Faith involves a submission of the intellect. Among the factors are the mass of the universe and the strengths of the four basic forces (electromagnetism, gravitation, and the strong and weak nuclear forces). by a sight of its glory; it is impossible that those who are illiterate, and unacquainted with history, should have any thorough and effectual conviction of it at all. Why then can’t they use those same faculties to interpret the signs of the times? . He reasons with facts and arguments and sets Christ forth. Kant’s regulative view of reason was doomed to regard faith and knowledge as irrevocably opposed. This is an anti-realist understanding of faith. It entailed a severe restriction in our access to and understanding of the nature of God. He ended up an agnostic. Faith and reason are both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest. Theism has been criticized on both of these grounds. Nonetheless one form of evidence to which he appeals for its rational justification is the stipulation that humans, social by nature, cannot achieve a relationship to God “in an absolutely private interior reality.” The individual must encounter the natural divine law, not in his role as a “private metaphysician” but according to God’s will in a religious and social context. A typical form of strong compatibilism is termed natural theology. He likened such acting to that of an irresponsible shipowner who allows an untrustworthy ship to be ready to set sail, merely thinking it safe, and then gives “benevolent wishes” for those who would set sail in it. This entails that a non-believer can attain to truth, though not to the higher truths of faith. Moreover, experimentation was not a matter simply of observation, it also involved measurement, quantification, and formulization of the properties of the objects observed. 1). Nonetheless, James believed that while philosophers like Descartes and Clifford, not wanting to ever be dupes, focused primarily on the need to avoid error, even to the point of letting truth take its chance, he as an empiricist must hold that the pursuit of truth is paramount and the avoidance of error is secondary. Consequently, theology in the modern period has been preoccupied with the question of theological method. In the realm of theology, the key concept to elucidate is that of infinite being. But Nietzsche had no part of Kierkegaard’s new Christian individual, and instead defended the aesthetic life disdained by Kierkegaard against both morality and Christianity. He posits that there are as many types of grounds for rational certainty as there are kinds of objects of knowledge. First, Leibniz held that all truths are complementary, and cannot be mutually inconsistent. These diverse Pauline interpretations of the relation between faith and reason were to continue to manifest themselves in various ways through the centuries that followed. But we must make clear what this actually means because there are so many people who say they have received Christ and believed on Christ, who give little or no evidence that they are spiritually alive. “In God’s revelation God’s Word is identical with God Himself” (in Church Dogmatics ii, I). Revelation cannot be made true by anything else. For Locke, reason justifies beliefs, and assigns them varying degrees of probability based on the power of the evidence. Were we said to be justified by repentance, by love, or by any other grace, it would convey to us the idea of something good in us being the consideration on which the blessing was bestowed; but justification by faith conveys no such idea. Aquinas criticizes the form of naturalism that holds that the goodness of any reality “is whatever belongs to it in keeping with its own nature” without need for faith (II-IIae, q.2, a.3). The principle derives from the claim of some physicists that a number of factors in the early universe had to coordinate in a highly statistically improbable way to produce a universe capable of sustaining advanced life forms. Responding to Flew, he admitted that religious faith consists of a set of unfalsifiable assumptions, which he termed “bliks.” But Hare argued that our practical dealings with the everyday world involve numerous such “bliks.” Though some of these principles are faulty, we cannot but have some in order to live in the world. And there is no reason to think that a person who waits for God’s gift of understanding without thinking about his word will get it either. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Haldane concludes that language can be a unique source of explanatory potential for all human activity. He built this theory of strong compatibilism on the basis of his philosophical study of Aristotle and Plotinus and his theological study of his native Islam. (281). He was not what they expected, and they did not want to be his people or his bride (see Luke 14:18–20). Thus one has to share in their form of life in order to understand the way the various concepts function in their language games. Before we ponder how that can be, in view of how corrupt we are, we turn briefly from the focus on reason to consider the nature of faith. It lies beyond proof or demonstration. John Hick, in Faith and Knowledge, modifies the Wittgensteinian idea of forms of life to analyze faith claims in a novel manner. If something is not really there, you don’t need to be blind to miss it. Basil Mitchell responded to Flew’s claim that religious beliefs cannot be falsified. Faith saves because it receives Christ. Given this distinction of orders, Thomas shows how the lower can indeed point to the higher. Most people in the world have no experience of lasting joy in their lives. But by its reflections on the nature of words and our use of language, it can help us to grasp our own spiritual impotence. So although we cannot know the divine essence as an object, we can know whether He exists and on the basis of analogical knowledge what must necessarily belong to Him. Rahner held thus that previous religions embodied a various forms of knowledge of God and thus were lawful religions. And what should burden us on this issue is not only how to commend and defend Christianity to intellectuals, but how to proclaim it among a thousand unreached peoples around the world who cannot wait for generations of education. “To all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12). The reason is believed to be the doctrine for a practical inquest, be it intellectual, religious, aesthetic, or moral. Faith and reason are both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest. But two problems await the move from theology away from foundationalism: subjectivism and circularity. This probabilistic approach to religious assent continued in the later thinking of Basil Mitchell. Steven Cahn approaches a Christian existentialism from less sociological and a more psychological angle than Tillich. Only through this testimony is certainty about one’s beliefs obtained. It means that these Hebraic Pharisees and Sadducees are thinking in Aristotelian syllogisms. Much of the Reformed model of Christianity adopts this basic model. For example, the substance of faith can be seen to involve miracles; that of reason to involve the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The glory of Christ seen in the gospel is the decisive ground of saving faith because saving faith is the receiving of Christ as infinitely glorious and supremely valuable. No revelation is needed for morality. In fact he is wary of the attempts of natural theology to prove anything about higher orders from lower orders. He held, however, that it could be proven only from the physical fact of motion. Mysteries, such as that of the Trinity, are simply “above reason.” But how do we weigh the probabilities favoring a doctrine of faith against those derived from general experience and the laws of nature? Our lives hang on it. The circularity emerges from the lack of any kind of external check on interpretation. He thus tended to make the hitherto Catholic emphasis on works look voluntaristic. From this conviction he develops a highly nuanced natural theology regarding the proofs of God’s existence. He concludes, though, that religious believers cannot be accused of shirking some fundamental epistemic duty by relying upon this basic form of evidence. This is what drove Edwards and what drives me on this issue: Unless men may come to a reasonable, solid persuasion and conviction of the truth of the gospel, by the internal evidences of it .