A Leap of Faith

In yesterday's post, I talked a bit about the philosopher Kierkegaard, because a Facebook quiz indicated that he and I might think something alike. While I don't see a great similarity, I found part of his writings to fit me well enough, for he is credited with the concept of the "leap of faith." I shall quote a section of the article:

The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such evidence could ever be enough to pragmatically justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway [1]. Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt [2]. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance.

{I added the bold italics.}

The first point (marked [1]) is one that I think escapes (or simply cannot be grasped) by many modern minds. We're too indoctrinated in either relativism or rationalism (or both) to understand that some of the biggest, most important things in human experience cannot be reduced to provable statements, but they are real and critically important, nonetheless.

The second point (marked [2]) is one of the reasons I have trouble with LCMS doctrine. I am fine with the belief that our faith (in Christ) is instilled in us by the Holy Spirit. I am fine with the idea that perfect "faith" would have no doubt at all. But at that point, it's no longer "faith" because there is no other possible way of thinking - at that point it's either knowledge (once we get to heaven) or "blind faith" which I'd call "credulity." "Faith" implies a recognition that the thing you're placing your faith in cannot be proven. In my view, the LCMS tries to keep people from thinking about things that expose "faith" as something that requires doubt. They want people to accept the doctrine without paying attention to the inconsistencies. Examining such inconsistencies leads to doubt which leads to a lessening of faith, they seem to fear.

In my view, it's exactly the opposite. By examining apparent inconsistencies we discover the essential core of the faith. Because, in my view:

Faith requires you to believe something that is unprovable -- not simply unproven.

I must use an example:

Pastor proclaimed {from the pulpit!} that "There is more evidence for a Young Earth {meaning one that's thousands of years old} than for an Earth that's billions of years old."

Now, that's just patently false. First of all, it's hard to quantify "evidence" but if one could, the preponderance of scientific data and confirmed theory can only support an Old Earth. But, of course, the LCMS doctrine is anti-evolution and that has led people to be anti-physics, as well. But more importantly, they have found a viewpoint that, if it's to be believed, requires credulity, not "faith" because the evidence is against them. Yet, still, they don't want "faith" to require doubt, so they feel a need to support their "faith" with evidence.

In this, I think we have found a portion of the doctrine that I think must be discarded. When "faith" requires you to believe something that can be proven wrong, it's no longer "faith."

As I said before, faith requires you to believe something that is unprovable -- not simply unproven. This is the problem that led to the church's conflict with Galileo, and leads to some churches' problems with science today.

Then what requires true faith? The core beliefs of the Christian church: that God exists in the first place; that there is ultimate Good and ultimate Evil; that we humans cannot be ultimately Good all the time; {Well, the latter is not a matter of faith, if you accept the former} that our eternal existence depends on us recognizing and accepting our need for the Savior; and that Jesus is the Savior aspect of a Truine God. Those key elements, and perhaps a few more. None provable, all requiring faith.

So, I agree with Kierkegaard that a key aspect to true faith is a recognition that doubt, or if you prefer uncertainty or the inability to prove, is required. And for Christians who believe that our faith is provided to us by the Holy Spirit, this gives us a reason to be thankful. We are not afraid of the doubt; we appreciate the grace that allows us to overcome it.