In Pascal’s, The Mayfield Anthology of Western Philosophy, he discusses that according to a skeptic’s point of view there can be no complete evidence of a supreme entity or being and the necessity of faith in the absence of evidence. “The chief arguments of the skeptics are that we have no certainty of the truth of these principles apart from faith and revelation, except in so far as we naturally perceive them in ourselves. Now this natural intuition is not a convincing proof of their truth; since, having no certainty apart from faith, whether man was created by a good God. Again, no person is certain, apart from faith whether he is awake or sleeps” (441). Since attending the University of Mobile, I have witnessed and partaken in various conversations regarding the topic of evidence and faith. Growing up, I always believed that faith was absolute sufficient and satisfactory understanding that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). As followers of Christ, we are instructed to “look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not see are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18). I continued to remind myself of these teachings and that faith was and should be enough. But some people, like myself before moving to college use the presence of faith as an excuse for laziness. We forget that as Christians we were also commanded to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15). Faith is what is necessary for salvation, but evidence to support our faith in Jesus is vital for the moments when our faith is questioned or challenged. Faith and evidence do not contradict each other, they compliment one another when balanced properly.
I commented on Moriah and Madison's post
I commented on Moriah and Madison's post
Comments