A Step of Faith
21 August 2006 by Gil
“Our knowing of the real world is a compromise between what is ‘there’ on the one hand and our personal perspectives on the other. We cannot get at the world ‘as it really is’, for we cannot cease to be physically, socially and historically lcoated beings. We may move to view reality from somewhere else, either actively or imaginatively, but in doing so we shall simply have adopted another perspective upon it. In the final analysis, we commit ourselves to that perspective which seems to offer the most satisfactory account of the reality which lies beyond ourselves. The real world, in other words, is something that we commit ourselves to in a step of faith.”
Trevor Hart, Faith Thinking, 145
Interesting implications here for the concept of an idea or action being ‘faith-based’ (as opposed to something more objective).
Interesting implications for evangelism of another locale (ie. missions). How do we communicate the good news to a people who do not share our perspective of reality?
I think the ‘good news’ has too often been equated with ‘my perspective’ and that is why many people find evangelism to be a ridiculous and imperialistic idea.
I think the gospel is good news but it is also bad news because it continually subverts all of our perspectives and will not accommodate itself easily within any of them. Christians have acquired the reputation they have in many circles because their inability to allow the story of the gospel to challenge the particular cultural story that they have inherited.
So to answer your question, I think evangelism has to be more of a conversation than a lecture. We have ‘good news’ but it is always news that invites people (even or especially us) out of their conventional stories about the meaning of everything and into the story told by the gospel.
Speak with any anthropologist and they will tell you that human behavior is built on a complex set of beliefs about the world as well as a network of faith and trust that things will continue to work in the same way one has always observed them to work. When I meet someone and I extend my hand, I have faith that they will reach for my hand and shake it. If people stopped doing that and punched me every time I tried, my faith in extending a hand would be ruined and I would adopt different behavioral patterns. Nothing guarantees that I will receive a handshake when I reach out my hand, yet I continue to do it based on faith built on previous experience. Silly example, I know, but every one of our actions will fit that pattern - at least according to anthropology.
Hart seems to make us sound like we’re in a different dimension, watching the real world as if it were playing on T.V. His “step of faith” sounds like the escapism we can experience in a movie theatre.
I think this distance from the real world is unrealistic if he thinks it to be unchangeable.
Try to touch the world you see on screen and you will be touching a screen. But, provided that you’re not a ghost, you can touch a table in the real world and know that you’re not touching something else. The use of all of our senses confirms for us that the table we are touching is in fact, objectively real.
And if we haven’t used the rest of our senses to confirm our perspective (”there is a table in front of me”), then I agree, there is a step of faith to test “the table” to know if it is in fact a table and not a hallucination. And if it is a hallucination, our next step is to use our senses, and/or another’s senses, to discover the reality our hallucinations are keeping us from.
Hart seems to make us sound like we’re in a different dimension, watching the real world as if it were playing on T.V. His “step of faith” sounds like the escapism we can experience in a movie theatre.
I think this distance from the real world is unrealistic if he thinks it to be unchangeable.
Try to touch the world you see on screen and you will be touching a screen. But, provided that you’re not a ghost, you can touch a table in the real world and know that you’re not touching something else. The use of all of our senses confirms for us that the table we are touching is in fact, objectively real.
And if we haven’t used the rest of our senses to confirm our perspective (”there is a table in front of me”), then I agree, there is a step of faith to test “the table” to know if it is in fact a table and not a hallucination. And if it is a hallucination, our next step is to use our senses, and/or another’s senses, to discover the reality our hallucinations are keeping us from.
Hart is not talking about whether or not the real world is real, he’s talking about the fact that all of us, by virtue of being human, have some interpretation as to the meaning behind that real world. Those interpretations are what require a step of faith.
How do these ideas transfer to how we know or percieve the real God?
Jessica,
I think we can ‘know’ God but not in a way that ignores the fact that what we know remains a perception. God is still ‘out there,’ real and distinct from us but the fact that we are finite beings will always make our knowledge of God incomplete.
But the fact that we cannot prove God’s existence with 100% certainty does not mean that God is not there. I would suggest that this kind of certainty is not the kind of knowledge God has chosen to give us. Knowledge of God seems to be something that is given in the context of our commitment and trust and obedience.
If truth is ultimately a person and not a body of ideas then it seems more plausible that our relationship to that person would have some bearing on our knowledge.
i don’t know it sounds like he is saying that reality is not knowable. there is no certainty on reality that lies beyond ourselves. we are a product of the environment we grew up in or whatever experiences we have in other cultures. seems like the statement is somewhat self defeating. kind of like saying “i never tell the truth” if the statement is true than its false that i never tell the truth.
is there anyone who thinks that humankind is advancing in knowledge of reality? are coming to a better understading of our own minds and world we live in? i tend to think so.
i think maybe hart is describing someone who wants to believe something without much evidence for that belief. maybe that belief makes them feel more comfortable instead of trying to understand reality they irrationally put faith in something.
JC,
The way I read Hart here is that there is simply an undeniable gap between the real world that all of us experience and the interpretations we have of what it all means. I don’t read him as denying that we can know anything or that there is any certainty to be found.
I certainly do not think he’s using faith as a last resort against irrationality. He’s simply making the point that worldviews require personal investment and commitment. This is no less true for a materialist than it is for a religious believer.
We can all agree on certain ‘bare facts’ of human existence but there is no consensus of what (if anything) it all means. I don’t think it’s a terribly radical statement to say that our beliefs or ideas on that topic are ’steps of faith’.
My only point (the point I believe Hart is trying to make as well) is that we are all in the same boat on this one. We all have to deal with our experience of this world and try to make some sense of it. That effort will always require faith (defined as the acceptance of a set of unprovable presuppositions).
i listened to an pretty good podcast today on the abc. thats the national radio from down under. it was on the nature of belief. a debate between a cognitive scientist, a science commentator, and david millikan. i think if you are interested in this topic you will like this download. on the right hand side of the page you can get the unedited version with the questions from the audience. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/default.htm
Thanks, I’ll have a listen.