Thanks for the post, Jesse. Sorry I'm getting so frustrated. It's been a busy week, and I don't understand why the communication here is so skew (not intersecting). Don't worry about hijacking the conversation. The point is to learn, by whatever means.

By "faith" I don't mean your #1 choice. That to me is the foundation of biblical teaching, and I consider it to be "knowledge." I also define scientific certainties as knowledge (gravity, the existence of the sun, the existence of the earth, energy, magnetism, velocity, matter, etc.) For "faith" I would go with #2: How do we as Christians function mentally in the world. It's different than how unbelievers function in the world. As per scientific and rational admission, we as humans know far less than we think we do. Much of what we think we know is tentative at best, speculative at mediant, and "faith" by most counts (and not necessarily religious faith. Christians, on the others hand, have access to information by revelation that unbelievers don't have: God's truth revealed, his Word of Truth, and the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. And yet I still live by faith, in a sense as unbelievers do, but in most senses not at all as they do. My "knowledge" rests on a completely different plane as well as the normal plane, so that I am living in two heads, two minds, two worlds, and yet they melt into one: the life I live in God (which is more like your #3). I like your paragraph:

"Or do you consider 'faith' to be more comprehensive and to apply simultaneously to both of the above, apparently distinct, realms? Can these even be separated legitimately? In this third case, would it be appropriate to define "faith" as "the belief that our understanding and certainty of what we know (epistemology) is reliable" despite the potential for doubt?"

Science and faith—are they mutually exclusive? Absolutely not. Truth crosses all barriers. I believe in absolute truth. If any thing is truth, it's true everywhere and all the time. If it's true in science, then it's true, period. And if it's true about God, then it's true, period. Science is our observations about the way God made the world, so science and faith can't possibly be mutually exclusive. In that sense I'm complementarian.

Knowlege is harder to define, and that's why philosophers, scientists, and theologians have a harder time getting a handle on it. Practically speaking it's the working of our rational minds, and how we intersect with, process, and accept our natural and our rational environment.

Of course I believe that the totality of existence is within God's purview. But it's NOT within mine, hence my question. How can we best adequately intersect with, process, and accept our natural environment given our finite thought boundaries and yet with access to this glorious wealth of revelational knowledge that comes to us through our relationship with Christ?

Jim, when you ask the question about the interplay between faith and knowledge, do you distinguish between the term "faith" as it applies to the tollwoing two things, each of which can be doubted to some degree and requires a decision that the doubt is not a serious threat to the belief system?

1. belief in Biblical principles and claims; that is, a Biblical anthropology, theology (who we are, who God is) and the Gospel, (that is, "faith" being defined as "the belief that the Bible is reliable and reflects things as they are" and "belief in and acting on a dynamic relationship with the living God)

and

2. belief in other truth claims or generic things (questions like: are our senses reliable, is the US culpable for carrying out the 9/11 attacks; or truth claims like: the sun revolves around the earth, or force is equal to mass times acceleration) (that is, "faith" being defined as "the belief that the natural order can be adequately apprehended to the degree that reliable knowledge which reflects things as they are is possible").

Or do you consider "faith" to be more comprehensive and to apply simultaneously to both of the above, apparently distinct, realms? Can these even be separated legitimately? In this third case, would it be appropriate to define "faith" as "the belief that our understanding and certainty of what we know (epistemology) is reliable" despite the potential for doubt?

If the first is generally called "religion" and the second is generally called "science," could it be justifiably said that both realms are harmonious? I guess this boils down to the big question: "science and faith - are they mutually exclusive, complementary, unrelated, etc?"

Similarly Jim, how, in your question is "knowledge" defined? Is it knowledge of physical reality, knowledge of God, both?

It seems like, to me, the totality of existence (including physical and spiritual reality) is within God's purview. If that is the case, how does that affect your question about the intersection of faith and knowledge.

Great topic.

Charlie, I did give you a biblical definition of faith: Heb. 11.1. You chide me for making up my own, or by going with secular definitions, but that's not what I did at all. Faith is evidence and assurance (Heb. 11.1).

You said, "Knowledge without reference to God is not light but darkness." I AGREE.

You said, "if we redefine the words to allow for secularly determined definitions then are we not bowing to the darkness instead of bringing light." I AGREE, but the Bible doesn't define a lot of words for us.

"I began to be specific from a biblical perspective and now am being told to back off so we can discuss secular generalities." That's not what I'm suggesting. I don't want to discuss secular generalities apart from a biblical perspective, I want to talk about FAITH and KNOWLEDGE.

"I have been told that Rom 1:18-23 proves the common grace of a working epistemology for the unbeliever. However, this is not what it teaches." That's not what I said. Although v. 20 clearly indicates that knowledge is a common grace. But Paul is not attempting to give a working epistemology, he's building a case for universal sin.

This paragraph that you wrote, starting with "It shows that there is a working epistemology for everyone..." I AGREE WITH IT. I agree with everything you said here.

"If we are not using the Bible as the authority to define biblical words or govern the discussion..." We ARE using the Bible as the authority to define biblical words and govern the discussion.

Instead of starting with fallen humanity in Romans 1, let's shift the discussion to the NATURE OF FAITH in Hebrews 11. First of all, we'll notice that faith is not defined as believing what God says. It's defined as "assurance; substantial nature; essence; actual being; reality in contrast to perceptions" (hupostasis) and "certainty; proof" (elegxos). "Faith" in v. 6 is conviction that God truly exists and acts as the Word reveals him to act. As we continue through the chapter we find that faith is...

To accept God’s plan of salvation (Abel, Noah)
To stand against the world (Enoch, Noah)
To do what God asks (Noah, Abraham; Joshua)
To go where God says (Abraham; Joshua)
To expect the impossible (Abraham; Moses; Joshua)
To expect God to fulfill his promises (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph)
To give up all (Abraham, Moses)
To do things in God’s very non-normal way (Abraham, Moses)
To obey in spite of appearances (Moses)

Now, how does FAITH intersect with KNOWLEDGE?

We start at seemingly very different points. Faith/belief is a biblical word which I allow the Bible to define, as is knowledge. This is why I do not accept the definitions given here thus far. Faith/belief is believing God's Word about whatever he says. Knowledge without reference to God is not light but darkness.

In a discussion of faith and knowledge, if we redefine the words to allow for secularly determined definitions then are we not bowing to the darkness instead of bringing light.

I was initially chided for not being specific enough but speaking to generalities. I began to be specific from a biblical perspective and now am being told to back off so we can discuss secular generalities.

I have been told that the Bible does not speak to everything and therefore to allow the pagan philosophers to give light where the Bible is silent.

I have been told that Rom 1:18-23 proves the common grace of a working epistemology for the unbeliever. However, this is not what it teaches.

Romans 1:18–23 (ESV)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

It shows that there is a working epistemology for everyone but that everyone, as an unbeliever, makes it so that the working epistemology (thinking) is futile and their foolish hearts are darkened. As I understand it, this means the disbeliever's epistemology is willfully destroyed by their suppression. It does not speak to God's grace to allow the epistemology of the unbeliever to continue to work even after they suppress. Their epistemology functions in as much as what they "know" still allows it to function. However, in their willful suppression they are inconsistent with what they "know" and that is evident in their professed epistemology and ontology. The disbeliever's epistemology works because they still operate according to what they deny (self-deception) not because what they profess epistemologically is somehow carried by common grace so that it still works even though it is wrong. The disbeliever operates according to God's provided epistemology. They just deny it.

If we are not using the Bible as the authority to define biblical words or govern the discussion then I continue to stand in what I said and will bow out if I am being "too biblical."

Charlie, you misunderstand. I'm not saying that Christian epistemology doesn't match up with reality. I agree that it DOES. It's just that the subject of conversation was the place of faith in knowledge, not whether Christians have access to information through revelation that unbelievers don't. All of the verses that you're throwing out—of course I agree with that, but that's not the subject. Of course "A Christian's ontological assertions and epistemological system has to begin with the fear of the Lord." Of course we believe in God. Of course I'm not talking about an epistemology devoid of the knowledge of God. The question was about FAITH and KNOWLEDGE. I asked a question about "sailing", and you're commenting about "the nature of water". I agree that any Christian's knowledge is informed by revelation in addition to reason. That's a given, but it's not what I asked. I don't want you to "bow out". Of course I agree that we have to be Biblical. I honestly don't know where this is coming from. I want to know about the integration of faith and knowledge, but your point is that the most complete knowledge comes from a relationship with God. I AGREE. My comments to you have been trying to direct the conversation back to the original post, not because I disagree with a biblical epistemology.

Is anyone trying to refrain from being Biblical? I missed that part.

Charlie, would you admit that there is truth that it not in the Bible? If not, could you show me in the Bible where to find truth about electrical wiring?

Look, we are having conversations about big topics here, topics that the Bible certainly speaks to but which extra-Biblical "schools" speak to as well. Discussing those other "schools" does not in any way diminish the Bible; rather, it acknowledges that common grace has been liberally (but not exhaustively) given to all (Romans 1:18-13 - I think you may recognize that passage) and that, with that common grace, we have the ability to perceive, evaluate, and conclude. None of this means that extra-Biblical truths can supersede or contradict the Bible.

Quite the contrary: all truth must be in accord with the Bible. All truth is God's truth and is harmonious. It may be concluded, for example, by a non-Christian group that the best way to raise a child is in a home with a mother and father. The source of the study doesn't make it false though. It is in fact true; it also agrees with the Bible.

But Bernoulli's principle is also true; however, it's not in the Bible. Is this a problem? Not at all. Did the fear of the Lord allow Archimedes to perform his experiments? Does that math that a physicist uses work because he fears God?

I am not sure that the verses from Proverbs use the word knowledge not in the same way that a weatherman does. It seems like you may be equivocating on the definition of "knowledge." You acknowledge that the weatherman can predict weather but that his knowledge of, let say, “higher things” is lacking. Certainly a proper understanding of God and fear of the Lord will yield a more complete knowledge, but that doesn’t mean that all knowledge is dependent upon that understanding of God. That’s why science works! We have the book of nature that God gave to all (Romans 1:18-23).

I don’t think anyone considers Biblical understanding to be drudgery. We are all professing Christians here (to my knowledge). What I think is happening, what I am trying to do anyway, is to understand the way non-Christians defend their unbelief and figure out how that lines up with the general and specific revelations God has granted.

No big deal, no drama, and no drudgery need be involved.

I understand you do not think my ideas of epistemology and faith are "good." However, I have at least tried to align my understanding to that of Scripture.

Romans 1:18-23 speaks to epistemology. The unbeliever "knows" God from what he "perceives" from creation. He suppresses the truth of God from creation (self-deception in disbelief). Thus his "thinking" is futile and his foolish heart (foolish for suppressing the God he knows) becomes dark.

If you do not begin to assess the unbeliever from this epistemological starting point then you begin in error.

If you would rather have your discussion without the drudgery of trying to remain biblical (fear of the Lord) in the discussion then I will bow out. Any remaining conversation will not produce knowledge but more suppression.

The Christian epistemology rightly matches up to reality (ontology) as long as it accepts what God has said about reality. A Christian's ontological assertions and epistemological system has to begin with the fear of the Lord (Prov. 1:7; 9:10).

Proverbs 1:7 (ESV)
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 9:10 (ESV)
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

If we do not begin with the Fear of the Lord then we have no knowledge for the fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of knowledge. It is also the BEGINNING of wisdom.

We cannot begin with "A good epistemology has to be coherent, consistent, and match up with reality." unless we immediately follow that reality is exactly what God says it is NOT as a human being perceives and understands it to be without reference to God.

Do we believe the Bible (God)? or do we want to talk philosophically devoid of the reality of God? The Bible has to drive the discussion of epistemology not logic or philosophers. The biggest hurdle in epistemology is the fear of the Lord (belief) for only it allows us to stop suppressing God from ontological assertions that darken our understanding instead of bringing light (Rom. 1:18-23)

A confusion between epistemology and omniscience seems to be rising. Charlie seems to be advocating that because unbelievers don't have the benefit of revelation their knowledge base is unreliable. Jesse corrects that with acknowledging, as I did, the knowledge that results from common grace and the addition to that which is revelation.

Charlie, you invoked a definition of faith as "believing what God has said." You're obviously an astute person, so you recognize, as a pastor/professor that in the Bible "faith" has different meanings: (1) our dogma: the faith, (2) trust in God: belief, (3) our Christian commitment to Jesus. The definition I was working with was that facet "evidence of things not seen; the assurance of what we hope for." At what points do belief and knowledge intersect/contradict/separate? I happen to believe (there's that crazy word!) that faith and knowledge intersect over broad realms—that there is hardly any place where faith and knowledge aren't hand in hand. I know the atheists I talk to consider faith as a blind leap in the dark, with no possible intersection points with "real" knowledge. I think people, no matter their religious persuasions, exercise faith every day. Every time they turn the key to start the car, sit in a chair, head to the store—they can't KNOW the car will start, the chair will hold, or that the store is really there. Such faith is a knowledge based on assumptions underwritten by enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable. That, in my opinion, has nothing to do with "believing what God has said." But that's what I started this thread for—to poke around in other people's brains for lots of good ideas about faith and epistemology!

What do you think it will be like in heaven, when the relationship between He and we is restored? We won't need some faith because we won't be seeing "in a glass darkly, but rather face to face." But will we know God's mind well enough to understand everything? What will our epistemology be then? Will we still need "faith"?

I don't think that epistemic foundations are weak simply because we are not God. We can admit to not knowing things without it affecting our epistemology. For example, I can say that I know that Bernoulli’s principle adequately explains the ability for airplanes to generate lift and that is an epistemic statement; I am making a truth claim about some belief. But is saying “I don’t know what hell will be like” an epistemic claim? Isn’t it a deferring of a claim—that is, admitting ignorance? Would admitting ignorance be the opposite of faith? Some of this may simply be semantics.

I would say that faith is having a belief in something that can be doubted; that includes what God has said but it includes just about everything else too. Like when Ebenezer Scrooge didn't believe he was seeing Marley—he attributed it to some undigested meat.

I would not say that “everyone's epistemology works, functions, provides pragmatic results.” Epistemology is "how we know what we know" or "the study of the certitude of our own beliefs." Relativists' epistemology doesn't work, function, or provide pragmatic results when you scrutinize it even a little bit. They say "nothing is true" but that statement is self-referentially inconsistent and therefore rubbish! Crazy people can have an epistemology that is totally coherent within itself, but provides no pragmatic results. The epistemology of “climate change” for example makes assumptions that are fed into models and then when the models predict the assumptions, they warmists act like it is news that their models spit out their assumptions. So their epistemology is self-referentially consistent, but it doesn’t necessarily match up to reality.

A good epistemology has to be coherent, consistent, and match up with reality. Christianity is the only one that does that while being comprehensive too. It’s coherent in that it is intelligible and accords with the premises of logic and rationality; it is consistent in that all of the parts complement one another and do not contradict one another; it matches up with reality because it can explain and predict the order of things which are within its purview. But it is also comprehensive because its purview encompasses physical and spiritual reality. No other school of thought, religion, or faith can do all that.