Divine or Human Faith?

[NowAgnostic]

I’ve got several epistemological questions about faith I’ll be posting over the next few days. I’ll start with this one.

For all but the most liberal branches of Christianity, a physical Resurrection is a touchstone doctrine. That means the veracity of faith absolutely depends on the reliability of the witnesses claiming to have seen the risen Christ (and on those reporting that testimony, but I’ll let that go for now).

It could be argued that one should believe based on Christ’s own promise instead of the testimony of the witnesses. But this only sets the argument back one step, as we have only the testimony of witnesses for what he actually did and said. So let’s stick with the Resurrection.

Now we may decide to trust the testimony of the witnesses because we see them as reliable, trustworthy people, who we judge very unlikely to have made the whole thing up (lying) or else being mistaken (e.g. hallucination). But this is only human faith. Human faith is not absolutely infallible. We can’t believe to the exclusion of any and all doubt.

But if we’re supposed to believe their testimony on divine faith, then it has to be somehow revealed by God that their testimony is true a priori. And how is that certainty to be obtained? Before so-and-so testifies to the risen Christ, how can we already accept him as speaking with absolute infallibility?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’ve got several epistemological questions about faith I’ll be posting over the next few days. I’ll start with this one.

For all but the most liberal branches of Christianity, a physical Resurrection is a touchstone doctrine. That means the veracity of faith absolutely depends on the reliability of the witnesses claiming to have seen the risen Christ (and on those reporting that testimony, but I’ll let that go for now).

It could be argued that one should believe based on Christ’s own promise instead of the testimony of the witnesses. But this only sets the argument back one step, as we have only the testimony of witnesses for what he actually did and said. So let’s stick with the Resurrection.

Now we may decide to trust the testimony of the witnesses because we see them as reliable, trustworthy people, who we judge very unlikely to have made the whole thing up (lying) or else being mistaken (e.g. hallucination). But this is only human faith. Human faith is not absolutely infallible. We can’t believe to the exclusion of any and all doubt.

But if we’re supposed to believe their testimony on divine faith, then it has to be somehow revealed by God that their testimony is true a priori. And how is that certainty to be obtained? Before so-and-so testifies to the risen Christ, how can we already accept him as speaking with absolute infallibility?

let me ask you a silly question.

why dont you accept the witness at face value?

you accept the witness of other people at face value.

 

[Ferds_Guiang]

I believe a reflection of St. Anselm’s “Fides quaerens intellectum” (Faith seeking understanding) may be of help in accepting the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Faith must be a precondition because if we don’t have it then how can we accept the testimony of the first witnesses of the Risen Christ. Not many believed then and not many believe now. So if we rely on logic alone I guess it would be very difficult to prove the resurrection. For where science or even logic ends, faith begins. God bless!

 

[tonyrey]

Now we may decide to trust the testimony of the witnesses because we see them as reliable, trustworthy people, who we judge very unlikely to have made the whole thing up (lying) or else being mistaken (e.g. hallucination). But this is only human faith. Human faith is not absolutely infallible. We can’t believe to the exclusion of any and all doubt.

Only fanatics believe their faith is infallible. Faith is not primarily an intellectual affair. It is the dedication of our whole being to the pursuit of truth and goodness. Doubts do not arise when you are actively following Christ’s command to love others.

But if we’re supposed to believe their testimony on divine faith, then it has to be somehow revealed by God that their testimony is true a priori. And how is that certainty to be obtained? Before so-and-so testifies to the risen Christ, how can we already accept him as speaking with absolute infallibility?

We don’t accept their testimony as absolutely infallible. They differed on details but we accept the fundamental truth that Love is the way to happiness because we experience it in our lives and know it matters more than anything else in the world. That is where our certainty lies because Christ suffered and died so that we might love and live. To be without love is not to live. It is to be in hell…

 

[Magnanimity]

I’ve got several epistemological questions about faith I’ll be posting over the next few days. I’ll start with this one…

…But if we’re supposed to believe their testimony on divine faith, then it has to be somehow revealed by God that their testimony is true a priori. And how is that certainty to be obtained? Before so-and-so testifies to the risen Christ, how can we already accept him as speaking with absolute infallibility?

NowAgnostic,

I think that your questions have suitable replies mostly from apologetics and philosophy, and your last paragraph gets at theology a bit. From the historical apologetical side I would point you to the writings of Habermas, Craig and Wright. I think you’ll find them helpful.

First, from philosophy, warspeedpetey is on to something, but let me make his point more forcefully. I remember sitting in one of my first undergrad courses in philosophy in the late 90’s. It was an epistemology course, and we were using Robert Audi’s Routledge contemporary intro. In that text, Audi used a phrase and made a point with it so well that I’ll never forget it: “testimonially grounded beliefs.” The point that Audi makes (following C. Coady) is that if one would just pause and take a moment to consider the monumental role that testimony plays in your overall corpus of knowledge, you would be amazed.

Notwithstanding the fact that we all downplay it like crazy, the reality is this: the overwhelming majority of all important facts which you would say you “know,” are grounded in someone else’s testimony. Think of any important category of knowledge: history (obviously), politics, science, or even something more trivial like the daily news. And, ask yourself what percentage of your overall knowledge in any such area is acquired by perception. If the answer is not 0%, it’s something very close to it.

When all of this is considered, questions like yours here, if asked with a skeptical bent, tend to lose some steam. And this leads into my theological reply.

Any (especially Catholic) theologian you read who writes on the Resurrection will make the all-important distinction between the theologically-laden, supra-historical Resurrection event itself and the commonplace, historical Resurrection appearances. We can consider the latter category in answering your questions. So, there is a sense in which my belief in the risen Christ, inasmuch as it is testimonially grounded in the same mundane, historical way in which the risen Christ was directly perceived by some, is a belief of mine in a similar way to my holding beliefs about, say, Socrates. Whatever else may be going in my belief in the Resurrection (eg, a gift of faith from God), His grace builds on nature. The grace of God does not destroy, sidestep or subvert nature. It builds on it and perfects it.

 

[Abu]

Magnanimity, I agree.

As Fr Thomas Dubay attests in Faith And Certitude, Ignatius 1985, p 84:
“Much of our practical knowledge in life and almost all of our theoretical knowledge are based on human faith. Children take almost everything on the word of their parents, while students absorb almost all they learn from their textbooks and the lectures of their teachers. We learn what is going on in our city, country and the world almost exclusively from reports in the print and electronic media, all of them informing us through human faith.’’

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.” (p 81-2)

Our certainty within the Church derives from objective historical facts; the testimony of the apostolic Church witnesses to the Christ-redemption from which came the New Testament.

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, op. cit. p 82-4].

 

[Betterave]

For all but the most liberal branches of Christianity, a physical Resurrection is a touchstone doctrine. That means the veracity of faith absolutely depends on the reliability of the witnesses claiming to have seen the risen Christ (and on those reporting that testimony, but I’ll let that go for now).

A correction, for those who are paying attention:

“That means the veracity of faith absolutely depends on the reliability of the -]witnesses/-] witness of those claiming to have seen the risen Christ…”

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 10 Feb 2010 100210
Hello NowAgnostic … and all others –
I went back to your original posting beginning this thread. And I examined a few responses. And I’d like to add the following to the discussion.

I must point out an erroneous statement you made in the beginning.  You wrote, “… the veracity of faith absolutely depends on the reliability of the witnesses claiming to have seen the risen Christ …”  If this rock bottom error can be understood properly, much of all that follows will at least become easier.  No.  The veracity absolutely does NOT depend on human witnesses.  This might apply to certainty or assurance in a merely human matter.  This point is essential because believing in the Resurrection *only* because of human witnesses is simply NOT DIVINE FAITH.

In an act of Divine faith the ONLY essential reason (basis) for believing is *the veracity or truthfulness of God* .. Who has revealed such and such.

We must not reduce an act of Divine faith to a matter of reason only .. and having *only* the assurance of eye witnesses as our basis, this is exactly what we’re doing.

Human testimony can at best provide “circumstantial evidence,“ a *preparation* for an act of Divine faith.

When we choose to believe a Divine truth (and an act of Divine faith is a free choice), our final choice must be based only on *the truthfulness or veracity of God*.  Without choosing this as the essential basis for our act of Divine faith, we simply haven’t made an act of Divine faith.

An act of Divine faith requires the grace of God.  Involved here are our spiritual powers, intellect and will, and, possibly, in a secondary way, our emotions, and absolutely required, the Holy Spirit.

And a real act of Divine faith DOES give us absolute assurance, not because of our intellect or our will or because of witnesses .. but because of *the truthfulness or veracity of God*.

It should be made clear that despite our having made a real act of Divine faith, there may come times when we are disturbed about our faith, about that act -- disturbed enough to pray and ask God’s grace .. and refresh our acts of Divine faith.

Further clarification can best be gleaned from the **CCC.**  Very many section references are given in the Subject Index in the rear.

May Jesus and Mary Bless us all .. and may the Holy Spirit possess us as His own.
John   (JohnJFarren)   [email]Trinity5635@aol.com[/email]