""/
Christian Faith, Doubt

How to Doubt and Have Faith without Exploding

An experience of intellectual doubt is often taken by Christians to be a sign of weak faith. I argue, however, that an encounter with doubt, when treated properly, is extremely valuable, since it can lead to knowledge and an even greater faith. To see this, it’s important to understand the nature of doubt. Intellectual doubt should be defined as finding plausible what we take to be a potentially defeating claim. This definition provides insights for how to evaluate one’s doubts. My claim is that it is completely rational to maintain our Christian faith while experiencing doubt. This allows us to in turn evaluate the reasonableness of our doubt. Evidence matters with intellectual doubt, since a doubt requires outweighing evidence to defeat a belief effectively. Merely to find an objection plausible is not for there to be a preponderance of evidence in its favor. The upshot of all this is that, by addressing our doubts, we are forced to think more carefully about our faith (i.e., we have greater knowledge) and, in the case that a doubt is diffused, we have more reason to trust (i.e., we have an even greater faith).

Read the full article here.

(This is an article I wrote for the Christian Research Journal. These are very well done magazine style journal that is broadly on apologetics topics. If you are into these topics, it’s a great subscription. Check it out here.)

""/
Apologetics, Christianity, Doubt

Is Christianity doubt-able?: Certainty vs. Confidence

As a last step in becoming a member of his local church, a friend of mine was interviewed by the pastor and asked whether he was certain that Christianity was true. Because my friend was a philosopher, he said no and a long discussion ensued.

Certainty

Do we enjoy certainty when it comes to our Christian beliefs? Well this all depends on what we mean by ‘certainty.’ Philosophers, like my friend, typically have a very specific notion in mind when it comes to certainty. It means something like that the belief is held without the logical possibility of it being false. One literally can’t even conceive of the possibility of being mistaken.

In the seventeenth century, Descartes was after certainty. In his Meditations, he attempts to doubt all of his beliefs in order to find a belief that could be held with indubitability. For Descartes, if he could even imagine or conceive of some scenario, no matter how bizarre, where a belief is false, then the belief is not indubitable. He considered beliefs about the world of objects around him, including his own body, and realized that all that can be doubted.

You might ask, isn’t it indubitable that one has hands? Well, what if one is a brain in a vat stimulated to have hand-like experiences? Or suppose one is a disembodied soul who is made to think that one has hands but does not. Though bizarre, these scenarios are clearly possible and, thus, even a belief like this is not indubitable.

Descartes finally lands on a belief that is indubitable, and it’s the one line in philosophy that almost everyone has heard at some point: “I think, therefore, I am” (or, in the Meditations, “I am, I exist”). The idea is that he couldn’t doubt his own existence since there would always be some thinking thing doing the doubting. That is, there’s always an “I” doing the doubting. Thus, by doubting his existence, he proves it.

Philosophers tend to have this Cartesian notion of certainty in mind when they talk about certainty. And there’s very little that is genuinely indubitable. On my own view, once we grasp basic mathematical facts (such as 2+3=5), this becomes indubitable for us. Given what we mean by such facts, we can’t conceive of these beliefs being false. Logical facts are like this as well.

Are Christian beliefs indubitable?

When it comes something like that Jesus was raised from the dead at a certain time in history, this is not like a mathematical fact. This is an empirical fact. That I have hands is also an empirical fact. Just like I can doubt that I have hands, I can doubt that Jesus was raised from the dead.

I take it this is precisely what the Apostle Paul is implying in 1 Corinthians 15:13-14:

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Paul implies that it is conceivable that Christ has not been raised since he also points at what is logical entailed by this possibility if it were so. He doesn’t believe it, but he can definitely conceive of it. Notice we can’t conceive of 2+3=5’s being false. But Paul (and we) can conceive of the possibility of Christ not being raised and it has logical consequence. This makes it such that it is possible to doubt in this technical Cartesian sense.

Confidence

Now this isn’t saying anything all that controversial. I promise. I’m just saying when it comes to the central Christian claim (i.e., Jesus’s resurrection), we don’t enjoy Cartesian or mathematical certainty. We don’t enjoy Cartesian certainty about my belief that I have hands, but I don’t lose much sleep about that. It was Cartesian certainty that my friend had in mind when he was interviewed by the pastor. However, what the pastor likely meant was not Cartesian certainty, but something more to do with confidence (or perhaps conviction is a good word here).

I am fully confident Christianity is true. In fact, I’ve given my life to it. I’ve walked away from a lot of things given that I believe with confidence that Christ has plans and intentions for my life. Paul, also, gave up his life because he became convinced that Christianity is true. Being completely confident in the truth of Christianity is consistent with the mere possibility that Christianity is false. It is even consistent with having (not just Cartesian) doubts from time to time.

Why is this important?

This is important because if Christianity is indubitable, then there’s something wrong with us if we ever have doubts. Moreover, evidence and reason is completely pointless. Once we grasp the concepts of a mathematical fact, we don’t need empirical evidence for their truth. But if it is itself an empirical fact of history such as the resurrection, then evidence matters.

We want to work towards confidence, but this, it seems, requires us to consider the case for Christianity.

""/
Apologetics, Christian Faith, Doubt

Richard Swinburne and the inevitability of doubt

Not long ago, Richard Swinburne was asked whether he ever doubts the truthfulness of Christianity. Who is Richard Swinburne? Swinburne, by most accounts, is THE top philosopher of religion in the world and much of his work centers on defending Christian theism. Virtually all of his writing is scholarly, but his contribution to the discussion is inestimable and will be read for centuries to come. So when the top academic defender of Christianity is asked about his doubts, it is worth tuning in.

Probability of truth

The first point he makes is the case for Christianity is one of probability and not certainty. This is important. The case, if successful, makes Christianity likely true, but doesn’t guarantee or entail that it’s true. By being merely probable, he doesn’t mean that he only sort of believes it. I take it that he fully and confidently believes Christianity is true, but he thinks the evidence gives one good reason (i.e., makes one rational) to believe but falls short of an absolute guarantee. A claim can have a 99% percent chance of being right, but even this still falls short of certainty.

Falling short of absolute certainty is not unusual given that ALL our empirical beliefs are merely probable without an absolute guarantee. Swinburne uses the example of a rocket ship. As the statistics will bear out, the science behind launching projectiles and people into space always has a chance at being wrong. But so do our more mundane beliefs. We believe that our car is right now parked in the parking lot in the usual spot. This is typically a very rational belief in that we don’t often get it wrong. However, this is clearly a probability as the car could have been stolen, towed, picked up by your family member, spontaneously blown up or you just forgot you parked it at the street.

Looking for doubts

If the case for Christianity is a probability, then “inevitably one has doubts.” And, Swinburne says, “in fact, I look for them.”

[share-quote author=”Richard Swinburne” via=”travdickinson”] Certainly I have doubts, and I look for them. [/share-quote]

This is a good word. Swinburne seems to think this is a thing for professionals but I think we should all search out and explore our doubts. I’m lucky enough to do this for a living. But if one thinks Christianity is true, then this seems to be the exact right posture. We should look for our doubts and see how well our view holds up in light of the doubts. If it doesn’t hold up, then we should change our minds. Sound scary? If it is true, we’ve got nothing to worry about.

Just to clarify, I’m not saying that if we have some unanswered questions, we should reject the faith. I’m not saying if we have 99 good reasons to believe and 1 reason falls short, we should reject the faith. I’m simply saying that we honestly consider the evidence. This is normal for any belief we have. I myself found the evidence to be compelling. And so has the world’s preeminent philosopher of religion. That, it seems, should count for something.

1 2
Welcome to my blog! ~Travis Dickinson, PhD