Faith for Life’s Journey #7 – Deciding Faith Pt. 1

Post 7 = Deciding Faith Pt. 1

We have shown that faith is immensely helpful for your journey of life. We have also helped to remove many of the unnecessary roadblocks preventing the pursuit of faith. I hope now the road is open for you to take the next step toward faith.

If that is so, we need to ask next the important question: How do we choose a proper faith? And connected to that question, how do we go about determining which faith is trustworthy and beneficial? In other words, how do we sort through the vast landscape of spiritual ideas, philosophical speculations, and confident claims?

Anyone who beholds the world as it actually is knows there is considerable disagreement and controversy over this one question. Differences of opinion are so great we might not want to broach the subject. It would be much simpler to let everyone choose what they wish to believe, critically evaluate nothing, and avoid the whole hornet’s nest of controversy. However, if we did that, we would be falling into the same trap we exposed in a previous post, namely, The Dismissive Factor which wrongly claims all faiths are basically the same.

So each pursuer of faith needs to come to grips with the fact that some ideas and claims are not worthy of his/her faith or confidence. These “faiths” and spiritual systems of belief are founded more on sinking sand than solid rock. They produce more heat than light. They do not guide us into truth, life, and liberty. So our next section will attempt to demonstrate that some faiths must be dismissed. They are not to be trusted. I know, it’s hard to evaluate cherished beliefs and see them criticized. Yet just like gold and silver, the only way to know if something is valuable and real is to test it adequately.

When it comes to “how to” choose a faith, I suggest we back up and recognize that there are two very broad or general approaches people can and do take.

The first way is what I call: The Bottom Up Approach. 

This approach starts with us at the bottom and then reasons upward to what is not known. Rather than beginning with God or the universe or Nirvana or some transcendental truth, something unseen and unknown, it commences with us and what we know. It uses the common sense each of us already accumulated in life to determine the voice of truth. In other words, it starts with you, as a researcher, not someone else you are not sure you trust anyway.

With the “bottom-up approach,} you use what you already know to be true to evaluate each religious system and claim. This may even be called the philosophical approach (if you want a fancier label), for man reasons from what he knows upward and outward from himself to try to figure out what is real.

There are many who have taken and will continue to take this approach. It is a well worn pathway for those attempting to determine truth. Many have walked along this path and have left their advice.

The advantages to this approach is that a person can start by trusting what he already can comfortably affirm. It’s an approach which launches in familiar territory. You are not forced to step out in faith before you actually possess faith. You start by trusting yourself, your background, your logic, lessons you have learned, and your past experiences. You assume that there must be some truth to what you have learned along the way. And if something does not make sense to you, you are not forced to buy into it right away. You may discard it or shelf it for later consideration.

Don’t misunderstand! This approach is not a panacea. It alone will not solve all the world’s mysteries or land your faith on absolute truth with no remaining doubts. This approach is a start, not a finish. It gets you going out of the gate but does not bring you past the checkered flag.

The disadvantage of this “Bottom Up” approach is that after you have applied what appears to be sound reason to your evaluation, you are still left with a measure of uncertainty. Ironically by trusting in your own thoughts, you will come to a point where you question your own thoughts. Deep inside you know you are not the expert in determining ultimate truth. You know you will need some help. I am hoping that you have some measure of humility to know you could be wrong – and wrong about some very important things. Only someone with a highly inflated ego would put so much trust in his own opinions and insights to the disregard of others. If brilliant scientists need the affirmation of the rest of the scientific community to approve their findings, then spiritual investigators too need their thoughts buttressed by others who come to the same conclusions.

For now, though, this approach is a nonthreatening starting point. Just realize that somewhere along the line you will you need help outside of yourself.

In the meantime, you will learn that this first approach is useful to eliminate many false claims.

The second avenue to take is the Top Down Approach

This approach recognizes that a man or woman, no matter how smart, how educated, how experienced, still needs help from above or beyond for guidance. This approach recognizes the weaknesses and limitations inherent in human knowledge. Man is not a demigod nor all-knowing. For ultimate truth to be learned, the divine must reveal himself and his plan. If there is a creator out there, and if he has spoken, and if he has directed religion, there must be some truth he has provided to guide people to himself. This approach wants to avail itself of that unique assistance.

One of Jesus’ disciples once asked Jesus when he said he was departing to go to Heaven, “How do we know the way (there)?” That is the question everyone should want to know. Jesus’ famous answer was, “I am the way,” John 14:6. Jesus was teaching that the right religion has its own authority above all other authorities. It comes down from above and reaches down from above with its own authority and cuts through the confusion, clouds, and darkness. It brings light into the world and shows the pathway forward. Jesus’ students recorded that many times he claimed he was that divine help come down from above.

So while man gropes about on earth trying to know the right way or the right god, ultimately if man is to have certainty, God will have to reach down to him. Certainty only comes with a higher point of reference. Put another way, science only goes so far and no farther. From there the openminded must be open to a greater mind.

Of course, there is danger in this approach too. For it must be asked, how does one discern God’s truth or voice. How does one know some kind spirit is reaching down to you? What if it’s just a bunch of hullabaloo and malarkey? Or worse, what if what reaches down is not a benevolent spirit but an evil spirit? Or what if I mesmerize myself by trying too hard to see something which is not actually there? What if my feelings fool me? What if by hoping too hard for hope, I hope in an illusion?

These are legitimate concerns. Nevertheless this approach will be needed at some point. Maybe by then you will have some answers to your tougher questions which will put you in a better place to evaluate spiritual claims.

Since most people are more comfortable with the first approach, in this post we will begin with the “Bottom Up” approach. This post seeks to use your common sense to help you sort through truth claims. In the future, I will be presenting the positive characteristics of the Christian faith and attempting to answer the tough negative critiques against it. I will also explain my personal faith journey so you know where I’m coming from. For now, though, I want to use this post to lay out helpful principles in deciding a good faith. In the realm of faith there is a vast supply of creative ideas. Buyers beware! Not all are as insightful as they claim.

Let’s ask ourselves what we already know about trust. What do you already know about who to trust and what to trust? For example, what qualities or attributes do you look for in a person, product, company, or organization which acclimate you toward them? Faith involves trust and confidence in another. So what makes wise, discerning people trust other people or their products? And, conversely, what would make you very cautious and guarded around other people? What would send you running in the other direction?

I propose that those same common sense attributes you already affirm must be present when choosing a faith. In many cases, it’s not rocket science. You know who is not worth the time and who stands the test of time.

The following are 8 guiding principles you probably already are amenable toward which lead you to trust others. If you use these same principles in evaluating religions and faiths, you will be able to discard quite a number of spiritual claims as unsuitable for faith. They just won’t pass the smell test.

Guiding Principle #1: Consistency 

Common Sense Wisdom = Trust those who have a consistent message and don’t contradict themselves. Distrust those who talk out of two sides of their mouth and expect you to believe their duplicitous message.

Life Illustration = If a salesperson in a store tells you one thing at the beginning of a presentation, but you catch him contradicting himself later, he may try to dismiss the inconsistency for the sake of the sale, but you won’t. If you are sharp you will notice it and challenge this salesperson. Or if a friend acts like a friend only in favorable situations, but in unfavorable settings she is cold and standoffish, that inconsistency is a red flag. Something in your mind tells you, “Don’t trust her!”

Application to Faith – Religions and worldviews boast many things which cannot readily be evaluated. We don’t have any firsthand, experimental way to evaluate whether or not some claim is true in the unseen world. So we cannot evaluate everything about a religion. However there are some things we can evaluate about their faith. One is consistency. If a religion contradicts itself in its central claim, we know it is not true. It shows us that it is fatally flawed and internally inconsistent. That kind of central inconsistency leads us to dismiss it as a fraud. If we take the very center of the religion’s claims (not some peripheral or petty difference which may be interesting but is not central to the religion) and test it against itself, does it stand its own test? If it contradicts itself, then it is self-defeating. It’s not trustworthy.

The key in this common sense test is not to focus on the peripheral claims. This is not the time to note that some nice people are part of this religion or that this poor group has been persecuted or that they have beautiful houses of worship, or did some nice things for others. Every faith will demonstrate some good things and some bad things. That kind of an evaluation won’t settle the issue. To evaluate the faith look at the core and center of their claim and use it against itself. If it stands, it passes the consistency test. If it doesn’t, then let it collapse under its own weight.

Egregious examples of inconstancy in religion/world views:

Are there really religions and worldviews which contradict themselves!  We believe there are! See if you agree. 

Agnosticism 

Agnosticism is a popular resting place for many people’s faith in the postmodern world. It could be argued that the whole Postmodern mindset predominate in American society today is itself built upon an agnostic base or hung on an agnostic frame. Postmodernism could only develop in a philosophical climate of skepticism and uncertainty. If truth were certain, Postmodernism would not make much inroads into the intellectual climate of the day.

An agnostic is a skeptic. He is someone who claims “no knowledge,” as the name itself indicates. Agnosticism comes from a Greek word which literally means “no knowledgeism.” It is the position of ignorance rather than knowledge. One who is an agnostic admits a lack of confidence in knowing ultimate things.

That may seem harmless enough, and it would be, if it were limited to a personal claim of ignorance about ultimate reality. However there are two kinds of agnostics, broadly speaking.

A soft agnostic merely states she does not know ultimate reality or whether there is a god. Soft agnosticism is not really a belief system, but an honest admission, “I don’t know the truth.” Stating you don’t know something is fine. It is a mere admission you are uncertain about reality at the moment. It actually should be considered an honest statement. Soft agnosticism is not the problem.

A hard agnostic, though, is different. A hard agnostic believes God is not only unknown to himself, but unknowable to everyone else. Hard agnostics are not satisfied with declaring personal ignorance about God or reality. They push the envelope and claim, “Not only I don’t know the truth, but no one can know the truth either.” That’s claiming quite a bit more.

Furthermore, hard agnostics believe that since no one can know ultimate truth, no one should ever be so arrogant or bold as to claim they know the truth. Claims of certainty are not allowed in the worldview of hard agnostics.

Hard agnostics pride themselves on a sensible, middle of the road opinion about ultimate things. Rather than stand with Theists and declare with certainty that God exists or stand with Atheists and declare with certainty that God does not exist, they stand in the middle and lecture both sides for being too confident in their opinions. They lecture, “We can’t know if God exists.” They believe it is not wise to conjecture about things unverifiable. They rest in skepticism until there is adequate proof offered.

To many folks these days, hard agnosticism seems a solid rock to stand upon, but in reality it is sinking sand. And the sand sinks quite quickly. For their claim is flawed at the center – at the base.

The central inconsistency is not too hard to spot. The hard agnostic is claiming confident knowledge and universal ignorance simultaneously. He claims to know enough about God’s existence to know his existence can’t be known. That won’t fly. That’s a trap they laid for themselves. For if they know so much already, that they can declare to the rest of us that none of us can know, we are right in asking them, “How do you know that?” How did they gain that certainty of ignorance without knowledge? How did they come to be so confident that no one can know, if they are so ignorant in the first place?

And, remember, this is at the very heart of their belief system. It’s a dagger to the heart of hard agnosticism. For common sense tells us that only people in the know can make confident claims about what can be known. Ignorance does not breed confidence or certainty. They said it themselves. But agnostics can’t have it both ways. It’s inconsistent to make certain claims about reality while claiming uncertainty in knowledge. This is especially true since they lectured the Theist and Atheist for their confident affirmations.

To expand the point … Agnostics have to know enough about God’s existence to know he can’t be known. But if they know enough about God’s existence to say God cannot be known, then they must know whether he exists or not. How can they know for sure that they can’t know anything for sure? That makes no sense. Agnostics claim to know for certain what they say no one can know for certain. That’s self-defeating. They have cancelled out their own belief. If they were honest, they would withdraw their hard agnosticism and slump back into the soft agnostic’s opinion.

So hard agnosticism is an untenable position. That is why a common sense approach rejects it. The so-called brilliant philosophers who espoused this view, may have had a high IQ, but they have made a central error. It does not matter how sophisticated philosophers get with their arguments, if it boils down to the same contradiction, it’s not such a bright idea.

Some people remain agnostic in the face of this clear contradiction, but they are trapped in their own condemnation of others. For they decry certainty in the Theist and the Atheist. Yet they pronounce with certainty, “No one can know!”

Even though people today love this system of thinking and foist it on others, since it is flawed, all a wise person need do is point out the flaw and let it self-destruct.