It's been over a month and a half since the last blog post and over a month since the last comment. Is this blog going the way of the dinosaurs and unicorns when they didn't make it to Noah's ark? If you need a topic, how about addressing how rude atheists can be when addressing stories about giant boats and global floods, or magic trees and talking snakes, or virgin births and zombies - er, dead men rising from the grave. Is it wrong that we're so critical, or should we all just believe whatever stories we're told? If that's not an appropriate topic, write about your experiences in youth and family ministry or the latest discussion at "Theology on Tap/And Also with Brew".

To answer the question at the end of your article, yes and no. Christians, or any other group with fundamental beliefs that lie in the supernatural, may admit when their logic and reason doesn't hold up, but they won't admit any weakness in their stance because they'll turn to faith to justify their beliefs. Faith cannot ever justify a belief in any meaningful way.
When I ask you if you believe in virgin birth, or the transformation of water to wine, or a global flood - you must see the absurdity of these stories, but I'm sure you just chalk it up to faith and keep on believing in the absurd like it's the virtuous thing to do. If you were willing enough to admit when something you believe doesn't quite hold up, you wouldn't be believers.

I guess I more wanted to address our willingness, as believers, to be logical and consistent in how we address scripture with logic and reason - not so much the faith (or lack of reason) that we have to put stock in scripture. For many people, the problem isn't that someone has faith in something, but how that faith is built and the rationality of the structure. Having the faith isn't the problem, but the implementation of it. When someone's doctrine pits "us against them," the underlying faith often is solely to justify the worthiness of the person as others' expense.

Reason doesn't allow you to build something structurally sound on uneven foundations. The best you might hope for is a bit of circular logic that is completely self-sufficient.
Do you think it's possible to create a consistent way to address scripture with logic and reason? Further, though you claim it's off-topic, do you think there is a consistent way to justify faith?

Epistemologically, I can know nothing (except perhaps that I exist). We must have faith at some point. Do you have faith that I exist, probably. Do you have faith in science, once again I am going to assume that you do. These seem to be pretty logical assumptions, however nothing can be proven without a doubt. Better arguments can be made that increase the probability that something is true.
So to get to your point, no faith can not be justified. Faith is a belief that cannot be proven so a lack of belief requires a faith as well. For one cannot prove that God does not exist either. We have faith in God, you have faith in the absence of a god.

In short even atheists rely on faith even if they do not realize it.

I understand you're point philosophically, but practically, I disagree that there's much of a similarity between what you are calling my "faith" and your faith. I agree that nothing can be disproven completely. I cannot prove the non-existence of unicorns, but because there is no reliable evidence that they do exist, the logical position is that they do not exist. Disbelief is the logical position until appropriate evidence warrants belief. That's the difference between our "faiths". You have unwarranted, unjustifiable, foundamental faith in something you have no reasonable defense for. I don't believe god exists because there is no reason to believe he does. My position is flexible in that given new evidence, I would have no problem changing my conclusions. I see your faith as a fundamentalist position, you believe fundamentally that something is true and I doubt any logic, reason, or evidence (or lack there of) would ever change your mind.

Great points Ray. We need to be willing... are we? Often, no. But I've seen interesting things happen with friends that are unbelievers when I am willing to be deeply honest with them. I think that's part of the love Christ called us to... not this haughty thing that says we have it all together, but a sacrificial, give whatever it takes, honest love.

I appreciate your insight. we're actually working on building a resource library for youth leaders and youth pastors. I wanted to ask if you'd be interested in contributing any resources & joining the conversation.

The new (growing) library is here:
http://www.calledtoyouthministry.com/resources

And you can contribute your own resource here:
http://www.calledtoyouthministry.com/contribute

Would love to see what you might share--let me know. Blessings!

I honestly feel we are not suppose to question the word of God...sometimes logic doesn't fit when you read scripture...perhaps it is for a reason, we are afterall suppose to trust with all of our heart! You must have heard just turn it over to the Lord...so I must say, if you doubt, if you cannot figure out how water was turned into wine, or how Jesus fed the mulitude from one fish and one loaf of bread...these are our tests of faith, so if you doubt, if you question the path God has for you, you must turn it over to God, He will show you the way!

But we have to ask questions of scripture. Scripture does not lay out, in black and white, everything about God. We, just as Luther, have to ask "what does this mean?" We have to examine what scripture tells us about God, decide when to draw lines between passages to form a larger picture and when not to.

I don't deny that there are plenty of things that we take on faith, but so often Christians can't provide a logical reason why the answer to one question is "it's in the Bible" but disregard what the Bible says elsewhere. Study of scripture and asking questions is required when we read through Paul's writings. Was he saying something specifically to his audience about a unique problem shaped by culture? If so, we have to look to what it says about the character of God behind the statement rather than the letter of the statement. Other times we take the statement at face value.

Trusting with all your heart doesn't mean we don't doubt or question. Doubt and questions come because we are sinful, finite beings trying to understand an infinite God. I don't doubt that scripture is how God speaks to us, through the Holy Spirit, but I also believe that the doubts and questions we have lead to a stronger, more mature faith. Luther's doubts about the church's interpretations of scripture and its ideas of how God works in the world were certainly beneficial.

Ray, this is exactly the type of illogical argument that nonbelievers will point out. In the SAME paragraph you say doubts and questions arise because we are sinful, finite beings - and then you say doubt and questions lead to a stronger more mature faith. You also state that Luther's interpretations were certainly beneficial. From you're stance as a lutheran they were beneficial, but they certainly aren't intrinsically beneficial just because they happen to benefit your sect. This just goes to the root of us-vs.-them religion that isolates individual groups based on perceived superiority.
None of your statements are grounded in logic. You don't doubt that scripture is how god speaks to us, through the holy spirit - but why not? What do you have to logically justify the position? If you say you want to be logical about it, here's a chance to explain your logic.

I would encourage you all to read a document called "Fides et Ratio", or in English, "Faith and Reason", written by Pope John Paul II. It is longer, but it is awesome. It harmonizes how the Christian ought to approach this in dealing with non-believers and in understanding our own theology.
A printable version can be found on the Vatican website. Or just google "Fides et Ratio" its the first one to come up. I would say take a week and use it for your prayer. Like I said, it's incredible.
His overall argument is that faith completes reason and reason completes faith. They are harmoniously suscinct and each needs the other. Because at the end of the day, faith is not unreasonable, and reason very much depends on faith. Very cool stuff.

Let me get back to you on this ...

... when I have 8 hours of reading time to set aside. ;-)

Haha yeeaah...I spent a whole semester while I was in seminary on this single document. So, good luck. Definitely worth the read though. It's only $3 to get a hard copy. Mines all highlighted up.

I do know that Luther did say that, but I would have to look at the context. If you even just glance over Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, it's quite obvious that logic and reason are the basis of the discussion. Luther's arguments hinge on the logic conclusions and consequences that arise from stating we have a free will regarding salvation and the impact it has on our other doctrines and understanding of scripture.

There certainly are things that we simply don't have answers to. I think responsible theology can say "I don't know." Our discussion centered around people's ability to pick and choose scripture to support what they already believe, which results in not being able to have a good, explainable reason that one verse is in while another is out.

The second part of the discussion did center around how people react emotionally when someone presents them with a logical argument or critique of a certain belief or doctrine they hold. Rather than reason through the discussion, we take the easy road and refuse to allow the argument to impact our faith. I can respect someone's opinion, even though I disagree with it, when there is a sound basis for them holding it. But when a person's only defense is "it's in the bible" I get frustrated because there are hundreds of other things in the bible that they don't believe, but they refuse to listen to anyone else because what they're saying is in the Bible.

Honestly I have more respect for people who disagree with me than people who simply nod along with what I have to say. We grow through challenge and debate.

Another quick comment here... as you're probably aware, I love discussing and debating matters of faith and the church. For me, I find that what I believe gets honed and strengthened over time through such discussions. I wonder if some people find people like me "confrontational" when I ask questions or raise counter-points in discussions. I've had people call me a "devil's advocate" on more than one occasion. While there is some truth to that, my reason for countering isn't to shoot people down, it's to build up the truth for myself. I'm not looking to be right all the time, I just want to figure out what I think about things and I think discussion is a great way to do that.

Thanks for the post!

Didn't Luther once say "reason is the greatest enemy that faith has"? I wouldn't try to correct that statement either. The real issue I see is that logic and reason are highly valued in our information-based society so anything that seems to contradict logic and reason become subsequently devalued.

People can get so hung up on the importance of logic and reason that they forget the value of faith. Keep in mind, I think faith in Christ is another step entirely in this discussion. What I mean is that I see value in people having faith in general. There is a benefit to people learning to rely on things that they can't see, define, or control. It teaches us something about life when we choose to believe in something outside of ourselves. Is that reasonable? Is it logical? If I had a completely reasonable and logical God it would mean I could understand Him fully, which would mean I'm on the same level as God. Why would I serve and worship a God as weak as myself?

Thankfully, God is so beyond anything I can comprehend I'll never understand Him in this life. I wouldn't want it any other way.

Found this quote from "Table Talk" in Wikiquotes:

"...so it is with human reason, which strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it."

Found this quote from "Table Talk" in Wikiquotes:

"...so it is with human reason, which strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it."

Luther seemed very conflicted when it came to reason. Here's another quote attributed to him that may provide insight:

"All our experience with history should teach us, when we look back, how badly human wisdom is betrayed when it relies on itself."

Perhaps we misunderstand poor ol' Luther. Perhaps he didn't battle reason at all, but our reliance on it. It reminds me of people mistaking the "root of all evil" verse in the Bible. It's not money, it's the love of it that creates the problem. Perhaps Luther was blaming reason for the problems that reliance on reason creates?

Perhaps it could just have to do with the temptation to make reason and logic our god. In matters of faith we have to set aside our inability to prove God, while then using it when examining faith and how God works. It gets hard to know what we have to just take on faith and where (and how) we use reason and logic within our faith.