I’ve spent a great deal of time hanging about in cyberspace arguing theology, philosophy and religion. I do this in chat rooms, newsgroups and forums of many types. I like to argue with atheists about the existence of God, and when I tire of that, I go argue subtle points of theology with the Christians. It’s great fun really, and occasionally productive. Each group has their own unique way of seeing the world. The Christians, of course, see it as flush with a morality given by a God that works within a sphere of the supernatural that transcends our senses (there is more to the world than what we can see.) The atheist tries to find comfort in the mechanical uniformity of a materialistic universe that knows no supernatural causes, (What we see is what we get,) yet has a strong sense of right and wrong like, “you shouldn’t push your religion on me.” They can never seem to explain how concepts like should and shouldn’t come from a cosmos made purely of inert matter, but it always makes for an interesting discussion.

There are many other differences as well, but what has begun to draw my attention is what they agree on. It’s odd, but in two so diametrically opposed world views, they seem to agree on one very tragic issue, the definition of faith. The Christians generally tell me that faith is accepting what you can’t see, or believing even though you can’t prove it. The atheists, of course, put it much more bluntly when they say that faith is believing what you know isn’t true, colorful but to the point. However you want to phrase it, they both seem to have the same basic concept: faith is believing something even though you lack evidence for it. Like I said before, this is a tragic issue; it’s tragic because both sides are wrong and it’s the Christian’s fault. We have done this to ourselves, and it need not be this way.

Why does the atheist think faith is accepting what you don’t know? Because, by and large, this is what we have told them. “I just take it on faith,” is one of our favorite lines, but what does that mean? To the atheist, it means we close our eyes and hope it’s true. This seems like a bad idea to them, huh? Go figure. Sometimes we even talk in terms of blind faith; I don’t have a clue what that’s supposed to be. It sounds like I’m trying to have faith in something I don’t know anything about. Little wonder the atheist is confused; so am I.

Christian faith is not intended to be this way at all. Rather it is intended to be an informed faith. If you don’t believe me, try this simple little test. Is it possible to have faith in a God you don’t know anything about? Is it possible to have faith in a car you don’t know anything about? Just by simple laws of logic, you can see my point. God never asks us to accept Him without reason; in fact, we couldn’t. You are never really asked to take a leap in the dark. I remember when I converted to Christianity; it was because I had a growing mountain of evidence that it was true. The Christian Bible assumes you will want this evidence. To greater and lesser degrees the four gospels were written to provide this evidence. In fact, the entire book of Luke is totally dedicated to this idea of providing facts; read the first four verses. “. . . I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write and orderly account for you . . . so that you may know the truth . . .” (NRSV). Luke offers this “orderly account” not so you can just take his word for it. Most of the New Testament was written to its own contemporaries. They didn’t produce this thing under a rock, but out in the open and they name names. This way, people who were reading these accounts during their day could challenge these claims and investigate them. Paul writes to his contemporaries about the witnesses who saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion; he carefully points out “. . . most of whom are still alive.” This is a challenge to his readers, “if you don’t believe me, go ask them yourself!”

When Jesus had risen from the grave and appeared to the disciples in the upper room, Luke 24:36-48, they did not believe it could be him. So, he shows them his wounds and asks for food to prove he is not a ghost. He offers evidence.

Here is a brief quote from Romans 10:14, Paul asks “. . . how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?” And by “proclaim,” Paul doesn’t just mean they should mention Jesus; he means they should explain Him, offer compelling reasons like he says “you should always be prepared to give reasons for the hope that is within you.” I don’t have space to give more verses but the list is huge! My point is that faith is never blind. The Bible asks me to accept what I have reason to accept. Christian faith is well informed faith.

Here is another way of seeing it. Imagine there are two men with me, Bill and Bob. Bill has been my friend for many years and earned my trust through steady companionship. Bill is recently out of prison for theft and I have just this moment met him for the first time. Now, for reasons beyond my control, I must relinquish my wallet to one of these men for safe keeping for the next several days. By process of reasoning through the evidence, I choose Bill. I place my trust in Bill. I can’t guarantee Bill won’t rob me, but I place my “faith” in him as the surest bet. The act of trust based on the reasoning that brought me to it makes faith. Nothing blind about it. So, perhaps the Christians should reconsider how they approach the issue. Don’t let the atheist push you around, and don’t give them the ammunition to do it.

Joseph S. Holt is a freelance theologian working in the Bemidji area.