Happy St. Paddy’s Day

How Christians Define Faith

A critique of B. Kyle Keltz’s definition of faith

 

Renown atheist Dan Barker says,

Faith would be unnecessary, they remind us, if God’s existence were proved to be a blunt fact of reality. But this is a huge cop out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are admitting that the assertion can’t be taken on its own merits. If something is true, we don’t invoke Faith. Instead, we use reason to prove it. Faith is intellectual bankruptcy. With faith, you don’t have to put any work into proving your case or overcoming objections. You can “just believe.”

Keltz replies

Barker is abusing the definition of “faith” because in each one of these cases, “faith” is defined without any mention of how Christians define faith. Barker is defining faith as he experienced it during his days as a Christian evangelist and not as it is understood by Christian theologians. I will emphasize that Barker is free to reject what he is defining as “faith,” but this is not a rejection of faith as understood in the classical Christian tradition.

In this blog, we’ll see just how correct Barker’s statement really is, and if Keltz can prove his case for the existence of God based on how theologians view faith.

According to Keltz, Barker’s definition of faith is not how christian theologians understand faith. Which begs the obvious question. How do christians define faith? One would think that Keltz would supply the answer to that question rather early in his article. But that was not to be! It took some careful reading and word mining before I was finally able to find it, (much like the small print in a pharmaceutical advertisement).

He spent nearly 5,000 of his 6,900 words discussing his view of what is meant by “classical understanding of faith and reason”, and quoting Thomas Aquinas ad nauseam. Finally, 5,656 words later, I was able to find the “christian faith” needle in Keltz’s verbose and amphigoric hay stack. Here’s what he says about how christians define faith.

The act of faith, in theology, is the will commanding the intellect to assent to the truth of a proposition based on the authority of God.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Having faith in some proposition of theology means that your will overrides your intellect and tells it to believe in something that is not factual and for which there is no proof, all because we are told that the proposition is “based on the authority of God”, (which also is without proof).

Let’s be perfectly clear.

Before we continue, I feel it is necessary to clarify some issues. If you are a secularist or an atheist, or better yet, a former evangelical turned atheist (like me) you will see immediately the fallacious errors in Geltz’s argument and won’t need my critique. If you’re an evangelical, like Geltz, you never will see the errors and are probably already starting to compose your 7,000-word reply to correct me.

If, however, you’re on a journey to discover the truth of christianity and are beginning to question what you are being told from the pulpit, this blog’s for you. (Sounds like a beer commercial, huh?) What I want you to pay attention to is how Geltz uses many fallacious arguments in his attempt to discredit Barker’s understanding of faith. This is bad form and Keltz should know better.

Geltz incorporates christian doctrines into his arguments that he says are “the truth” but cannot be proven. Much of what he says can only be taken on faith alone. However, that’s not how he presents it. He offers christian doctrines in his argument as if they are given and accepted truths. I have underlined such fallacies.

What is Christian Faith?

Geltz arguments are based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas which, as we mentioned before, he quotes ad nauseum.

Aquinas’s understanding of faith shows how Barker was able to give up Christianity so easily, intellectually speaking. Barker took all the truths of Christianity on faith. He never considered arguments for God’s existence or the historical evidence for the life and death of Jesus Christ.

First off, what exactly are the “truths” of christianity? And how do we know they are actually true? The obvious answer is “we don’t know they are true” they can only be taken “by faith”. Can anything in the previous paragraph be taken as truths or are they issues of faith? I’ll let you answer that.

I doubt that Keltz has actually read Barker’s book godless where Barker addresses the issues that Keltz claims “he never considered”. (Chapter 6: Refuting God, Chapter 15: Did Jesus Exist? Chapter 16: Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?) It’s clear from reading godless that Barker gave these beliefs careful consideration before he came to the conclusion that “Christianity was not true”, and therefore decided to leave.

Beliefs can count as knowledge.

Keltz continues…

Here we see Aquinas referring to assent as knowledge. This means that, for Aquinas, beliefs can count as knowledge. So, as long as someone knows the truth, he has knowledge. Thus, the objects of faith can be knowledge.

“Beliefs can count a knowledge”? That’s a new one to me. If I’m understanding this correctly, all those years I spent in Sunday school classes gave me knowledge and that accumulated knowledge can now be an object of faith. Geltz avoids the obvious question here. Is the knowledge anyone gains in years of Sunday school actually true? Maybe you’ve never stopped to answer that question. I didn’t until I was in my 30s. Just because someone has biblical knowledge and knows a lot about christian doctrines, does not make any of it true?

Geltz writes “as long as someone knows the truth” but he hasn’t told us yet what “truth” he’s referring to. But we’re coming to that. And it will be up to you to decide if what he calls the truth, actually IS the truth.

God is the Object of Faith.

Geltz continues…

Aquinas establishes several things regarding the object of faith. He determines that the object of faith must be God: unseen, not fully known, yet partly known through propositions.

If you are trying to prove the existence of God, it’s bad form to start with the proposition that God’s existence is a given. It’s the hypothesis, not the proof.

In discussing that the object of faith is God, Aquinas says, “Now the object of the theological virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the knowledge of our reason. Because all theological truths are about God it follows that God is the object of faith.

Once again, we must ask if “all theological truths” are actually true.

As the object of faith, God cannot be fully known or seen. Wherefore it is evident that neither faith nor opinion can be of things seen either by the senses or by the intellect.  Anything that is seen or fully known with certainty cannot be an object of faith because the truth of a proposition that is experienced with the senses or reached as the conclusion of a logical demonstration is certain.

At last, Geltz has given us a semblance of valid reasoning, but then he attempts to show that the “truth of any proposition about God” can be gained by faith and reasoning. Let’s see how solid his argument really is. He continues…

Thus, something that is seen or fully known through logical demonstration cannot be an object of faith. However, God is partly known through propositions based in reasoning and in God’s revelation to humanity. God’s authority as Creator and Sustainer of the universe provides the basis for assenting to the truths of faith.

The phrase “God is partly known” starts with the assumption that God actually exists. It’s fallacious to start an argument for the existence of God with the assumption that God does exists. Atheists like Barker and others are simply waiting for the proof. Where’s the proof?

“God’s revelation to humanity”, and “God’s authority as Creator and Sustainer of the universe” are both statements that must in fact also be taken entirely by faith. Once again, it’s fallacious to start with those two propositions as “givens” and then claim that they are the basis for the truths of faith.

Didn’t we just come full circle? Let’s see if I understand this correctly. We can prove God’s existence through reason, as long as we start with the proposition that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. It’s kind of like saying that we can reasonably believe that Santa Clause lives at the north pole as long as we start with the proposition that Santa Clause truly exists.

Now it gets rather jumbled. I will break this up into smaller parts so we can digest it better. Remember anything I have underlined is something that Keltz takes for granted as a truth which atheists must reject until there is sufficient proof.

Keltz continues,

Returning to Aquinas’s preferred definition of “faith” as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not, it is now evident why he thinks that this is a sufficient definition. Aquinas explains that “the substance of things hoped for” is a reference to the object of faith, which is God. God as the object of faith is “hoped for” because the believer does not yet have full knowledge of God, which can only be obtained through the beatific vision in heaven.

Full knowledge of God can only be obtained by going to heaven? Clearly that is a proposition that must be taken entirely on faith.

The “evidence of things that appear not” refers to the act of faith. Assent is given by the intellect on command of the will based on the available evidence in considering the truth of Scripture.

Once again, the believer is being asked to override his/her intellect in order to accept the “truth of scripture” which is based on available evidence. Huh? What evidence?

This is belief because the truths of faith are not certain in that they are beyond the reach of natural theology. They cannot be demonstrated or experienced through the senses, and their truth must be assented to on the authority of their source, which is God.

Okay, let’s see if I understand this logic. Although the “truths of faith” are not certain and cannot be demonstrated, they must be accepted on the basis that God is in authority? As long as believers START with the proposition that God exists, they can concede (through reason) that God exists. Once again this is fallacious reasoning.

Faith and Reason

Geltz continues,

There are truths that are only known through reason (i.e. scientific proof with no faith required), such as the number of planets in the solar system, the atomic mass of oxygen, the lifecycles of butterflies. There are truths that are known through both faith and reason, such as… the existence of God, the existence of the soul, and the resurrection of Jesus. Finally, there are truths of faith that are known only on the authority of God, such as God’s triunity, Jesus’s death on the cross the atonement for the sins of humanity, the resurrection, judgment of the dead at the end of days.

Wow!! So, it doesn’t matter about proof or a lack of proof? Once again, we seem to have come full circle. There’s still no proof for any of the “truths” Geltz mentions, but that doesn’t seem to matter. As long as christians can use “philosophical reasoning” as their justification, then anything they “want” to be true, can be declared as actually true. Do I need to point out again that this is fallacious reasoning?

How True are Geltz’s Truths?

Atheist Barker defines faith as “believing something without any evidence or with evidence to the contrary.” Theist Keltz takes issue with that and says that christians define faith differently and have done so for centuries. Here is an incomplete list of beliefs that Keltz says are true based on HIS definition of faith. Ask yourself, does Geltz offer any real evidence for any these beliefs?

The following are truths for Geltz.

• God has revealed himself to humanity.
• God is the creator (in six days) and sustainer of the universe.
• Scripture is true.
• The existence of God.
• The existence of the soul.
• The resurrection of Jesus.
• God’s triunity.
• Jesus’s death on the cross.
• The atonement for the sins of humanity.
• The resurrection.
• Full knowledge of God can only be obtained in heaven.
• The judgment of the dead at the end of days.

Only for the intellectual elite

An interesting thing about Keltz’s argument is that this higher understanding of faith and truth are not available to just anyone. One must be a trained theologian to understand it. He writes…

Aquinas is saying that… much of this knowledge is beyond the reach of unaided reason. (and that) not everyone has the means, time, ability, or motivation to learn natural theology, (and that) only the intellectual elite can have knowledge of God’s existence, attributes, etc., (and that) only a few have the opportunity to study and understand the truths of natural theology. Some truths can only be known through faith. Yet it allows for many truths of Christianity to be known through human reasoning. Knowledge of God and the truths of christianity can be attained by rigorous philosophy, and it can also be attained by laypeople through…

wait for it…

wait for it…

wait for it…

…faith.

Side note: Added 3/26/2024.

Keltz writes, only the intellectual elite can have knowledge of God’s existence, attributes, etc., (and that) only a few have the opportunity to study and understand the truths of natural theology.

After doing some extra research about “natural theology” I found this on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website.

The question of whether natural theology is a viable project is at the root of some of the deepest religious divisions: Shi’ite thinkers are optimistic about reason’s ability to prove various theological and ethical truths, for instance, while Sunnis are not; Roman Catholic theologians typically think that reason provides demonstrations of the existence of God, while many Protestant theologians do not. Unlike most of the topics discussed in an encyclopedia of philosophy, this is one over which wars have been fought and throats have been cut.

It’s disturbing that the one thing a religious elite like Geltz points to (other than faith) that can prove the existence of God is something “over which wars have been fought and throats have been cut”. If this is his proof of God, then I, without hesitation, choose to remain a secularist.

Conclusion

So here we are, back at square one. Keltz took issues with Barker’s definition of faith and argued that the combination of faith and reason can confirm the truths of christianity. But after 6,900 words he admits that only a few can have knowledge of God and everyone else is left to rely on “faith” alone. So, let’s go back to Barker’s words about the usefulness of faith.

“If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are admitting that the assertion can’t be taken on its own merits. If something is true, we don’t invoke Faith.”

When all is said and done, Keltz has failed in both of his objectives. He did not prove that Barker’s definition of faith is inaccurate, and he did not prove that the christian definition of faith has any validity. He then ends his argument by admitting that only intellectual elites (like himself) can gain this higher understanding of faith and reason, while everyone else has to take it entirely on faith alone.

It would have been so much easier, more honest and less verbose if Keltz had just accepted Barker’s definition of faith and then added the “real” truth, which might have gone something like this.

“As christians we have traditions and beliefs that we can’t prove but choose to believe anyway. Our religion depends on these beliefs which we elevate to “truths”. We love and need our religion. That is why we fiercely defend it even though many of us deep down suspect that our beliefs are indeed not true, (but we would never dare say this out loud.) In addition, we just don’t want Barker to be right because he is living proof that even “without Christ” all things are possible. He embarrasses us and that is why we must oppose him.”

(Could have been done in less than 100 words.)

Coming next:

Many of the authors of Answering the Music Man use arguments based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas. We’ll explore the validity of defending christianity based on 900-year-old philosophy.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net