Contrary to what the above title may lead you to think, this isn't an article questioning the validity of faith in God or His promises. It is, instead, an article that aims to answer two questions about faith--namely, (1) what precisely is faith? and (2) what is faith's continuing importance to the modern/postmodern world in which we live? Unfortunately, many people, and this includes those who think of themselves as Christians, often misunderstand the meaning of faith.

Modernism

Modernism, with its science-religion/faith-reason contrasts, has taken a devastating toll on our thinking. With its trichotomy of rational inquiry, empirical evidence, and scientific discovery dominating in the marketplace of ideas, the belief has taken hold that faith is no longer needed to understand the way things are. Such an idea says that whatever is knowable is known only via scientific means (i.e., what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know). Thus, because science cannot discover God empirically, and because science is now thought to explain everything, God has been effectively eliminated from the collective consciousness of modernism's elites, and their admiring acolytes. Consequently, "God says..." has been replaced by "Science says...," and all those enamored with modernism love to have it so.

Modernism's under-girding philosophy, which is naturalism, arrogantly proclaims that the physical world is all there is. To those who subscribe to this kind of thinking, faith and religion have been finally tossed into the dustbin of history. Today, no self-respecting, scientifically-enlightened modernist would ever think of troubling himself with such things. According to those who think this way, the only place where faith and religion could still reside is in the red-necked, feeble-minded yahoos who populate the fundamental churches of backwater America. Everyplace else, they triumphantly declare, is a "God-free zone."

Consequently, "science disproves the Bible," "science and religion don't mix," or "science rules out God" mantras serve as the constant drone, or "white noise," in a culture saturated with modernism/naturalism. Isaac Asimov summed this all up well in his book, In The Beginning, when he wrote, "The Bible describes a Universe created by God, maintained by him and instantly and constantly directed by him, while science describes a Universe in which it is not necessary to postulate the existence of God at all." However, and this seems to fly right over the heads of Asimov and those like him, such thinking is really not scientific at all. It is, instead, scientism, a philosophy/religion that rejects all that cannot be reduced to the merely physical and examined only by scientific means. In other words, scientism is a faith system that begins with a commitment to naturalism/materialism, and then shapes its knowing (science?) in such a way that prohibits any supernatural explanation for a thing, or any thing, for that matter. This means that the practitioners of scientism come to their conclusions about things before they ever conduct their first experiment, and this, even by their own definition of science, does not qualify as science. It is, instead, something they do solely by faith.

Another name for naturalism is evolutionism. The five major tenets of evolutionism/naturalism are:

1. Matter exists eternally and is all there is. There is no God.
2. The universe exists as a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system.
3. Human beings are just complex "machines." Their personalities are an interrelation of chemical and physical properties we do not yet fully understand.
4. History is a linear stream of events linked by cause and effect, but without any overarching purpose.
5. Death is the extinction of personality and individuality.

1. everything ultimately came from nothing,
2. order came from chaos,
3. harmony came from discord,
4. life came from nonlife,
5. reason came from irrationality,
6. personality came from non-personality, and
7. morality came from amorality.

As anyone should be able to see, these seven presuppositions are built upon nothing but blind faith. I say blind because nothing in our observation of the universe (i.e., no science we've ever done) has ever indicated that any of these seven presuppositions are true. In fact, all the observations of science tell us they are false. Consequently, evolutionism/naturalism, much to the embarrassment of those who espouse it, is nothing more than a religious system built on nothing but blind faith. Now, explain this to modernists and watch their pained expressions as they become almost apoplectic in denying it. But even though they deny it out of one side of their mouths, they have not been hesitant to proclaim their faith in their very bleak "gospel" out of the other side. Bertrand Russell, for example, a stalwart defender of naturalism, wrote these less than cheery words about his belief system some years back:

That man is the product of causes which have no prevision of the end they are achieving: that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his 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 noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried underneath the debris of a universe in ruins. Only on the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation be safely built.

Clearly, then, Bertrand Russell had a religion. Although he called it naturalism or evolutionism, it is more properly identified as scientism, the deification of a belief system built on nothing more than blind faith. In this regard, it is interesting to note what Isaac Asimov, who was quoted earlier, and was a well-known champion of naturalism in the latter half of the 20th century, had to say in the April, 1971 issue of Science Digest. About his religion, which was scientism, he said:

Where did the substance of the universe come from? ...Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of these globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it.

But it was Robert Ingersoll, naturalism's well-known 19th century proponent, who best summed up the total despair of the materialist's worldview, when he wrote:

Life is a narrow veil between the cold and barren peaks of two eternities. We strive in vain to look beyond the heights. We cry aloud, and the only answer is the echo of our wailing cry.

Within the materialist's worldview thrives another moral philosophy that is wreaking havoc in our society. It's called relativism. Relativism says that in the evolutionary and naturalistic universe nothing is fixed and definite; nothing "governs" the universe except chance. The relativist argues that one must not expect to find absolutes regarding moral issues. He claims that absolutes are simply impossible. Ironically, however, and the Devil loves irony, if there are no absolutes, morally or otherwise, then everything the relativist claims to be true, like the claim that "everything is relative," is absolute gobbledygook. Nevertheless, those who ascribe to this idea are always ready to tout its dialectic, which boldly asserts that what is arbitrarily considered to be wrong today can be right tomorrow. For example, prior to 1973, abortion was considered both immoral and illegal. But then, on January 22, 1973, in one of the worst examples of legislation by judicial fiat ever perpetrated on the citizens of the United States of America, the Supreme Court, in the case of Roe v. Wade, shockingly ruled that a woman had a constitutional "right" to abort her unborn child, even though this flew in the face of everything that had gone before. For instance, and to cite only one example, prior to Roe v. Wade, the Declaration of Geneva, modeled after the ancient Hippocratic Oath, was recited by medical school graduates, and read, in part, "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception." Editions since 1973, however, show a modification in this oath, with the words "from the time of conception" removed. Yes, indeed, ideas do, in fact, have consequences.

In his much acclaimed book The Closing Of The American Mind, which is an insider's criticism of the failures of higher education, the late professor Allan Bloom wrote, "There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative." And why not? By the time he reaches the college level, the typical student has been thoroughly indoctrinated with the presuppositions and tenets of evolutionism/naturalism. When he erroneously believes truth is relative, he is only following the logical conclusions of his worldview. In fact, it is not all that unusual today to hear someone express the idea that a thing is true for them if they think it's true, or if it is somehow "meaningful" to them. In other words, they think they can have their truth, you can have your truth, and I can have my truth, and all these truths can be true, even though they are completely contradictory to each other. This detachment from reality is illustrated by the fact that American students, some years back, came in last on a math aptitude test taken by students in several different countries around the world; nevertheless, when asked how they felt about their math ability, American students actually came in first. Now, when one factors into all this the claim, according to philosophers, anthropologists, and sociologists, that America's prevailing worldview is no longer modernism, but "postmodernism," one begins to understand a little better just what is going on in our society.

Moving beyond modernism, with its emphasis on so-called "scientific facts," postmodernism, which is nothing much more than souped-up, spiritualized modernism "gone to seed," says that reality is purely a matter of individual and social perceptions. There is nothing "out there," it is claimed, independent of human or social interpretation. Therefore, when a postmodernist reads a book, he is not trying to learn what the author is actually saying. Instead, he asks himself, "What does this mean to me?" In other words, it is the postmodernist's subjective think-sos that become the "real meaning" of the book. This means that two different readers, unencumbered by the so-called "tyranny of facts," can "discover" two contradictory "meanings," both of which, the postmodernist is quick to tell us, are equally "true." Such "unity in diversity" is celebrated by these people as a "good" thing, even though it destroys every vestige of logic and reason.

It should not be surprising, then, that postmodernists assert that Western monotheism and Eastern pantheism, although logically contradictory, are both mutually "true" in the sense that they are the paradigms or systems through which different societies construct their own "realities." However, in actual practice, postmodernists are more sympathetic to Eastern religions. This is because of Eastern religions' assertions that all religions are but man's imperfect attempts to describe what he believes to be ultimate reality. This is exemplified by the Hindus who claim that there are, in fact, many paths leading to God/heaven, all of which are equally "true." Like the postmodernists, they are tolerant of every view except that one view which claims to be the only correct view. They deny the idea that man can know "the truth" about God. To Eastern religionists, all religions are simply "a way." Likewise, according to postmodernists, each culture has its "own truth." All this, of course, violates logic's law of non-contradiction which says, fundamentally, that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. But, according to the postmodernists and the Eastern religionists, there is really no such thing as real, absolute true, or "true truth," if you will.

Postmodernists, then, along with their Eastern religion cohorts, are just about as crazy as crazy can get. Sadly, it is exactly this kind of craziness that seems to permeate our society today. "Facts" or "truth" mean nothing to those who have given themselves over to this way of thinking. But even before postmodernism claimed supremacy in today's marketplace of ideas, this kind of loosey-goosey thinking was already present in modernism, evidenced by the general theory of evolution which, as was pointed out previously, contradicts all the known facts of science, but nevertheless continues to be believed by the overwhelming majority of people today. Another exhibit would be the infamous O.J. Simpson trial, where the preponderance of factual evidence indicating Simpson's guilt was admittedly rejected by the jury for purely subjective, rather than objective, reasons. It is unfortunate, but true, that for those caught up in this kind of thinking (one that has little, if any, regard for truth and truthfulness), the historical accuracy of the Bible will never have a positive impression.

But on the other hand, for those who continue to be interested in historical truth, it remains possible to distinguish truth from falsehood, fact from theory, and divine revelation from religious mumbo-jumbo. For those who have not lost their minds to either modernism, postmodernism, or some form of Eastern religion, it is still possible to put the things taught in the Bible to the historical accuracy test. If it were to fail, the Bible could easily be discarded to the dustbin of history. But on the other hand, if the Bible passes objective, historical scrutiny, and it does with "flying colors," this is but another proof that it is exactly what it says it is; namely, God's divine revelation to man. Nevertheless, this is not something to be accepted by blind faith, or faith alone, as some seem to think, but on the objective evidence that it is what it claims to be. For those interested in a more detailed examination of this evidence than this study permits, then see my article at www.allanturner.com/bibleproofs.html.

In modernism, we have seen the effort to make one form of truth (viz., the so-called "scientific facts") the only truth. Then, in postmodernism, we have seen the effort to make every perceived truth not the only truth, per se, but simply "a truth."

We have observed that one cannot escape the fact that both modernism and postmodernism, along with most forms of Eastern religion, are simply philosophies--namely, religions, or faith systems, all of which compete with Christianity, a religion which unashamedly claims to be the truth "once and for all delivered" (Jude 3).

Everyone has some sort of faith, religion, philosophy, or worldview. Everyone looks at the world through a certain set of presuppositions and it is precisely these presuppositions that make up one's worldview. Permit me to discover your worldview, and I can, in turn, tell you something about your lifestyle. Why is this? It's simple: What we think affects how we act (cf. Proverbs 23:7). Thus, the pertinent question in all this is: With all these faiths, religions, philosophies, or worldviews, which one is the most reasonable? The answer is clear and unequivocal: the worldview of New Testament Christianity.

Finally, faith is not what modernists, postmodernists, and many religionists think it is. Real faith is a matter of hearing testimony, examining the evidence accompanying that testimony, and then deciding "I believe it; it is true!" This is true whether we are dealing with scientific or biblical principles. Evolutionists believe that life came from non-life. They believe this not because they have ever observed this taking place, but because they believe scientific evidence demands it. As has been demonstrated, they are wrong about this. Theists believe in God, not because they have ever experienced Him with their five senses, but because they are convinced the evidence (scientific and otherwise) demands it. As surprising as it is to many, there is no room here for any kind of blind faith. All such "faith alone" thinking belongs to the modernists, postmodernists, and false religionists who make up a world that is lost, dying, and on its way to hell.

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ (Colossians 2:8).