Fantasy or reality?

Quite a few critics are agnostic or atheistic. The first says that nothing can be known about it, i.e. neither whether there is a God nor whether there is not. The latter says: I don’t believe in any God. Both are very consciously outside of faith for different reasons. It is also striking that these schools of thought define themselves from the “no” (“a-“). What they positively stand for is therefore not derived from the term “atheist” or “agnostic” alone.

The atheist has a firm belief, namely that this God does not exist. This is of course a belief, because no one can prove it. The atheist thus has a personal conviction and proves that he proceeds in exactly the same way as a believer, but consciously chooses a different perspective. The content of the belief has changed, but not the basic realization that man is defined by the assumed truth. An atheist does not want to be a theist and positions himself as the opposition.

The agnostic is at a far more interesting point, as he recognizes that he knows nothing. They neither know whether there is a God nor whether there is not. This does not automatically mean that he is against a God, but he rejects the conviction of many believers that it is possible to know firmly (with conviction) that there is a God. The agnostic not only knows whether there is a God, but also rejects the supposed knowledge of it. Unfortunately, agnosticism easily stretches beyond this limit and cannot definitively determine other points of view, such as what is right or what is wrong.

Agnosticism is neither an evaluation nor a devaluation, but the celebration of uncertainty. It is not only impossible to make a definitive statement about God, but also about values. A society, for example, cannot be based on agnosticism because, as a consequence, no one can define what a “red traffic light” means and what a “green traffic light” should mean. Among other things, this breaks down a legal structure, denies an organizational structure and leaves morality to the individual. Chaos seems pre-programmed. Nor does it get any better if the certainty of not knowing is reduced to plausibility.

Is a belief a projection and fantasy of the human mind or a verifiable reality? The question seems simpler than it actually is. A believer may take the position that faith and God are one reality. The atheist, on the other hand, is at the other end of the scale and is just as convinced that God cannot be proven and that a belief in God is therefore not a real thing. An agnostic is somewhere in between, without surrendering to one of the extremes. He says: I don’t know.

Of course, these three positions are open to many interpretations and further differentiations. They may all have some good perceptions that can be considered further. In this article, I would like to focus on this question: Is faith relevant today? This is a very different question from the question of absolute truth. Can faith be relevant if we remove it from this dilemma of knowledge? Or is there another way of looking at it?

Science and faith

Anyone who has read the previous text carefully may have noticed that it always seems to be about who is “right” and how the truth, if it exists, can be “established”. The “what” of faith then refers to the content, which must be “true”, namely “verifiable”. This concerns many believers, including atheists and, to a certain degree of doubt, agnostics.

But what if everyone focuses on assertions and thus possibly misinterprets the function of faith? I think that the content of faith is not the same as “being able to believe”? People talk about faith as if it were a thing that arises through assertions. It is as if the assertions are to be thrown into one of two cans: Either these assertions are true or false.

This focus on right and wrong and the attempt to pin down the content of beliefs is perhaps a derailment of concerns. All things have a place, but we are born without ideas. Ideas are learned. This quickly degenerates into a battlefield of assertions and supposed proofs that may lead to more differentiation, but merely distract from the context in which we want to live. Even if this is understandable, we may fail to recognize the power of the ability to believe and its function in our lives.

Here’s the trick: being able to believe is a human ability. But what you believe is different. I compare it to breathing. People breathe, they also believe. Let’s compare these two verbs.

Exaggerated piety

“But”, some may say, “doesn’t this comparison with breathing take away the divinity of faith?”. Of course, but this was not about the air you breathe or the things you believe in, but about the ability to breathe and believe. No exaggerated piety should sweep this difference or agreement under the carpet. It is about a significant difference and comparison. Talking about it can, I hope, promote a broader understanding.

In my understanding, breathing and believing are primarily verbs. You do these things rather than holding on to them statically. This is an important difference and allows you to take a different perspective. It is an exercise in flexibility and an attempt to use other terms to come to a more helpful understanding.

So it is not science or faith, but both have their own value. Where do they have this value? In our lives. Our life is the context in which we can believe or think scientifically. Life is the context for both. By nature, there is room for both. I now claim, as a working hypothesis, that human life is characterized more by the function of “believing” (“trusting”) than by purely scientific considerations. This is not a statement about dogmas, but about the ability to believe and think. Which ability is most likely to characterize your humanity?

All people can and do believe. Those who speak of spirit, love, reliability and other things build up an attitude of faith that is shaped by these concepts. The concepts are not visible, be it through our actions. However, they can shape our thoughts, hopes, expectations and confidence. You don’t have to be religious or belong to a church before you can believe. How we perceive the world is, quite independently of religious ideas, shaped by considerations and values that did not originate in science. People live as human beings, not as scientists and hopefully not as opinionated contemporaries.

Is faith relevant? Yes, it is particularly relevant, not because of certain dogmatic assumptions, but because of its function in life. It does matter what we believe, but being able to believe comes first. The “ability to believe” must be present before we can use it. Just as Adam must walk in the Garden of Eden before God can ask him, “Adam, where are you?” (Gen 3:9). So the story goes.

Let’s think a little more about this last example. It is clear that no journalist, evangelical, Jew or Christian has written down this statement from Genesis 3 as an eyewitness. According to the story, Adam was the first man. You can and should assume this when reading it. I do this in the knowledge that this story was only written down much later from a tradition. Or, as Peter describes it, “For prophecy was never produced by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke, moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2Pet 1:21). Peter also does not say that eyewitnesses wrote these things down, but that the testimony was from men of God who spoke these things “driven by the Holy Spirit”.

There is no talk of a dictate, but of holy men of God. We hear about holy men, believers who have written down. It is neither about historicity nor about denying it. The telling of these stories was central. Or to put it another way: what was this story supposed to convey? That is a serious question.

If we take the story and what these people wrote down seriously, then the only question is: What and why is something supposed to be conveyed here? What was the point of writing it down like this and not otherwise? I am not asking for absolute truth here and I am also avoiding personal judgment. First and foremost, it is about the purpose of the text. Do we understand the point?

Paul and Timothy

Paul describes the concern of his understanding quite clearly when he writes to Timothy:

“But continue in what you have learned and are fully persuaded of, knowing from whom you have learned, and that from childhood you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
2 Timothy 3:14-17

The apostle writes about Timothy, “stick to what you have learned and what you are completely convinced of”. Paul confirms his perception of Timothy. This is the reality of many believers: they have learned something and are completely convinced of it. Paul is not saying that Timothy has recognized the absolute truth and must now defend it with his life, as some knights do anonymously on social media. Paul refers to the tradition and upbringing from which Timothy came and to the holy scriptures known at the time.

Then he continues and mentions, “knowing from whom you have learned, and that from childhood you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”. Timothy should remember the examples of his teachers and realize that the holy scriptures can make you wise. The reference to salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus, remains as an extension of this “making wise”. The fact that Paul writes this to Timothy now, while Timothy has already believed for a long time, seems to be a reminder for Timothy. Paul mentions this context to positively mention something to encourage him. What Timothy has learned, how he has learned it, and the scriptures, have led to him now standing in faith.

Still, when we read Paul’s letters to Timothy, faith and science are not played off against each other. It is almost liberating to read Paul’s letters and see how he wants to positively shape Timothy’s experience and confidence. Neither blind faith nor a sectarian imprint were at the forefront here.

It strikes me that Paul is not proceeding here in the same way as when he describes atheists and agnostics. The latter distinguish themselves by what they are certainly not. The “no” comes first. However, Paul’s speech to Timothy is different: he does not begin with the negative and what he is not, but confirms Timothy in his origin and builds up his outlook positively. The focus is not on the “no”, but on the “yes”.

Paul simply starts from what Timothy knew, confirms the good effects of it and shows how the Scriptures can make us wise. The scriptures do not make a scientist out of Timothy, and that was not the aim. The goal is clearly mentioned: the Scriptures make wise. Does this characterize the relevance for faith?

The relevance of faith

Faith is not about proving God. Anyone who wants to prove God, as a precondition for perhaps being able to believe, is trying something that is perhaps incompatible with previous ideas. The “idea of God” seems particularly suspect to people in the West. Outside of Western culture, deep religiosity is often the norm. Questioning has no place there. Perhaps this is more like the way the Bible writes about God. God is not proven in the Bible, but simply assumed (Heb 11:6). Viewpoints could not be more different.

If I consider “being able to believe” as an effect of the human spirit, then it is not so far-fetched to speak of the spirit of man. It is not tangible, not quite definable. It is not a scientific term, but the term is used in the Bible and was therefore an expression in the Bible for an experienced reality, a description of something that cannot be seen.

God is also recognized as the Spirit (1 John 4:24). It also describes how God’s Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God (Rom 8:16). None of this is tangible, intangible, even invisible, but no less real for believers. The description fits and must appear to be “understandable in those times”, even if no one understands it today. But I suspect that you, dear reader, however critical you are, have no qualms with the idea of a “human spirit”. That’s why I’m starting there for comparisons.

Such descriptions contain what people have seen as relevant to their own thinking and hopes. They trust because it gives life wings. Timothy, for example, was familiar with the holy scriptures from childhood and from this, according to Paul, he could be reminded of their effectiveness. The scriptures can make you wise. It is the experience that should encourage him, that has already shown him the positive consequences. Then Paul confirms from his understanding that all Scripture was breathed by God and

1. useful
2. for teaching,
3. for transfer,
4. for rebuke,
5. for instruction in justice
6. so that
7. the man of God is perfect,
8. fully equipped for every good work.
   2Tim 3:16-17

Here we read about the goal that Paul has in mind. He did not say that the Bible was dictated by God so that we can beat other people over the head with this divine word. Paul’s goal is very pragmatic and has to do with our lives.

Scripture (Paul had well-known scriptures in mind at the time) was a tool to equip the man of God so that he could do good things at any time. Consider also the words of Jesus: The tree is known by its fruit (Mt 7:16-20). The relevance of faith is shown in the fruit in everyday life, not in the holding of any ideas.

The goal of preaching and faith is therefore not to be found in dogmatic ideas, but in equipping people for good works. If this is true, then a living faith will not flourish in a quiet closet, but in the community and the world in which we live. Spiritual life is therefore practical. It is an enthusiastic life that manifests itself in service and good efforts.

Faith is not simply a list of dogmas. It is the utilization of a possibility in life, towards a liberated humanity. It is not about self-righteousness, but about a positive orientation and transformation towards a meaningful life. Is that relevant now?

There are other reasons why faith is relevant today. More on this in the next article.