WHAT IS FAITH?
Hebrews 11.1
S: Faith
C: Naturalism
Th: Confusion
Pr: WHEN WE BELIEVE, WE POSSESS LIFE-PURPOSE.
CV: “We will clearly communicate the transforming truth of the Bible.”
Type: Inductive
PA: How is the change to be observed?
• Recognize belief is a matter of the will.
• Seek God with all your heart.
• Live with purpose.
Version: ESV
RMBC 23 November 08 AM
We have been learning about the confusing transition from modernism to postmodernism.
We have been asking questions for the last four weeks, hopefully is a way that will get you keep thinking about them.
Three weeks ago we considered the question…
What is truth? -- Worldviews
This discussion on truth dealt with the concept of worldviews.
We discussed how we have been living in a time of transition.
During the last fifty years, we have shifted from a dominant modern worldview to a postmodern one.
And it is confusing.
Our understanding of the nature of truth has changed.
In the modern worldview, truth was considered objective – absolutes existing outside of us.
In the postmodern worldview, it is considered subjective – depending on one’s experience.
Two weeks ago, we asked the question…
What is sin? – Relativism
It was a study of the postmodern view of relativism.
Relativism is the philosophy of “live and let live,” where tolerance reigns.
There are no absolutes.
Every value, belief, lifestyle and truth claim is equal and valid, therefore, there is no reason to judge or condemn anyone.
Last week, we asked the question…
Who is Jesus? – Pluralism
It was a study of the postmodern view of pluralism.
Theological pluralism believes that all religions ultimately have the same message and the same spiritual end.
According to this line of thinking, the Divine reality has many names – Buddha, Krishna, Allah, Jesus.
And they are all pathways to the same place.
Today, we ask the question…
What is faith? – Naturalism
And we will be talking about the concept of naturalism.
We will be defining it in a moment.
But first I want to speak of the biblical definition of faith.
Faith is not a vague hope grounded in the imaginary (Hebrews 11.1)
The writer of Hebrews says it this way…
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Biblical faith is not a vague hope.
It is a matter of being assured.
It is a matter of confidence.
It is a matter of conviction.
It is not about wishful thinking.
It is the idea that because God is active in the present, that the future is guaranteed.
Our belief in God is not a blind trust contrary to the evidence.
It is not an unknowable leap in the dark.
It is based on the understanding and experience that God revealed Himself through Jesus and His Word.
That’s what biblical faith is about.
Now naturalism…
Naturalism believes that nothing exists but nature.
It is only the material that exists.
There is no God.
So these following concepts are all directly related – materialism, evolution, humanism, atheism, Darwinism.
Naturalism has decided it knows how we got here.
It could be said we came from…
Infantile to the reptile to the Gentile.
Or…
From the goo to you via the zoo.
Well, those are humorous ways of saying it.
Since there is no God…
Naturalism rejects every religious system.
You may remember our studies last year when we studied the new atheists.
One of them was a professor from Oxford, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion.
ILL Evolution (S)
Richard Dawkins has said:
The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from an agnostic position and towards atheism.
It is the view of the naturalist that “science has already dissolved Christianity in a vat of nitric acid.”
They like to believe that science has put God out of a job.
As Lee Strobel put it, “The white-coated scientists of the modern world had trumped black-robed priests of medieval times.”
If naturalism is true, so are the following.
There is no evidence for God.
There is no life after death.
There is no absolute foundation for right and wrong.
There is no ultimate meaning for life.
Therefore, according to naturalism, all religion, including the Christian faith, is the figment of humanity’s imagination.
Its service to humanity is no longer needed.
Because…
Naturalism maintains that truth is found only through science.
During these last few weeks, you have heard me before talk about the social upheaval of the 1960s.
Please forgive me, those of you who don’t remember them or were not born yet.
But they were a strategic time.
A lot of the social values were changing.
Relativism was beginning to take hold.
Pluralism was beginning to take hold.
But you know what was steady?
Science.
We were putting a man on the moon.
Our TVs went from black and white to color.
Our pans were non-sticking with Teflon.
Life in America was becoming better and better.
Religion, as the bearer of truth, was no longer needed.
Science was the answer.
ILL Science (S)
Richard Lewontin the Harvard geneticist affirmed it this way:
The problem is to get [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.
Along with that…
Naturalism affirms a purposeless universe.
Since nature has done its own creating, there is no need or desire of God.
Instead, we live in a random universe.
It is, by definition, undirected.
We live in a place that is without plan or purpose.
It is void of meaning.
ILL Purposelessness (S)
The famous atheist Bertrand Russell puts it this way:
That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction...that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried – all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.
What did he say?
This is all there is.
When you are dead, you are dead.
Our lives are ultimately built on unyielding despair.
Get used to it.
When I hear all of this…
When I hear the direction and implication of naturalism…
I confess…I don’t have enough faith to be a naturalist.
I say this because I believe it takes a blind faith to believe in naturalism.
And here is where I start.
When I consider the awesome design of the single cell, there is something that does not connect.
When I consider its astonishing complexity, there is something I believe that naturalism is missing.
You see…
Naturalism stumbles on the origin of life.
How did that first life start?
It is the naturalist’s belief that the first life had to spontaneously come from nonliving chemicals.
That first one-celled amoeba just happened.
It was “just-so.”
ILL Design(S)
It is Richard Dawkins the infamous atheist who helps us with the idea of intelligent design, for as he points out, the complete one-celled amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Note this…
It does not count if the encyclopedia’s words appear in random order.
So, Dawkins looks at this first amoeba and has the same conclusion that I have.
It is astonishingly complex.
Now I think we all agree that no one observed the origin of the first life.
There is no historic reporting.
There are no witnesses.
So what are the scientific principles that we can use to help us discover what caused the first life?
First we want to note the…
Note: Principle of Uniformity
The principle of uniformity states simply that we assume that the world worked in the past just like it works to day.
We expect uniformity.
We expect consistency.
So when we look at this picture of the Grand Canyon, and we apply the principle of uniformity by asking what caused it, we probably can come up with an answer.
Water cuts through dirt and rock – carves a path – and through time, erosion has its result.
Running water always does that.
It is the principle of uniformity at work.
When we look at this picture of Mount Rushmore, and we apply the principle of uniformity by asking what caused it, we can probably come up with an answer.
We look at Mount Rushmore and decide that water did not cause that.
Instead, our common sense tells us that there was an intelligence behind this, right?
It, too, is the principle of uniformity in action.
So, Mr. Dawkins, my question is this…
If the first one-celled life contained what is equivalent to 1000 encyclopedias with all the letters and words in the right order, why don’t we think of intelligence is the cause?
I don’t get that.
Note as well this concept of…
Note: Spontaneous Generation
We have already alluded to this.
Spontaneous generation is the belief that the first life generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals.
And here is the problem…
Though it is widely accepted as true, spontaneous generation has never been observed.
Scientists have never been able to combine chemicals in a test tube and arrive at a DNA molecule, much less life.
So how is that one can believe that mindless processes can do what brilliant scientists cannot?
And if scientists did do it…that they did create life in a test tube, you know what it would prove?
It would prove intelligence.
ILL Design (S)
Even Richard Dawkins admits they have some problems…
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
Isn’t that an incredible confession?
Dawkins sees design.
Dawkins sees purpose.
But he refuses to allow observation to interfere with his conclusion.
Reality stares him in the face, and he still turns away.
I don’t get that.
For…
Who is making the most rational inference from the evidence?
Again, I don’t have enough faith to look away from the evidence.
I don’t have enough blind faith in naturalism.
You see, I think this is about reasonable faith versus unreasonable faith.
Spontaneous generation is not supported by empirical observation or the principle of uniformity.
But because the naturalist is committed to materialism, intelligent causes are ruled out in advance.
Their faith is blind.
It overcomes observation and reason.
ILL Naturalism (S)
Richard Lewontin again says…
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment to materialism.
Do you see that?
Lewontin confessed his faith here.
It is materialism.
They are so committed, there is no room for any consideration of the supernatural.
To continue, though, to make their case…
Naturalism wants more time.
They say, give us a billion years and it will happen.
But here is their problem.
It is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
And it is the principle of uniformity at work.
What happens in the present is an indicator of what happened in the past.
Contrary to the theory of evolution, it says that nature disorders matters.
It does not bring order.
It does not organize.
Instead, entropy takes place – chaos set in – things break down.
So please understand this…
Naturalism is a slave to a philosophy.
Those who believe in naturalism refuse to follow the evidence where it leads.
Their ideology dictates their conclusions.
Since they refuse to believe outside the material, their conclusions are predisposed.
And here is where we bring in some biblical understanding, for…
Belief is a matter of the will.
It involves our choice.
I content, for the naturalist, his/her mind is made up before they consider all the evidence.
They teach theory as law, not because all the evidence takes them there, but because they want to go there.
ILL Choice (S)
Ravi Zacharias puts it this way:
A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God.
ILL Unbelief (S)
Lee Strobel in The Case for Faith tells about his wrestling with his unbelief in a conversation with Christian philosopher Dallas Willard:
I told Willard about the time when my newborn daughter was rushed into intensive care because of a mysterious illness that was threatening her life. The doctors weren’t able to diagnose it. Even though I was an atheist, I was so desperate that I actually prayed and implored God – if He existed – to heal her. A short time later, she astounded everyone by suddenly getting completely better. The doctors were left scratching their heads.
My response was to explain it away. I said “What a coincidence! She must have had some bacteria or virus that spontaneously disappeared.” I wouldn’t even consider the possibility that God had acted. Instead, I stayed in my atheism.
Willard smiled at the story. “I don’t mean to diagnose your case in your presence,” he said gently, “but might it be that your pride got in the way? You were too smart! You weren’t going to be taken in by this. Let all the little ladies be fooled, but not you. As long as a person has that attitude, that’s their response.”
Bingo! He was right on target. Even if there had been a proliferation of corroborating evidence that God had intervened, I would have come up with any explanation – no matter how bizarre, no matter how nonsensical – other than the possibility that he had answered my prayer. I was too proud to bend my knee to anyone, and too enmeshed in my immoral lifestyle to want to give it up.
Dear friends, please understand this.
Contrary to the naturalist’s ideology…
God can be found (Jeremiah 29.13).
The testimony of Scripture is…
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
God can be found.
For it is the person who wants to know God that God reveals himself to.
If a person does not want to know God, God has created the world and the mind in such a way that he does not have to.
I content that there is sufficient evidence about God.
I believe that day after day this world pours forth speech about its Creator.
The issue, then, is will we listen, consider all the evidence, and decide?
Will we set aside our pride, arrogance, egoism, self-interest, self-adulation – and believe in God?
When we believe in God, it is then we can live meaningfully.
We get perspective.
Do we get all the answers?
No.
But the process of clarity begins, based on a rational faith, not a mindless one.
ILL Purpose (S)
William Lane Craig, research philosophy professor at Talbot seminary says:
If God does not exist, then life is futile. If the God of the Bible does exist, then life is meaningful. Only the second of these two alternatives enables us to live happily and consistently. Therefore, it seems to me that even if the evidence for these two options were absolutely equal, a rational person ought to choose Biblical Christianity. It seems to me positively irrational to prefer death, futility, and destruction to life, meaningfulness, and happiness. As [Blaise] Pascal said, we have nothing to lose and infinity to gain.
I encourage you to take that rational step of faith today and believe in God.
For it is then, our life-purpose is exposed, and we are not left attempting to build a life on unyielding despair.
No, we have something much, much better.
BENEDICTION:
Don’t give in to the pressure that you have to agree with the naturalist or be labeled an ignorant idiot – for when you can’t win the argument – the labels begin;
With integrity follow the evidence to where it leads -- for unyielding despair is not the end of the story – instead, you and I have been created with purpose.
Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy — to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
RESOURCES:
Geisler, Norman, and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004.
New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics. ed. W. Campbell Campbell-Jack, Gavin J McGrath, C. Stephen Evans and Steve Carter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 2000.
________. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.
