As the influence of science grew in the Western world, there was increasing concern in the Christian community, at least among intellectuals and people who were paying attention, over the fact that much of what had formerly been explained in religious terms could now be explained in scientific ones. Bultmann pointed out some of the ways that older mythological explanations became strange-sounding to modern ears as a result.
But there was also another effect of the growing influence of scientific thinking: science appeared to have fairly well-defined ways of determining which theories were the best, by conducting experiments and making systematic empirical observations, while Christian theology did not seem to have such definite ways of determining its own best ideas. And some authors, such as Bertrand Russell, wrote that empirical evidence seems to go against Christian teachings, while others, such as Flew, argued that Christian doctrines appear not to be subject to empirical testing at all, and are thus meaningless. The various worries about what kinds of evidence might be offered in support of Christian beliefs have put Christians on the defensive. In comparison to the sciences, Christian beliefs may appear to be arbitrary, false, or meaningless..
One extremely popular response to these challenges among educated Christians combines the following elements:
| Agree that Christian beliefs have no solid evidence or reasoning to back them up. |
| Agree that science has strong methods for determining the truth about the natural world, based on solid evidence and reasoning. |
| Conclude that Christian beliefs must be accepted on faith, where that means that the believer just commits to believing, without having any evidence or reasons as backing. |
The popularity of this way of thinking about Christianity is evidenced by the current political fad in the US to refer to religiously-based organizations as "faith-based". This way of talking was probably created by politicians who were nervous about saying openly that they want to use tax money to support religious organizations, but that is not relevant here. What is relevant is that it is socially acceptable to describe religious organizations as based on faith. No one even seems to bat an eye at this enormous assumption.
My contention is that it is a serious mistake to suppose religion is based on faith. At least if that is supposed to mean that religious belief has no supporting evidence or reasons. The point of the essay you are to read is to examine what Christian faith is, and to debunk the idea that faith is opposed to having evidence or reasons. Faith may well be important in Christianity, but I contend that a proper understanding of faith does not arise from contrasting it with having reasons. In short, Christian faith is not normally blind faith.
Generalizing, I would contend that religious worldviews, whether Christian or not, are not "faith-based". To call them "faith-based" is to mislead, and to degrade their rationality unnecessarily. If religion really were faith-based, I think religion would not deserve to be taken seriously at all, and that one would have to be of questionable mental stability to be religious.
The above explanation should make clear why we are reading this essay at this point in the course, where we are considering whether there is some sensible way that science and religion might coexist in harmony even if naturalism and religion cannot coexist in harmony. The claim that religion is faith-based is one proposal for creating this harmony: science deals with evidence and reasons, while religion has nothing to do with evidence and reasons. But this way of creating harmony, in my opinion, is not sensible. Understanding what religious faith truly is will show that this way of creating harmony is misguided. Students and professors who so eagerly adopt the idea of religion as faith-based ought to find another way to think.
I am willing to defend these views in class, but I also want to make clear that as always students are free to present objections and counterarguments. These ideas are presented as something to work from, not something to memorize as the Truth.