Reader comments

I just want to thank you for writing your essay on faith and reason. I am a first year Religious studies student and am in the process of writing as essay on 'Examine the opposition of faith and reason.'

I am a Christian and was really unsure of how to approach this one but after reading your essay I now see that it is impossible to truly believe unless reason is used.

Thanks
Petrina C.

I'm about 1/3 of the way into this article; it's well done. When I finish, maybe I'll have something else to say.

Christian L.

I particularly enjoyed the Lewis Carroll quotation "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast..." That makes a good illustration of the kind of faith you and I want to protest. At least I want to help people grow beyond that point.

I also enjoyed the motif of the Hill, the Valley, and the Mountain. I'm glad to see this kind of information on the web. Of course, I know there are numbers of other sites proclaiming Christian truth as well.

May I use small parts of your article...? Mainly I want to refer to the Lewis Carroll quotation and a few other small items. Of course, I would credit your name.

Timothy C.

In Christ,
Tony

Why is the truth so frightening?

Jesus was wrong!

All things are possible for him who doubts.

There can be no reconciliation between faith and reason. Only when doubt overcomes faith can there be true understanding.

Rock on,
Charles S

Debbie C.

I have only read about half of your essay but I wanted to write and thank you. I have been looking for books to help strengthen my faith. As a matter of fact the way I found your site was using by searching for the words "JESUS, WEAK, FAITH, BELIEF, HELP". (I have read "The Christian Agnostic" by Leslie Weatherhead, " Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, "Why I Believe" by D. James Kennedy and some others) If you could suggest any other books which would help I would appreciate it. I am going to finish reading your essay but just wanted to let you know how helpful it is to know your not the only one who really wants to believe but sometime has difficulty. This logical approach is just the thing for me.

Thanks again,
Lloyd B

Mark H.
Mark 11:23

I've been a Christian since I was around 14 (now 24). I did Animal Biology at St Andrews University (I'm from the north of Scotland) but I did 2 semesters of Moral Philosphy in first year. Now I would probably have done Logic and Metaphysics as well, but that didn't occur to me at the time!

I did go through a short "Type B Christian" phase while still at school, probably because of the attitude of a particular teacher, but by sixth year (last year of high school) I was definitely "Type A". That probably helped me to survive as a Christian through university, despite lapses.

Until now, I have tended to think of Type Bs as not actual believers, because I don't think I know any who haven't actually lost their faith or watered it down to a kind of hope that there is "something out there". The few I can think of who might be are elderly and have already been through a lot (eg bereavement) where God has been with them, so the fundamental belief that God is there and loves them is very strong.

I have been browsing around looking at sites to do with science and Christianity, and found your essay through a link from the Christian Students in Science pages (www.csis.org.uk). The related Christians in Science website is also worth a look if you haven't seen it already (http://212.67.193.77/index.htm).

In between the last paragraph and this one I've found your personal home page as well. I'm pleased to see I can tick many of your interests (all but photographer, American and Mississippi alumnus in fact)! Where's Ursula Le Guin in the bookworm section?! ;) And I'm glad to see "classical" music made it in there too, with some "good" choices (IMHO). Have you tried Radiohead (*not* classical)? Anyway, I'd better go before this turns into my own essay. Hope it was of some interest.

Thanks for a thought-provoking piece.
Claire L.

Vikki W.

Thank you.
Steve

I am a High school student in South Australia currently studying Religion, and would like to know if I would be able to quote from your essay (with acknowledgement of course) for my major study into this topic.

Benjamin F.

[several paragraphs deleted]

Wow, I've bored you enough with my ramblings. Humble apologies. My initial intention was simply to applaud you on your article. I'll make a note to be less impulsive in future. Oh, and please excuse my English, it isn't my first language.

God bless,
Pieter van Z.

David P.

[Someone] gave me the URL for your website last night, and I checked it out tonight. I have really enjoyed it.

I became very engaged though, in your essay entitled, "Faith, Reason, and Doubt." It was very refreshing, and made me think. (In fact, I spent quite a bit of time after reading it, thinking through some of the points, and praying about them.)

Your essay is a lot to digest, so if you don't mind, I thought I might try to summarize your basic points and then respond to some of them. In a nutshell, if my understanding is correct, your thesis is that there are two kinds of faith, reasoned faith (type A) and naive faith (type B). The reasoned faith is the faith that is based upon looking at the evidence, and embracing the paradoxes, while the naive faith is a blind faith where one doesn't want to be confused by facts, and rejects the possibility of genuine doubt. The reasoned faith is based upon the intellect while the naive faith is based on emotion.

There are also two types of unbelief, honest doubt (C), and stubborn doubt (D). Those who are truly type C will inevitably grow into genuine believers, assuming they have the capability and opportunity to do so, but type D folks will be stubborn in their disbelief.

This general dichotomy seems to me to be a good picture of how people could be classified. However, I do disagree to some point on your views on the role of emotion and spiritual experience in determining truth.

For me, in my spiritual walk, I grew up with a type B kind of faith. As I grew older, I began to ask questions, and examine the facts for myself. I constructed in my head a sort of intellectual rationalization for my faith, but I had never really been challenged by difficult life experiences or by an intelligent atheist, so it was still a pretty shaky foundation.

[personal material deleted]

For me, that was a very powerful experience, and it is the reason why I came to faith again. Since that time, however I have striven to not only have an emotion-based faith, but also a faith that is built upon legal-historic proof. (That is one of the main reasons I came to study at ICS.)

Based on this and other experiences, I would argue that there are not just three kinds of proof, (Scientific, mathematical, and legal-historic) but there is also experiential truth. (for lack of a better term) Experiential proof would be personal spiritual experiences such as what I experienced that night, or what Paul experienced on the road to Damascus. I do believe that this kind of proof is inherently unreliable (a person could be under the influence of drugs, insane, or easily influenced), but I do believe that this may be a starting point for many in their faith and can be genuine.

From reading your essay, though I have given a lot of thought to what my faith is based upon, and especially how is the best way to share my faith with an unbeliever. While my experiences may be powerful to me, they mean nothing to someone else. They are not proof to them, just as mathematical or scientific proof of the existence of Jesus is impossible to produce for them. It seems like that the best approach is to work from an approach of legal-historic proof.

Well that's enough rambling for now. I really have enjoyed being made to think. (It is sad but at school it rare that I really have to wrestle with meaty stuff like this.) I do think you should get this essay published somehow where more people could see it. I have talked to a lot of Christians, and so many of them are afraid that their doubts are to be suppressed instead of confronted. Non-Christians are turned off when they see that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

James

One little correction: I think the book you mention at one point is actually called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by (Episcopal) Bishop John Shelby Spong. My reaction to it was similar to yours. He shows that a particular narrow fundamentalist view of the Bible is untenable, and uses that as a justification to pretty much throw it away altogether as a guide to real truth. Baby and bathwater analogies come to mind.

Blessings,
Allan H.

I just read your essay called "Faith, Reason & Doubt", and although I don't completely agree with all of what you said, there is a lot in there that I can relate to.

I am myself going through an intense questioning period right now. I have found a lot of comfort in discussing this with others, especially those who seem to have been through similar experiences. Although I don't have the time right now for anything more than this short note, I'd very much like to discuss this further with you.

Drop me an e-mail as an acknowledgement and I'll look forward to talking with you more.

In Him, Dave S.

But, I will, instead, make my Christian friends aware of yiour offering -- with the above caveat.

One application of your piece which came to me is to use it for discussion at my local Christian high school. Whle the text is a bit long for their attention spans, I think the concepts are provocative and will help prepare them for better apologetic reflection.

Faith untroubled is like a stagnant lake. I find my faith grows brightest when it is challenged by internal or external demands. Each time I confront those challenges, I emerge strengthened, emboldened, and refreshed.

Kids coming out of Christian high schools must be told this. They have been raised in a little "faith bubble" but they must now take on the secular world. So, go ahead, call me a Type A Christian -- I've earned it !

Dan G in San Diego

Just wanted to let you know that what you've written (faith, reason, and doubt) is almost a summary of my views on those issues. It's reassuring to hear to words of a Christian who _does_ think. I'm probably a type A, sometimes a type C. I generally see atheism as every bit as plausible, so will admit to the odd bout of "will to believe" in being type A :-)

Unfortunately perhaps, while I have been confronted with erroneous stats, facts, conclusions etc. from probably all fields in which such things are used, I have never seen any field, person, or movement pump out anywhere near the disgusting lies and propaganda that comes from "Christian" organisations and movements. The creationist industry is obviously a prime source of this, but the activity of putting backward working faith into practise (ie operating from foregone, inviolate conclusions, then seeking out the evidence that supports them) is widespread enough that any historical study of the resurrection (or whatever) would have the stigma of requiring a higher level of evidence and method, than were I reading from another field. Given this uphill battle (ironically brought on by misguided attempts of evangelism) I don't think the texts you mention could contribute as much to my faith as yours.

Also, the problem tinges a part of your text: "If there is no Mind behind the universe, why should we expect it to be orderly and regular?" (A version of the watchmaker argument). You don't state it, but you give the impression that by not believing in God, an atheist scientist does not believe there is a mind or some rational element behind the universe, and thus should be surprised to discover rational order. Evidence of something rational behind the universe is not evidence of a very specific God with very specific properties attributed to Him, hence those scientists who are both disbelieve in God, and believe that order indicates ordered origins, are not displaying schizoid behaviour. (Well, they _might_ be, but not because their stance requires it, or anything like that :-)

Anyway, here are some thoughts on the things I didn't quite agree with.

"One person pointed out that most people don't believe in X-rays for rational reasons anyway- they have never performed any experiments, never examined any evidence, never constructed any equipment to generate or detect X-rays" Most people have had x-rays of themselves done. They have seen the results, have seen that this "x-rays" thing, whatever it might be, is a technology that works. This is far from taking it on faith or believing irrationally. Having reasonably proof that the technology works is itself reasonable evidence that the principle behind the technology is true. Combine this with evidence gathered on the reliability of information learned via the same channel, and you something far more compelling than faith in science being the biggest factor in belief. "this phenomenon is part of "science," which they have more faith in than in "religion." In other words, they have too much respect for science."

Having more faith in science than religion, when the validity of the products of science are tested every day in nearly everything we do, should not be surprising or rebukable (is that a word?) when the the products of religion are often intangible and often less directly testable in a mundane, familiar manner. I don't think you can fairly call such things "too much respect for science" but I do agree that a lot of people do have far too much respect for science. I guess you're up against popular conceptions here, so you have to push the point hard, but still.

"Let us not forget: Science is not truth. It is only an attempt- a feeble, human attempt- to discover truth" Science is also more than that - it includes among other things, the attempt to quantify understanding, which is not about discovering truth. For example, Newtonian physics is still taught in school, despite it being knowing that it is not true - demonstrably false in fact. It's taught because it works - it gives the correct answers, and it possible to know beforehand whether it is not going to give the correct answer. In other words, it has practical value, despite not being true. Not all things that are false are valueless.

"But I say this: If the resurrection is just a story, then it doesn't have any real power or significance, and its real impact on my daily life is in the long run precisely zero"

I think this is utterly wrong. Stories have real power and significance (surely you wouldn't deny this), often far more than the truth (study urban legends for example :-) As I have said, I find it plausible that there is no God (and thus the resurrection would be just a story), but this in no way means I find it plausible that the story of the resurrection has no power. It seems obvious to me that the real impact of the story of the resurrection on your daily life has been huge - and this would be the case regardless of whether that story was true or not. (I tend to believe in an objective world, which means that you and I can be mistaken and not know it. Oh the ironies :-)

"He had reached a point where the truth or falsehood of Christianity was irrelevant to him. Not only did he not believe, he did not even think that belief was an issue" I would be kind of wary of that line of thought. Apart from vague memories that he _did_ believe in God, etc., just not in the resurrection or miracles, my (extremely sketchy) understanding of Zen Buddhism is that it embraces a principle much like that, and I just can't dismiss out of hand the life works of someone who has dedicated their life to gaining a better understanding of their place in the universe :-) Besides which, I'm of the view that given the plethora of different religions and even different branches of Christianity, it seems highly unlikely that the truth of Christianity is complete. I'm comfortable with the idea that Christianity gets it only mostly right, and would have concerns for the believer claiming that everything claimed by Christianity is the absolute truth despite the christian next to him having a completely different idea of what claims Christianity was making. This line of discussion starts to get quite complex around about here, so I'll abandon it, hoping that you're with me :-)

"The atheist has much to gain by his atheism. By his surgical removal of God from the universe, he has freed himself to act however he chooses at any time. He has removed divine authority and evaded responsibility for all his actions. In addition, he has escaped human law; for after all, if there is no divine authority, then human law is just one human against another. It becomes a matter of not getting caught.. .He is free to pursue power, money, violence, sex- anything at all." I'd like to register some strong disagreement with this. Perhaps you don't intend to, but the unspoken inference here is that man requires God to be moral, and that's crap. True, the atheist is not confined by God's directions anymore if he chooses to pursue violence or whatever, but this in no way means he is free to do so - such things are likely to be against his moral beliefs. Some define morality in terms of God, some in terms of pure convenience (it's more convenient to forgo murder as a pastime than it is to be murdered) some in terms sociological selection, etc. etc. The idea that a theist is more moral than an atheist can be IMHO, easily shown to be an ego-pampering prejudice. It's also very insulting to atheists and unlikely to raise their opinions of religion :-)

Also, while I think this was the drift of a large part of the text, you might want to overtly sum up in a sentence or two that surely the true believer, who cares about his faith and his God, must continually question and attack all his views and beliefs in the matter, certain only in the knowledge that he is fallible and thus his beliefs and understanding of his God are fallible also. It is the most responsible thing to do. Unfortunately, those who believe for emotional reasons, as you point out, will seldom have the strength to do this. This I can understand, but I often feel it becomes inexcusable when such a person evangelises their beliefs, trying to convert the lives of others to a cause that (in their case) has no integrity beyond their own inadequacy.

Lastly, I somewhat disagree with your treatment of some of the types of believer (and non-believer) you discuss. Mainly because you politely express repugnance whereas I am sickened to pit of my stomach, disgusted beyond what I thought possible by some of the attitudes and actions we are familiar with. This is another reason why I am unlikely to gain a strong faith - I will not meet people like you and share ideas and understanding, because for every one like you, there are ten people standing in my way with whom I cannot bear to associate. People who, (a little bit like violent racist thugs perhaps) bring discomfort into my life simply though me knowing their attitudes are real and held fervently by real people. People who have turned "Christian" into a slur, possibly even in the eyes of most of the world, certainly in mine. It's such a pity that the most visible and vocal ones are the extreme type B's, who often don't even understand the issues that the atheists they are trying to convert, would have.

A final note - "Armchair philosophy" is a phrase often used to explain the meaning of a-priori philosophy. There's more to armchairs than quarterbacks :)

Great essay BTW. Fantastic. Good stuff!

Seeya
Justin

BTW, before I read your stuff, I would have disagreed with you regarding the proof denies faith issue, but you successfully changed my view on that. The new view still has got to go through all the vetting procedures and checks and examination etc, before being officially a part of my worldview, but it's on the way. Just thought you'd like to know :-)

I read about half of your essay with interest. (the first half). As far as I got, I was basically in agreement. I hope to have some time later to finish reading. I do have a couple of observations.

(1) Are the names of persons you mention real? If they are, I would suggest changing the names of those who come in for criticism of some kind.

(2) I think you are a little harsh on your two fellow students who had never realized the contradictions or inconsistencies present in Scripture, or at least on those they represent, inasmuch as not every Christian is sufficiently educated or used to thinking things through... I think one has to be careful not to unduly disturb the faith of such Christians with valid but for them shocking and "undealwithable" elements of text criticism (even in the mild sense) or other similar things. I don't disagree that persons whose level of intellectual training is sufficient should be eventually in some form confronted with such 'shocking' realizations. (I think Thoreau's comments on Catholic priests' methods of education in his time sins somewhat in the same vein).

God bless.
Fr Brian W. LC

I am basically an atheist (total as far as education is concerned) who found himself the need to, well, modelize the language of faith... construct a "bilingual" dictionnary.... and your type of analysis is exactly right kind... all the more so because the matter of faith has a quite different position in american than in french culture... I mean it should help me understand not only the believers but the americans, on average.

It is a bit long, though, and I don't have the time to read it all at once. Just wanted to say hello.

Boris B.

I am an engineer who after graduating 3 years ago I have been on a sort of quest to learn more for enrichment than for a career. I have read many books dealing with the origin of the universe and the works of some of the great philsophers and scientists to get an understanding of what it is they think. On a daily basis I struggle with many thoughts about our existence and about a god. I am a mormon. Married 8 months ago to a great woman. Before being married I was not actively involved in my faith. I hadnt thought much about it before and have thought about it a great deal since being married.

I have begun a critical look at the bible and our other canon of scripture. I find many things to be a problem intellectually with the religion. I think at this point I am in the valley as you call it. My wife doesnt know it but I think a have taken an atheist position.

I dont believe in the atheist position because i just want to do whatever I feel. I have always despised people who just say there is no god, look at all of the suffering in the world, etc. Im sure you have heard these before. I also dont like being in church hearing many of the people claim there assurity of the gospel because I think many of them have just been raised in the culture and it has become more of a social rather than a spiritual thing to say. I dont know for sure because I cant be in their mind, but i think that I am right. It is just hard to sit in church and not hear very many intellectual things discussed. It was interesting to see your interest in Rand. I am about 3/4 of the way through atlas shrugged. It has been excellent. Anyways, sorry to dump any of this on you, it is just comforting to see others thinking in a similar fashion. I guess I am interested in your view on why christianity and not a muslim or buddhist or pantheist or atheist path. Was christianity your mountain? Do you believe the others to be mountains? I am having trouble with religions claiming a truth yet many are divided on fundamental doctrines. Many say they know their religion is true so others must be at fault. What was it that started your enlightenment to a God? I thank you for your time and for your thoughts that you have posted on the website.

Thanks
Brandon W.

I have read the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus to get a sense of the time when Jesus walked to earth. It has helped my spiritual search for a stronger walk with God.

I suppose I fall in that grey area between type A and type B Christian. There is emotion along with the intellectual pursuit of knowledge. I am also reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer's 'Ethics'. It is very heavy stuff. I made it thru his 'Cost of Discipleship'. This is an indepth look at the Sermon on th Mount.

Again just a note about your paper. It sparked some thoughts.

Go with God.
Bill

Doug T.

Love God.
Love others.
Any questions?

[As I said], I am going to share my thoughts soon. I've been trying for a long time to figure out with whom I could share my thoughts. I didn't want to share with the average Christian, because I'm concerned it will lead him/her to the point I'm at concerning faith and doubt. (You write some about that in your essay.) A second reason is that I did not want to admit I was having such doubts. I considered talking with a pastor, but I've heard all the "answers" for a long time, having been brought up attending church (Southern Baptist) since a very young age (not that I'm saying that the "answers" are not real answers). (You also touch on a subject related to that when you write about "following in the tradition of your parents" [to paraphrase] ["...if I'd been brought up a Hindu..."] [again, to paraphrase].)

Alan J.

I discovered your essay on "Faith, Reason and Doubt" yesterday and have read it cover-to-cover with great interest and delight. I've been pondering and wrestling with these issues for years myself, asking a lot of the questions you raise and deal with. You've done a wonderful job getting it all down.

Some other sources I'd recommend are Leslie Newbiggin, a recently-deceased Anglican bishop who has authored several very perceptive books on faith and modernity. Particularly "A Proper Confidence - [I forget the subtitle]," that addresses many of the same notions you discuss, about how we know what we know, and how knowing God is ultimately more than intellectual assent. Also, John Henry Newman (19th century Anglican turned Roman Catholic), who wrote very cogently about the nature of faith and its relationship to reason. His "University Sermons" and "An Essay Concerning a Grammar of Assent" in particular.

Anyway, great job. It's comforting to know there's someone else out there who has found that Christian faith can not only handle but thrive under honest, sincere, and relentless questioning.

A few minor comments: That Niagara Falls tightrope walker you allude to is real. A Frenchman named Blondin, I believe. Also, a minor typo on page 29: "No one can never say . . ."

Bravissimo, and thanks,
John M.

Grace and peace. How are you these days? I haven't heard from you in a while. (That's my fault for not answering your last several messages. I apologize.)

When I last mailed you, I was horribly stressed about the physics GRE. Your comment, "Remember, your Father invented that stuff," was very encouraging. Thank you. The GRE was as painful as expected, but I did well. I'm applying to graduate schools this semester and will probably be accepted at my favorites.

I recently stumbled across your web page again and read your essay on "Faith, Reason, and Doubt." It was quite interesting. You put clearly some vague notions I'd had over the years. I disagree, though, that one must go through hill, valley, and mountain phases in order to develop a strong intellectual faith. Always interested in science, and raised by Christian parents with science degrees, I used to read a lot about the creation vs. evolution debate. I think that has done much to keep my faith from wavering seriously. I've never been through a valley. As much as possible, I try to keep my mind from becoming compartmentalized. That can be difficult, when all my science classes are taught from a different world view. It's far easier to switch between a "scientist mode" and a "Christian mode". Less scientific, though, since I believe the standard theories of origins to be logically flawed.

(Note: Though I believe in a literal six day creation, I don't generally argue with people who subscribe to a theistically directed Big Bang and evolution of life. I do think God must be involved somewhere along the way in order for life, more complex life, and then humanity to arise. Bitter arguments about the scope of God's intervention in the process can lead to serious divisions of the Christian community.)

I think a primary reason to consider questions that may shake one's faith a bit should be to ready oneself to fulfill the Great Commission. I spent three years in a physics department where nearly everyone was an atheist or agnostic, and I was unable to formulate reasonable arguments to point them in the direction of Christ. My reading on origins was several years old (what a high school student would grasp, minus all the things I'd forgotten), so they weren't much help. I have been recently convicted of the need to study the subject further, but I haven't gotten very far yet. Science is my area of expertise, and I should use the talents God has given me for His work as much as possible. It's just that classes, homework, clubs, and so on take up too much of my time.

However, arguments founded in the need for a god to explain the orgin of life have a couple of problems. First, they run counter to established scientific thought, so much so that many people are completely unwilling to listen. Second, while they point to the existence of a god, they do not necessarily direct a person toward the God of the Bible. ("Even if what you're saying were true, it wouldn't mean I have to believe in your particular God, so it's irrelevant. QED. I'm going to ignore you henceforth.") Arguments based on the historical evidence for Christ's life and resurrection might be somewhat more effective. While the resurrection part again runs counter to scientific thought, at least it does point people towards the God of the Bible.

I think a nice addition to your essay would be a list of suggested reading at the end. You could divide it into topics and put a brief comment by each reference about why a person ought to read it. Such information seems to be buried all throughout the essay, but having it neatly together at the end as well would simplify matters.

Here's my take on axioms, in case you're interested. In some sense, I've chosen the Bible to be my set of axioms. Now I'm challenged with proving that this a self consistent choice. In my math classes, professors often provide motivation for the choice of a system of axioms. (We define a field thus. Does this remind you of the real numbers? Well, the real numbers are a field, and later in the semester we'll want to work with them, so that's why we're defining a field this way. We also want a measure of distance, so we'll define a metric space.) I view the evidence supporting the Bible as sort of the motivation behind my choice of axioms. There are good reasons to make this particulr choice, but in the end, I do make a choice. Now that I've made it, I am determined to stick with it.

Incidentally, you mentioned in your essay that users could add fortunes to the database. I never realized that before. How is it done?

Enough of these ramblings. I really ought to get back to work. I'm in my first year in grad school in Tech's math department, and the two classes I'm teaching just turned in their first homework assignment today. Now I have stacks of trig problems to grade. What fun. Anyway, I've enjoyed looking through your web pages. Thanks for making so many of your thoughts public. Have a good evening.

Leah S.

Thank you sir. I will include the url in the list of links for my ecology lab. I just wanted to let you know that I really admire anyone that takes the time to share the gospel....in person, via mail, or internet. It is a good service you are offering. Please always try to get the site out to as many as possible as our time is waning. God Bless.

Gail W.

FWIW - I don't think I can agere with your statement: "In ordinary life, we don't begin with a presupposition and work to support it; we usually form our opinions gradually based on thought and observation. "

On the contrary, we are surrounded by presuppositions (personal, cultural, economic, political) which we may ignore or support depending on our prospective and retrospective mind, moods, and thoughts, and the 'powers' which impinge upon us. The Biblical injunction of Jesus: "Follow me", is a transformer of presuppositions and a triumph over the 'powers'. The rest is commentary.

My 'following' has led me to understand the death of Christ as an action of faith in Christ; conforming ourselves to his death in order to receive new life. It has its analogue in some psychiatric practices and so is not inexplicable in other terms. This is good, since 'truth' should not be exclusive but a perpetual invitation to grace for anyone regardless of cultural or religious predispositions.

I'll try to finish the article...

Best wishes
Bob M.

Yours,
Mike M.

I would just like to comment that I enjoyed reading your essay. This, most likely is because I am a type A Christian myself, which makes understanding your arguments straightforward. In fact, till about 10 years ago I was an atheist would took evolution on faith (type B). Then reading some literature I found out that evolution-theory requires faith as much as christianity (in fact , some blind faith is required), which shook my worldview. Later, some Jehovah Witnesses showed me the complete reliability of the bible, even though using some very strange interpretations. This is what made christianity acceptable and relaible to me; there is no other religion which comes close, excepting Judaism of course, to being logically acceptable. Reason was what made me become a believer, who regularly struggles with doubt, but not to the extend that cripples my belief in the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. I am, however, very happy that God sometimes bestowes me with 'happy feelings', which make me emotionally realise I am one of His children.

Anyway, it was/is nice to read your essay and I think I will be able to use it to shake some christians up.

Warm regards,
Dagmar van D. [second email]

Dear Mr. Fulton,

Having now completely read your essay I must say that I became rather enthousiastic reading the last part of your essay. The reason for this is a very simple one: you have succesfully described my route to becoming a christian. I guess I enjoy(ed) it so much since it is so recognisable. At the age of 10 I decided to no longer believe in God. At the same age as you, I was baptized, having been in the comfortable valley of atheism, and just having started to climb the Mountain. You mentioned that you think this has to do with the type of person you are. With that I think I agree. I am a biophysicist by profession, but also I am somebody who very often tries to figure out how things work or how they came to be. I try to understand things as far as my brain allows me, and as far as my education allows me. I am quite often bafled by people, even scientists, who do not try to understand their environment, themselves or others. Apparently, their brain doesn't function as my brain.

My point of starting to climb the Mountain was when 2 Jehovah Witnesses thrust a simple book at me,' Evolution or Creation?', or a book with a similar title. I thoroughly believe that God planted these people on my path, as He has done in so many other occasions. I didn't become a christian after having read that book, since 'disprove' of evolution doesn't make you a christain. I was still at the stage of trying to escape the inevitable conclusion: God is our Father and He wants us to trust, follow and obey Him.

The thing which struck me in your text was the absense of the role of the Holy Spirit. Why did I come to believe and why do others not? Is it something I can attribute to my own capabilities, or is it because God wanted me to believe. Which raises the question,' Why me?' It is probably a question of free will and chance, versus God's will and determination. I guess God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, knocked at my door vigoriously and I had no chance but obeying.

When I ask myself the question,' Am I a child of God?' I cannot answer but yes. This used to disturb my mind greatly, since I couldn't get te grips with that. How can I be sure of this? I know it in my heart, with a certainty which exceeds that of the trust in the scientific method. I only have one answer and that is the God has gifted me with His Spirit who is communicating/molten with my spirit such that I can only come to 1 conclusion. This argument I borrow from Watchman Nee. When you further expand you essay, I think it would be nice to display your view on the role of the Spirit in the matter of Faith, Doubt and Reason.

Another point is your showing of how fallible our knowledge is. This is indeed true, but it can also be used as an argument against faith. If human nature is so fallible, how can we believe anything and what is the use of this faith? Not using the role of the Holy Spirit makes this a strong argument, I think. Indeed, without God we have no way of knowing that what we know is as what is. With God we may have some faith in our knowledge, be it of scientific or spiritual nature.

If you want I can try to give a more critial opinion of your essay, but this wil be primarily of editorial nature and it will take me some time. Your essay stated something I know to be true and I wish to complement you on that, although I realize that other christians with a different way of thinking/feeling, may feel different about your essay.

Warm regards and may God bless you,
Dagmar van D.

I would like to provide a link to your delightful essay, 'Faith, Reason, and Doubt,' from http://www3.islandnet.com/~pjhughes/sci3.htm#ReligionandScience.

Philip H.

Since you appreciate that reason is necessary for a healthy faith, I'm curious what you think of two major arguments against the existence of God:

1. Logically, God is either absolutely infinite or finite. If He's finite then He's ultimately limited, like us. If He's entirely unbounded then you're part of Him and that's not acceptable either.

2. All of God's actions must be either caused or occur spontaneously; either way, He has no room for a free, intelligent existence.

Of course, the purpose of those arguments is to demonstrate that the conventional (and really the only useful) definition of God is contradictory.

You may argue that God is "beyond" logic but the exemption of that particular contradiction appears arbitrary to me. I think I could just as reasonably argue that circle-squares exist and that they are simply outside of rational thought.

Yours faithfully,
Patrick R.

[Note: Patrick and I exchanged several more emails over this. - HF]

I would also like to share it with a friend of mine who is a campus minister in Boulder, Colorado.

Gerald H.

I'm a tech writer, and the author of an upcoming (nontechnical) book represented by literary agent [name omitted] in New York. My name is Ray.

I'm only about halfway through your essay on "Faith, Reason and Doubt" -- but already I feel I need pause and let you know I think it's a lovely paper.

I'm personally glad you wrote it (and that I serendipitously found it). I'm sure many other people feel -- or will feel --the same way, whether or not they drop you a note like this.

Really good work, Hal. Very engaging.

All the best,
Ray S.

Like you, I am in the computer biz, training and consulting with Novell and Microsoft networks. I spent 4 years of heavy travel in my own business and I guess the isolation of the road contributed to my current problem. Now I no longer travel, but the damage seems to be done. Try though I may, I cannot seem to go back to the person I once was (spiritually). I no longer attend my church regularly because I now have many more questions than answers and it's too uncomfortable. As you pointed out, some people (in this case Southern Baptist) don't want to hear questions, but I do miss very much the friends I made over 8 years. We seem to have little in common now. Our whole relationship has been based upon mutually-held beliefs that I can no longer accept without question.

I have pretty much given up on God, but your essay has perked my interest. Perhaps I have to accept that another path awaits me, different from the faith life I had at the conservative Baptist church.

Anyway, thanks again. Your essay is quite remarkable, well written and encompassing a variety of view points I have seen and heard through the years. Who knows, you just may have played a small part in turning a drifting soul back to shore.

Reid