Psychology senior and Daily columnist Tarrant Carter wrote a column Tuesday titled “Logical scrutiny disproves faith.” In the column, he stated, “I have found that the rational arguments for the belief in a god do not hold up to skeptical scrutiny.”
That’s a very bold claim to prove in 810 words.
If Carter’s claims are correct then I, as a Christian, must undergo a radical paradigm shift to be consistent in my thinking. That being established, I am glad to say that I am not compelled to make this change.
Although Carter’s argument reveals quite a lot about how he defines faith and what criterion for discovering truth he commends, the extent of his argument stops there – miles short of his article’s grandiose headline.
Before moving on in this discussion, I’ve got to address a growing sentiment against columns that address religion and other controversial subjects. On The Daily’s Web site, one person commented on Carter’s column by writing “The Daily’s op-ed section has deteriorated to people bashing religion, or people bashing the people who bash religion.”
Indeed, there has been a lot of back and forth between columnists on this topic. I agree that The Daily, like any newspaper, has a responsibility to remain multifaceted.
Continuous droning on a particular topic does not expose students to many issues that they need to apprehend in order to develop a comprehensive worldview.
Then why am I writing this column? Because while religion is not the only subject that needs to be addressed, it is a (if not the) foundational lens through which other realities are assessed. If one believes the Bible to be true (or the Qur’an or the Vedas or none of these), that person aligns him or herself to a source of principles concerning issues such as government, social ills, the environment, etc.
Furthermore, this column does not fit the description of “bashing the people who bash religion.”
Ad hominem attacks do not generally constitute good arguments, so this column will not make use of them. Instead, I want to observe Carter’s argument and hopefully offer a better picture of what faith is according to my Christian worldview.
The underlying assumptions of Carter’s entire column seem to be a) that faith is blind belief in something apart from reason and b) that people attempt to prove religious convictions by citing their faith as evidence.
Let’s address the second assumption first. Many people certainly do lean on their faith as evidence for their belief. After all, haven’t you heard that “faith is the evidence of things not seen”?
From Carter’s perspective this means that religious people build their faith exclusively upon their faith, which is circular logic.
There are two things I would like to observe about this.
First, I partly agree that the case for faith includes faith itself. Faith is evidence in much the same way that the particulars of a crime scene are evidence.
If a crime was committed, there will be evidences of that crime (possibly fingerprints, blood spatter, etc.). Similarly, if – as the Christian believes – there is a just, loving God of the universe who acts in such a way so that people believe in Him, then people will believe in Him (which they do).
The existence of a plethora of other faiths does not remove the value of faith as a sort of evidence. It merely entails that faith is not the only brick used to build a case for a particular belief.
This introduces my second point, that people do not cite their faith as exclusive evidence supporting their belief. Carter writes, “They [theists claiming to be rational] even attach moral worth to this lack of evidence and actually feel validated when logic and evidence do not support their belief.”
His assertion implies that theists are currently experiencing an absolute lack of reasonable support for their beliefs, and that they wear this poverty as a medal with temerity.
I wonder what Carter thinks about people like C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, G.K. Chesterton, Alvin Plantinga, Francis Schaeffer, Nancy Pearcey and Jeff Budziszewski, as well as his theistic peers at OU who rebel against the caricature he paints them as falling under.
Even if these people are dead wrong and most pitiable, they are themselves empirical counter-examples to Carter’s stereotyping.
If his understanding of “rational theists” comes from repeated encounters with religious people, I apologize to him on their behalf and invite him to join a conversation with members of the group I just introduced.
Now let us return to the first underlying assumption of Carter’s article, that faith is blind belief in something apart from reason.
My “beef” with this assertion is that it runs against the realities of many peoples’ religious experiences.
Blind belief is to believe in something without a reason to believe. Although faith involves believing in something not seen, that does not mean one’s reasons for believing are themselves invisible or inexistent.
I am suggesting here that Carter lacks knowledge of what many theists are talking about when they mention “faith.”
In “Mere Christianity,” C.S. Lewis writes that “ … Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding onto things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”
If Carter wishes to disprove the legitimacy of faith, it would be good for him to acknowledge the actual position of the camp he sets himself against.
As an afterthought, it may also be a good idea to take back the claim that the scientific method is the ultimate standard of arriving at objective truth, as the veracity of the scientific method must itself be demonstrated by something, and it cannot logically validate itself.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 5 months ago
So, Dio... what make us, at "the local baptist church" cultists? I would like you to clearly define cult and explain your application of it. You have yet to show that Christianity is insanity and it is a rather asinine to say "they do not think, they pray."
Also, it seems odd that you comment about never-ending religious propaganda on a column RESPONDING to the original ANTI-religious column.
SoonerDutch 2 years, 5 months ago
"religion is not the only subject that needs to be addressed"
Couldn't have said it better myself...
OkieWXman 2 years, 5 months ago
"Reading this newspaper is like being forced to watch life in a mental asylum, seriously." - Dio
Yeah, well, except that you aren't forced to read this newspaper...
tuckercross 2 years, 5 months ago
dio, maybe you should stop reading the newspaper since it apparently causes you extreme ill, as you seem to insinuate.
dio 2 years, 5 months ago
There are topics far more interesting to discuss than this never-ending religious propaganda. I guess this is what we get when the Abortion Daily recruits its columnists (or should I say its cultists) at the local baptist church and promotes everything branded "jesus". These people are just incapable to socialize without trying to shove their insanity down other people's throats. In other words they do not think, they pray.
Reading this newspaper is like being forced to watch life in a mental asylum, seriously.
Rhology 2 years, 5 months ago
--Reading this newspaper is like being forced to watch life in a mental asylum, seriously.
dio, No one makes you read it. But some unseen and bizarre force apparently forces you to make rude and usually prejudicial (not to mention lame) comments ripping Christians, conservatives, and/or Christian conservatives (did I miss one? Oh yes - conservative Christians) every opinion column chance you get. I think it's funny, but there are probably others who find your libfundy barrage tiresome.
Aren't there a couple of other non-Baptist columnists? I bet more than 2 could be named. Oh, but that would be rational. Forgot who I was talking to, sorry.
bytor130 2 years, 5 months ago
when you give two conflicting definitions of faith, you make yourself look like an idiot. if you want to actually refute someone's point, you should use ONE definition- ther one they use; otherwise, you're just building a strawman to beat up on. I hope junior and senior years of your program actually teach you something about reason.
dreck 2 years, 5 months ago
"If one believes the Bible to be true (or the Qur’an or the Vedas or none of these), that person aligns him or herself to a source of principles concerning issues such as government, social ills, the environment, etc."
False. There is far too much diversity of views within every religion, and within atheism, to justify this claim. You can use religion to frame your moral principles, but the principles themselves come from somewhere else.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 5 months ago
bytor130, where does Trevor use conflicting definitions of faith? He addresses Tarrant Carter's use of the term faith and finds that Mr. Carter's portrayal of faith is a straw man. He gives a definition of faith contrary to that of Carter's and corrects objections based on this corrected premise. Trevor wasn't building a straw man, but correcting one. Trevor was reasonable; perhaps you read his article too quickly.
dreck, one can align themselves with a text in word and/or deed. If one states that they follow the Bible, it doesn't make it so. They may believe that, but ,as you pointed out, they may import their principles from elsewhere. But this phenomenon (or tendency) does not preclude the possibility of a text being the actual source of principles. I think that Trevor is talking about adherence to a book in statement as well as practice; I doubt that he wouldn't allow for the existence of hypocrites and inconsistencies. You say that Trevor is wrong, then assert you don't think he can justify his claim. I don't see how you can justify the claim that moral principles cannot be or never are derived from a sacred text (whichever you are claiming or implying).
Ducky 2 years, 5 months ago
"Reading this newspaper is like being forced to watch life in a mental asylum, seriously."
Dio - Then, by all means, just stop reading it. Nobody is forcing you. If it is so bad, don't you have better things to do with your time?
dio 2 years, 5 months ago
@Rhology;BrianCBiggs;OkieWXman;Ducky
I do not read most of it. I just log on to flame the religious/pro-life/creationist propaganda. There are two reasons for that: 1) This is the "student voice", and I am one of them. 2) My tuition money partly covers their expenses.
If this newspaper was not affiliated to OU and if they were not charging me its publication and distribution, then I would not be here. Simple as that.
@Rhology
You are taking it the right way. When some columnist writes that pro-choicers are genocidal nazis or when some folks are spitting on women in the Army, well, I am sorry, but being rude is the very least a sane human being would do.
You are right. They are the guys for whom I never wrote a comment, or for whom I said "good job".
@BrianCBiggs
Brian, you have no idea what life looks like without religion. I grew up abroad in a land where religion was absent. I met a christian and a muslim before coming to OK. They were perfectly sane and well-educated. But, man, when I arrived here... I quickly understood why most people here are in a sheepish state of ignorance and stupidity: they all got brainwashed at their local baptist church.
There: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
Stop praying, Brian.
I do not care anymore. As I said, they are far more interesting things to talk about but these guys will not stop publishing flaming opinions on religious subjects. It has been like that for semesters and there are many students who got tired of this (especially when they read things like the last abortion column). Have you ever read student newspapers in other big universities (ASU, UC, PSU, Purdue, etc.)?
leimapapa 2 years, 5 months ago
Why are you people giving dio the time of day on here? All he/she (I'm guessing "he")does is leave hateful complaints in the opinion column about how opinion articles only reflect opinions. While you're in the business of giving total irrelevance time in the spotlight, find me one post of dio's that is anything deeper than vented rage against a person or a group. Honestly, school papers are inherently boring, and at least vented rage is fun to read. Meticulously debunking his "points" is simply mind-numbing.
dio 2 years, 5 months ago
@leimapapa
Thank you captain obvious. However I do remember you wrote pretty outrageous stuff yourself.