I am not calling for a reinterpretation of scripture, just how we reason through it. Although I believe there to be no God, and especially no God of the Bible. I want to continue to challenge my own thoughts. And I the best way to do that is to have more well equipped people in the world. People who can defend their beliefs not on faith. But people who can defend their beliefs through sound evidence, and robust philosophy.