 |
 |
Some try to dismiss or belittle my belief in God by claiming it’s just a matter of faith. While I agree my belief in God does involve faith, I don’t think it should be belittled for that reason because all my beliefs, as well as all of everyone else’s beliefs, involve faith to some degree. Many non-Christians, and even some Christians, tend to think some beliefs, like our scientific beliefs, are proven facts based on evidence while other types of beliefs, like our religious beliefs, are mere faith based on wishful thinking. But this is a gross misunderstanding of how human beliefs work.
This misunderstanding has been pointed out most helpfully by well-known scientists Michael Polanyi and John Polkinghorne. These two thinkers have been the most well-known proponents of the epistemological position called critical realism, which I also affirm. Critical realists maintain there’s nothing we can know for sure with absolute certainty, except possibly a few mathematical principles. We need to do the best we can through study and research to base our beliefs on good reasons and evidence while recognizing it’s always possible we could be wrong. Since all our beliefs have an element of uncertainty in them, all our beliefs, including our scientific beliefs, involve trust (i.e., faith).
So what is faith? Keep in mind that the same word can be used to mean different things. Just think about all the different ways we use the word bark. Similarly, the word faith can be used to mean radically different concepts. Sometimes it’s used to mean an irrational, blind leap of wishful thinking. Indiana Jones famously illustrated such a blind leap of faith at the end of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade when he steps out over what seemed like a bottomless pit with no good reason to think he’d survive. That type of faith is the opposite of reason, that is, it’s negatively correlated with reason—having more reasons and evidence for something decreases your need for such blind faith.
However, the term faith can also be used to mean a rational decision to trust someone, or believe something, based on good reasons and evidence. That’s why I often use the terms blind faith and rational faith to differentiate between these two ways of using the word faith. As an example, consider that my faith (rational trust) in my wife has grown over our twenty-nine years of marriage as I’ve gotten to know her better because I’ve discovered more reasons and evidence to trust her. This sort of faith (rational trust) is not the opposite of reason but is positively correlated with reason—having more reasons and evidence for something actually increases your faith (rational trust). This sort of rational trust will always be a part of our marriage relationship though, because neither of us is omniscient. If we were omniscient and knew everything past, present, and future, then we wouldn’t have to trust each other because we’d just know the other person completely and with absolute certainty. In other words, because there will always be an element of uncertainty due to our finite knowledge, our relationship will always involve this rational trust. However, it’s important to note that faith and uncertainty are not the same thing; faith is the decision to trust someone or believe something based on good reasons and evidence when we have a degree of uncertainty, and all of our beliefs have some degree of uncertainty. As for God, I believe he exists based on good reasons and evidence, even though I can’t prove that with absolute certainty. Critical realists like Polanyi, Polkinghorne, and myself argue that all of our beliefs work this way—our scientific beliefs, philosophical beliefs, religious beliefs, and so forth.
For this reason I’ve always found it odd to strictly label our various beliefs into different categories. Take my beliefs about abortion: Are those moral, scientific, political, or religious beliefs? I have no desire to categorize these beliefs, but others may if they like. The way I understand it is that I have certain beliefs about reality, in this case abortion, and those beliefs are either true or false. I’d say the same thing about all of my beliefs, including my belief that there is a God and that the Bible is from God. You may call those religious beliefs if you’d like, but as I understand it they’re simply beliefs about reality that are either true or false.
This was driven home to me in a humorous way several years ago when I asked a local coffee shop if I could hang up a poster on their public bulletin board advertising an upcoming debate about the existence of God. The barista said they wouldn’t allow this because their policy was not to hang up any religious material in their store. I explained that since both debaters had a PhD in philosophy, were both philosophy professors, and that the debate was taking place at a large public state university that this material wasn’t religious but philosophical. As a result they allowed me to hang up the poster on their bulletin board! This is just one episode that reminded me how silly it can be to categorize our beliefs. Instead of using labels to dismiss certain beliefs we disagree with (“That’s just your religious belief!”) or to try and silence people advocating for their beliefs (“Don’t try to push your religious beliefs on others!”), let’s just admit we all have and advocate for beliefs about reality we think are true but that could be wrong.
Last, I want to acknowledge that some Christians, particularly those who’ve been influenced by postmodern philosophy through thinkers like Søren Kierkegaard, do think of faith as the opposite of reason, as a blind leap of faith. But most Christians throughout history, as well as the New Testament, have maintained that faith is simply trusting something on the basis of good reasons and evidence. I trust (i.e., put my faith in) my wife on the basis of good reasons and evidence she’s a trustworthy person. Similarly, I trust (i.e., put my faith in) Christ based on good reasons and evidence that he is the Messiah. Just like my trust in my wife has grown as I’ve seen more evidence of her character, my trust in Christ has grown as I’ve learned more reasons and evidence that Christianity is true.
— Dr. Adam Lloyd Johnson is president of Convincing Proof Ministries. He has taught for the Rhineland School of Theology in Wölmersen, Germany, and Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Missouri, and previously served with Ratio Christi. He is the author or editor of several published works including A Debate on God and Morality: What Is the Best Account of Objective Moral Values and Duties?, co-authored with William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Erik Wielenberg, and others, and Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity Is the Source and Foundation of Morality. Learn more about his work at convincingproof.org.
---
Excerpted from Debating God’s Existence: Believers and Skeptics in Friendly Conversation, edited by Andrew Drinkard (Eerdmans, 2026). Used by permission.
When a Christian philosopher and a well-known atheist debated each other at an atheist convention, many expected a hostile showdown. Instead, what happened was something rare in today’s polarized world: a genuine, respectful exchange between friends pursuing truth together.
In Debating God’s Existence, the memorable debate is reproduced in full. More importantly, it serves as the starting point for new conversations. In the chapters that follow, the two debaters reflect on their public exchange and explore questions they didn’t have time to address on stage. Then some of today’s most influential theist and nontheist thinkers—including both professional academics and respected public intellectuals—weigh in with their own perspectives, commenting on the debate and offering fresh insights on God’s existence. The original debaters then respond to these expert essays, creating a rich, multilayered dialogue.
This book serves beginners with clear, accessible explanations of complex ideas while offering experienced readers the intellectual depth they expect. Whether readers are skeptics, believers, or undecided, they will here find honest engagement across genuine differences—a refreshing departure from the destructive mischaracterizations that too often dominate discussion of God’s existence.
Contributors:
David Baggett, Dan Barker, Robin Collins, Andrew Drinkard, David Enoch, Joe Folley, Philip Goff, Adam Lloyd Johnson, Robert C. Koons, Daniel Linford, Alex Malpass, Dolores G. Morris, Joshua Rasmussen, Benjamin Watkins
