MetaCatholic

James McGrath has an interesting post today on faith. In essence he argues that what many Christians mean when they say they’re “taking things on faith” is something quite different from ideas of faith that appear in the Scriptures. He suggests that this view, so often used to defend literalist readings of scripture, is itself not a scripturally sanctioned approach:

Taking things on faith is extremely dangerous. But what the Bible calls for isn’t that. The word ‘faith’, like the word ‘truth’, had primarily to do with trust and trustworthiness. The object of this trust was not, in most instances, a text or words, but a person.

Now, in general I agree with the main point he is making here. But I want to enter a couple of qualifications. First, faith in scripture often means or includes obedience, i.e. faithfulness, and not simply trust, although the two go together.

But more significantly, I want to highlight the heuristic role of faith. In religious terms this is at least analogous to, if not the same as,  the adoption of a hypothesis in science. So, for example, we might start from accepting in faith, despite a number of intellectual questions, objections and problems, the classical understanding of the incarnation. We accept this on the basis of trust in the relationship with God we have entered, or are entering into, and the body of reflection and understanding amassed by the church – in other words, standing on the shoulders of giants. We then ask, where does exploring the world on the basis of this understanding take us? Is it coherent, challenging, opening up to new insights etc. In essence this is a kind of “taking on faith” not as the answer to the question but as the start of a question.

It  is Augustine’s Credo ut intelligam (I believe in order to understand) and Anselm’s Fides quaerens intellectum (Faith seeking understanding). Faith, in one form or another, takes a starting point that we have some reasons to believe is and will prove to be trustworthy and fruitful, and explores onwards and outwards  from that point. It belongs not just to relationships, but in different ways to both religious and scientific epistemology. I don’t think this is at odds with what James McGrath is saying, but I do think its a necessary emphasis in the mix.