Is reasonable doubt possible?

[narnia4]

I'm thinking of doubt specifically about God existing (although not necessarily just that), doubts about Jesus, and the essentials of Christianity. Granted everyone has doubts of one kind or another at one time or another, but as the topic states I'm wondering whether people here believe that doubt can be rational.

To clarify further, I'm not talking about temporary doubt but a "position of doubt" given adequate knowledge of relevant information. One example, a person could reasonably doubt the veracity of the claim "Jesus was risen from the dead" before he knew any details, but I would think that a rational person would want to investigate the matter further. After learning the details (not only for the historicity of that event, but evidence for God and other evidences for Christianity and so on), could this person still believe that the Resurrection did not occur and be considered "reasonable"?

Also, since the answer of a non-Christian would be pretty obvious, I'm looking mainly for the answers of Christians here. Thanks. I'll wait to see if anyone responds before elaborating on what I think.

[RickD]

Narnia, As a believer, I have the inner witness of the Holy Spirit of God. Therefore, I know the resurrection of Jesus Christ is true. But, I'm not sure if an unbeliever would think that's "reasonable". An unbeliever might actually think I'm insane!

[narnia4]

Oh yes, there's certainly the spiritual issue here and Christians can know that they are saved because of the witness of the Holy Spirit. While that might not be "merely" reasonable, The Holy Spirit as, as Craig would say "intrinsic defeater-defeater", I don't see that as unreasonable.

But we (meaning humans in general) actually doubt because of our "spiritual blindness" and choose to disbelieve (this could be subconsciously) because we're hiding.

I've seen questions similar to this asked before and that's why I asked it, there seems to be a little bit of a divide among maybe "more liberal" Christians and the more conservative breed. It can also relate to the "argument from divine hiddenness" that skeptics use.

But to try to make my point in short (I have trouble doing that sometimes), I think that the existence of God is obvious and that a truly reasonable person cannot escape the conclusion that he exists, that Christ's exists, that Christ rose from the grave, etc.

[RickD]

But to try to make my point in short (I have trouble doing that sometimes), I think that the existence of God is obvious and that a truly reasonable person cannot escape the conclusion that he exists, that Christ's exists, that Christ rose from the grave, etc.

Narnia, while I agree that I believe it's obvious that God exists, even to a non-Christian, just from nature alone, I'm not sure I would say it's reasonable for an unbeliever to believe Christ is God(not just a historical person). As far as the resurrection, I'm not sure it's reasonable to think an unbeliever would reasonably believe on his own, that Christ's resurrection is true. Now, I don't know if that was even what you were trying to ask about. Perhaps I'm missing what you're getting at.

[Canuckster1127]

Doubt is reasonable to a certain extent intellectually in most matters. Without doubt we'd have no motivation to examine something and determine if our perception about things is in fact reality. Newtonian physics is a good example. If something like that wasn't doubted and explored deeper we'd have missed Einstein's contributions.

With regard to Christ, as others have mentioned there's more at work than just intellect. There's a spiritual element that goes beyond intellect and so on that basis I suspend many doubts. But that doesn't mean I don't question things related to Christian doctrine and practice. I think that touches in part what Paul is speaking about when he says:

I Thess 5:12-22 12But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, 13and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another. 14We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone. 15See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people. 16Rejoice always; 17pray without ceasing; 18in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. 19Do not quench the Spirit; 20do not despise prophetic utterances. 21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22abstain from every form of evil.

[narnia4]

I'm not sure exactly what I'm getting at, kind of thinking as I go. But what I was trying to infer is actually related to what you two were getting at. That there are spiritual reasons (witness of the Holy Spirit) why we believe what we do, but that its equally true that there are spiritual reasons why people don't believe. Slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. So my basic premise is that a "position of doubt" is never rooted in reason. Perhaps disbelief is a better word for what I'm trying to say than doubt is.

I'd also appeal to Pascal's Wager. I think a temporary doubt may be reasonable given a lack of details, but a person using reason should commit himself to studying the issue and uncovering the truth of a matter. As a simple illustration, let's say you have a disease that you doubt there is a cure for. That person may be reasonable in temporarily doubting that there is a cure, but he is not reasonable unless he immediately proceeds to research his alternatives and find out if there is indeed a cure out there. Same with Christianity, sufficient study and research will leave no reasonable doubt that there is a "cure" available".

Might have more thoughts later.

[Byblos]

The way I see it is when looking inwardly, doubt is always there and sometimes certainly feels reasonable. Due to our fallen nature, I don't think there's any way to avoid that. Our faith, on the other hand, (a faith that's grounded in reason that is, not the blind kind) is in the promise of God which can never be doubted. Our assurance comes by looking at God's promise, even though we may be full of doubt, which is of ourselves.

[Jac3510]

I'm just contrarian. If you doubt a proposition is true (e.g., "God exist") then you are saying that you do not know whether or not that proposition accurately reflects reality. That doubt can be reasonable if the facts are not such that you can reasonably conclude one way or the other (I, for instance, doubt the claim that Zimmerman killed Martin out of cold blooded racism). That doubt is unreasonable if that facts you such that you can and should conclude one way or the other and yet you do not.

With regard to God's existence, I have no doubt, but that is because God's existence is self-evident to me. I don't mean in the spiritual sense of "the inner witness" (whatever that is) that people have been talking about here. I mean it in the strict sense of something that is necessarly true: triangles have three sides; all unmarried men are bachelors. "God exists" is a self-evident statement to those of us who view God as subsistent existence (which must necessarily be true). The statement "God does not exist" is literally self-contradictory, no less so than the term "a square circle."

I have no doubt about Christ's resurrection for a different reason: the preponderance of evidence is such that I have no legitimate warrant to doubt its truthfulness. I could, of course, posit that Jesus logically speaking could have been an alien with super advanced technology to explain his apparent death and subsequent empty tomb and postmortem appearances (along with His ascension), but that would be unreasonable precisely because it is unwarranted. Doubt based on such absurdities is irrational doubt.

Finally, I reject the claim that we have inner, subjective assurance of the truthfulness of Christianity. The Spirit, in my view, does not bear witness to our spirit of our sonship, but rather, He bears witness along with our spirit of our sonship. The object of the witness is not me, but the Father.

The moment we allow something as subjective as an inner witness to count as an argument, we have to accept the fact that Mormons, for instance, make the same claim. Yet we would all say (I assume) that Mormons are mistaken in their sincerely held feeling. And anyone who holds to either conditional security, the final perseverance of the saints, of moral assurance would have to agree that there have been people who felt 100% assurance of their salvation and later found out that they were deceived by falling away into a state of apostasy. If that can happen to them--if they can be wrong--why not you, too? So your inner assurance provides no assurace whatsoever, because you could be wrong. Plenty of people have before.

In short, "I just know it!" is not for me a reasonable argument, and that by definition, since it doesn't follow the standards of reason.

[narnia4]

Thanks Jac, very interesting post.

So just to make absolutely sure I'm following- God exists necessarily and therefore any denial of God's existence is not only unreasonable but incoherent and self-refuting.

For Christ's resurrection, its more like a legal case with a jury (and obviously more than one apologist has made just that comparison). The evidence is such that a jury would have no room for reasonable doubt.

Interesting thoughts on the inner witness of the Spirit as well. I think I can at the very least agree that its not much use as an argument, at least not when it comes to other people since anyone could appeal to his/her own personal experience.

[RickD]

I'm just contrarian. If you doubt a proposition is true (e.g., "God exist") then you are saying that you do not know whether or not that proposition accurately reflects reality. That doubt can be reasonable if the facts are not such that you can reasonably conclude one way or the other (I, for instance, doubt the claim that Zimmerman killed Martin out of cold blooded racism). That doubt is unreasonable if that facts you such that you can and should conclude one way or the other and yet you do not.

With regard to God's existence, I have no doubt, but that is because God's existence is self-evident to me. I don't mean in the spiritual sense of "the inner witness" (whatever that is) that people have been talking about here. I mean it in the strict sense of something that is necessarly true: triangles have three sides; all unmarried men are bachelors. "God exists" is a self-evident statement to those of us who view God as subsistent existence (which must necessarily be true). The statement "God does not exist" is literally self-contradictory, no less so than the term "a square circle."

I have no doubt about Christ's resurrection for a different reason: the preponderance of evidence is such that I have no legitimate warrant to doubt its truthfulness. I could, of course, posit that Jesus logically speaking could have been an alien with super advanced technology to explain his apparent death and subsequent empty tomb and postmortem appearances (along with His ascension), but that would be unreasonable precisely because it is unwarranted. Doubt based on such absurdities is irrational doubt.

Finally, I reject the claim that we have inner, subjective assurance of the truthfulness of Christianity. The Spirit, in my view, does not bear witness to our spirit of our sonship, but rather, He bears witness along with our spirit of our sonship. The object of the witness is not me, but the Father.

The moment we allow something as subjective as an inner witness to count as an argument, we have to accept the fact that Mormons, for instance, make the same claim. Yet we would all say (I assume) that Mormons are mistaken in their sincerely held feeling. And anyone who holds to either conditional security, the final perseverance of the saints, of moral assurance would have to agree that there have been people who felt 100% assurance of their salvation and later found out that they were deceived by falling away into a state of apostasy. If that can happen to them--if they can be wrong--why not you, too? So your inner assurance provides no assurace whatsoever, because you could be wrong. Plenty of people have before.

In short, "I just know it!" is not for me a reasonable argument, and that by definition, since it doesn't follow the standards of reason.

Jac, if I understand you correctly, I agree that the witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit in me, can't win an argument to prove God exists.

But, correct me if I'm reading you wrong here, I disagree that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in me, who witnesses to me that God's promises of eternal assurance are true, doesn't give me absolute assurance of my salvation.

[Jac3510]

Jac, if I understand you correctly, I agree that the witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit in me, can't win an argument to prove God exists.

But, correct me if I'm reading you wrong here, I disagree that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in me, who witnesses to me that God's promises of eternal assurance are true, doesn't give me absolute assurance of my salvation.

I don't think Scripture says that the HS witnesses to you. You are referring Rom 8, are you not? The phrase in question the Spirit "witnesses with our spirit" . . . you're just assuming that "with" means "to." In fact, it means "along side of." It's a picture of the testimony of witnesses, which is consistent with the OT requirement of two or more witnesses for a legal case to be made.

Beyond that, I don't think you can make a logical case that the HS can give you absolute assurance. All you have is your 100% belief that you are saved. But what if you are wrong? After all, Mormons have 100% conviction and you would say they are wrong. Or what about other Christians who have had 100% assurance and later fell away (e.g., Templeton and hosts of others). What makes your assurances more sure than theirs? Because you are really saved? But how do you know that? They would say the same thing. The best, then, you can get is moral assurance. If you want more on that, ask Byblos. It's the Catholic doctrine, and, unless you believe in the version of OSAS that I do, is the only logical position left open to you.

Thanks Jac, very interesting post.

So just to make absolutely sure I'm following- God exists necessarily and therefore any denial of God's existence is not only unreasonable but incoherent and self-refuting.

Correct. For me, when someone says "God does not exist," they may as well be saying "Existence does not exist." It's just an absurd statement.

For Christ's resurrection, its more like a legal case with a jury (and obviously more than one apologist has made just that comparison). The evidence is such that a jury would have no room for reasonable doubt.

Correct. And therefore to doubt would be unreasonable.

Interesting thoughts on the inner witness of the Spirit as well. I think I can at the very least agree that its not much use as an argument, at least not when it comes to other people since anyone could appeal to his/her own personal experience.

I don't see why you would settle on being convinced yourself by an argument you would not allow others to be convinced by. I mean, if a Mormon says they have had a private revelation that Mormonism is true (which they do--it's called "the burning of the bosom") or if a Hindu Guru says he knows his religion is true because he has been one with the Brahman, you would rightly point out that his experience is no proof, for we can be deceived. So why is it if another's experience ought be no proof for them it's okay for yours to be proof to you? Goose and gander and all that. Or, put more bluntly, it's about intellectual honesty.

And all that, given the fact that the textual basis on which the doctrine rests is highly questionable . . . well, I think you get my point.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:Jac, if I understand you correctly, I agree that the witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit in me, can't win an argument to prove God exists.

But, correct me if I'm reading you wrong here, I disagree that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in me, who witnesses to me that God's promises of eternal assurance are true, doesn't give me absolute assurance of my salvation.


I don't think Scripture says that the HS witnesses to you. You are referring Rom 8, are you not? The phrase in question the Spirit "witnesses with our spirit" . . . you're just assuming that "with" means "to." In fact, it means "along side of." It's a picture of the testimony of witnesses, which is consistent with the OT requirement of two or more witnesses for a legal case to be made.

Beyond that, I don't think you can make a logical case that the HS can give you absolute assurance. All you have is your 100% belief that you are saved. But what if you are wrong? After all, Mormons have 100% conviction and you would say they are wrong. Or what about other Christians who have had 100% assurance and later fell away (e.g., Templeton and hosts of others). What makes your assurances more sure than theirs? Because you are really saved? But how do you know that? They would say the same thing. The best, then, you can get is moral assurance. If you want more on that, ask Byblos. It's the Catholic doctrine, and, unless you believe in the version of OSAS that I do, is the only logical position left open to you.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God
is one verse, but that's not what I'm specifically talking about. But, the HS in me witnesses to or with me(whatever) That God's promises of eternal security are true. I believe the promises of eternal security in scripture, are God's words, and the Holy Spirit inside me, is God. So logically, the HS will witness to me that scripture is from God. Jac, I don't know what the Mormons base their conviction on, and even if they claim eternal security. And, I'm not talking about a feeling of 100% assurance, that I think you are saying that people who fell away had. I believe if one has the indwelling of the HS, then one is eternally secure. Period. I remember reading your thread about OSAS, with you and Byblos posting. I don't remember my beliefs being exactly the same as your's or Byblos'. And, I think I remember you claiming(in the OSAS thread) that if one held an eternal security belief different than yours, it was illogical. Obviously we disagree. To be fair, I agreed with most of what you said about OSAS, but not all.

[narnia4]

Interesting thoughts on the inner witness of the Spirit as well. I think I can at the very least agree that its not much use as an argument, at least not when it comes to other people since anyone could appeal to his/her own personal experience.

I don't see why you would settle on being convinced yourself by an argument you would not allow others to be convinced by. I mean, if a Mormon says they have had a private revelation that Mormonism is true (which they do--it's called "the burning of the bosom") or if a Hindu Guru says he knows his religion is true because he has been one with the Brahman, you would rightly point out that his experience is no proof, for we can be deceived. So why is it if another's experience ought be no proof for them it's okay for yours to be proof to you? Goose and gander and all that. Or, put more bluntly, it's about intellectual honesty.

And all that, given the fact that the textual basis on which the doctrine rests is highly questionable . . . well, I think you get my point.

I would feel like an amateur at any in-depth discussion (probably because I am), but I would think that we have sufficient reason to trust our senses and personal experiences unless there is reason not to. We have other reasons for believing that Mormonism isn't true or that Hinduism isn't legit. So I would need another reason to doubt that the Holy Spirit is speaking to me. Not that I think that this is what you're disputing, still just typing my thoughts out here.

[Jac3510]

Rick, I've already discussed Rom. 8. As far as believing the promises of Scripture, look, I agree that we can have 100$ absolute assurance of salvation. But that is because I believe in eternal security (not the final perseverance of the saints). I call that logical assurance. Jesus says that everyone who believes has eternal life (no qualifiers). I believer. Therefore, it's logically necessary that I have eternal life. If, however, you start putting qualifiers on Jesus' words and say things like people who really believe will do this or that, then faith alone can't provide logical sufficiency for assurance; rather, whatever faith produces would provide that sufficiency. The problem there, of course, is that you can never meet enough of those qualifiers to demonstrate your faith is "the real thing."

In any case, that's a different argument than the personal, immediate assurance provided by the HS' witness to you. The argument that the HS can just "let you know" that you are saved. If all you are saying is that the Spirit brings to our mind verses that promise our salvation, then fine. That's not an immediate knowledge of salvation. That's a mediate knowledge; it is a knowledge mediated through the Scriptures. It can also be public. The only thing I have to "accept" is that you are telling the truth when you tell me that you believe. Regardless, I can say, "Yes, if you have really believed, Rick, then according to Scripture you are saved." That, unfortunately, is not the argument that Craig and other such people are making.

Narnia, I suspect all of us here are amateurs. I consider myself an amateur, and I teach this stuff at a local seminary. So don't worry about making arguments--what's the worst that can happen? Someone disagrees with you? Who cares? The question is whether or not their critique is correct. If it is, you adjust your belief in accordance with the new truth you have discovered, and that is a good thing. If it is not, your belief stood another test, which is a good thing. As to your argument, I would distinguish between trusting our senses and trusting our intuitions. You have no sense that you are saved. The senses that we have the properly basic belief to trust are the five ones we all know: sight, smell, hearing, touch, and taste. Unless you are going to tell me you believe we have a "sixth sense," which I would just disagree with, you don't have a properly basic reason to believe your beliefs. Your beliefs need to be checked to be sure they conform to reality. In other words, we don't trust our beliefs and intuitions just because we have them (we do, on the other hand, tend to trust our senses just because of what they say). Can our senses be wrong? Of course. And our intuitions can be right. But they don't at all have the same value.

[RickD]

Rick, I've already discussed Rom. 8. As far as believing the promises of Scripture, look, I agree that we can have 100$ absolute assurance of salvation. But that is because I believe in eternal security (not the final perseverance of the saints).

I agree here. "final perseverance of the saints" sounds too much like the saint's perseverance is what saves, not the preservation of the saints, by the power of the HS.

. Jesus says that everyone who believes has eternal life (no qualifiers).

I agree, except perhaps with your meaning of "believes".

If, however, you start putting qualifiers on Jesus' words and say things like people who really believe will do this or that, then faith alone can't provide logical sufficiency for assurance; rather, whatever faith produces would provide that sufficiency. The problem there, of course, is that you can never meet enough of those qualifiers to demonstrate your faith is "the real thing."

I agree...I think. Except maybe I'm not as concrete in this as you are. At least from what I've read in the OSAS thread.

In any case, that's a different argument than the personal, immediate assurance provided by the HS' witness to you. The argument that the HS can just "let you know" that you are saved. If all you are saying is that the Spirit brings to our mind verses that promise our salvation, then fine. That's not an immediate knowledge of salvation. That's a mediate knowledge; it is a knowledge mediated through the Scriptures. It can also be public. The only thing I have to "accept" is that you are telling the truth when you tell me that you believe. Regardless, I can say, "Yes, if you have really believed, Rick, then according to Scripture you are saved." That, unfortunately, is not the argument that Craig and other such people are making.

Again, not much I disagree with here. As far as what WL Craig says, that you're referring to, I'm not familiar with what he says, so I can't speak to that.