Fideism Considered. (If you don't know what "fideism" is, now's your chance!)

Continuing our discussion from last week, fideism is the claim that belief comes before reason, that one cannot "think" rightly about God until one has made a faith commitment to God.

For many atheists, this whole approach of believing without evidence is a head-scratcher.

They think, Why would you just dive in like that? What if you're wrong? How can you force yourself to believe if you really don't? And what about evidence that seems contrary to your position -- you just ignore it all? Bury your head in the sand?

Fideism tends to reinforce for the atheist the old saying by Mark Twain:

Faith is believing what you know ain't so.

My opinion (since this is in fact my blog :) ??

I think fideism is misguided, especially in its strong forms.

I remember sitting with the Free Thinker's Club at a university in California a few months ago. They tried to make me admit that I believe in God without any evidence or reasons for doing so.

So when I gave them my evidence and reasons, and actually considered their contrary arguments, they responded much like the Athenian philosophers of Acts 17:

We want to hear you again on this subject.

Friends, atheists are made in the image of God. Many are sincerely concerned about finding truth. Right there is your common ground, a basis for dialog.

We may not be able to provide perfect arguments for God's existence and our belief in Jesus. But that doesn't mean we have no arguments at all. In fact, we have some darn good ones.

And it is these arguments along with the confident but humble manner in which we present ourselves that may gain a hearing from our atheist friends and opponents.

Atheism part 6 (approximately): Fideism

One of my favorite Christian philosophers is C. Stephen Evans. He is sophisticated yet accessible to thinking lay people.

In his Philosophy of Religion, co-authored with R. Zachary Manis, he contrasts two opposing approaches to faith: neutralism and fideism.

In the fideistic way, believing tends to come before critical thinking.

There is no stepping back in order to rationally evaluate the arguments for and against God.

Rather, you simply believe in God. You commit yourself. You step out in faith.

It's only after this step of faith is made that you can think rightly about God, because now you're standing on the proper ground.

Any supposed "neutral" posture toward God is actually a state of rebellion.

Generally, fideism drives atheists nuts.

They ask, "Why do you believe?"

You reply, "You just have to have faith."

But then, "Faith in what?"

"Faith in Christ."

"Why Christ? Why not the Buddha?"

"Because Christ is true."

"How do you know that?"

"I know it from experience. You'd know it too, if you just had faith."

"You're driving me crazy. I'll never make a blind leap of faith like that."

"Blind? This is the clearest vision I've ever had in my life."

Dear readers, what do you think of fideism? Since I am out of space I'll comment next week -- and introduce neutralism.

Faith Expanded

A few years ago, noted author James Sire visited Macalester College in St. Paul where I was working (and have, this past year, returned) and made this statement to a group of students gathered in a dorm lounge:

"Faith is much more than logical. But it is not less."

He went on to say that Christian faith also entails (in addition to logic) emotion, commitment and volition. As a Christian you are embracing a person -- that is, God, not merely a religious proposition or the idea of God.

So while I share with atheists a kind of generic philosophical faith in the probabilities of certain things, (see my last two posts), this further step of committing myself to the Lord Jesus is more similar to a marriage than to a syllogism.

Faith is thus relational.

I say all this to atheists. A few of them get what I mean, others not so much.

Evidence and Religious Faith

Secular Student Alliance leader and myself panel-discussing
atheism and Christianity at Winona State University.

Atheists and Christians often disagree about the nature of religious faith.

One group says faith is blind, a leap in the dark, definitely not based on evidence.

The other says faith is sighted, a leap in the light, supported by much evidence.

Which is it?

I think you can only describe your own experience and the experience of like-minded people. In my own case, faith is the result of critical reflection on arguments and empirical evidence.

When my atheist friends tell me that faith is blind and not based on evidence, they presuppose a universal definition of faith.

(And if Rick Mattson would only look up the word "faith" in the universal dictionary, he'd discover that faith, by definition, cannot be based on evidence. But of course no such dictionary exists.)

My reply to the atheist is this:

I do not hold to your definition of faith, nor am I obligated to do so. My faith is based largely on critical reflection of arguments and empirical evidence. 

In a recent public debate with an atheist friend, I made the simple request that he not impose his definition of faith on me.

You should make the same request of your atheist friends.


At this point you may be thinking to yourself that the faith I describe above comes off a bit cold and calculating. Shouldn't there be something more to it? What about emotion? Attitude? Commitment?

Tune in next week.