Expert: Scott Talbot - 3/30/2007

Question
I am currently in college and my first week of classes this quarter one of my professors posted this question to the class... What is the difference in believing something and knowing something? I have been a Christian for over ten years and know in my heart what the answer is but I do not know how to say it in a way that the rest of the class will understand. Please help me. Thanks

Answer
Hi, Nicole,

Nice to hear from you. Our son is in his first year of college at Penn State. He is finding that his faith can be challenged. But he's also learning to stand up for Jesus Christ in a public way. It's a growing experience, though I know it isn't easy.

Let's work on your question. My first thought is that there really isn't any difference between believing something and knowing something. "Believe" and "know" are synonymous terms. However, I think I know what he's getting at.

Basically, he's asking what the difference is between your faith (what you believe) versus objective fact (what you know). In other words, what are your religious views, and how do they coincide with or run contrary to scientific fact. Am I sort of on the right track?

We live in a day and age in which truth is coming to be viewed as relative--particularly the truth of one's religious beliefs. Modern-day "intellectuals" want us to believe that there are two types of truth: 1) Scientific, objective, factual truth that is objective and cannot be denied; and 2) Subjective truth, relative truth, "moldable" truth that can be bent and twisted to one's preference. It's the logical fallacy that we all have a right to believe what we want where it comes to religion, and that no one has the right to tell someone else he is wrong.

Along with this concept is the myth that religion and science are mutually exclusive. Some "scientists" claim that they have a corner on truth, and they hide behind their credentials while holding up their own personal interpretation of the facts. Meanwhile, they relegate religious truth to the realm of subjective personal beliefs that have little if anything to do with actual facts.

Here's the problem with that theory. There's only one kind of truth, and that is objective, absolute facts. Something is either true or it isn't. Two plus two will always equal four, whether I choose to believe it or not. Gravity will always pull an object to the ground, even if one refuses to accept the reality of gravity. It was once thought that the earth was flat. Some very reputable scientists of that day were certain of it. This did not change the TRUTH of the matter--that the earth is round.

Our goal, no matter what the subject, should be to pursue the truth. We gather facts, evaluate, and come to logical conclusions. We should not try to manipulate the truth. Rather, we should be willing to accept it.

The problem comes when we try to INTERPRET those facts. Different people can come to logical conclusions. Differnt people can choose to believe different things in light of those facts. We choose to believe what we want, whether or not that belief actually concides with the facts.

This is not OK. It's understandable, knowing that we're fallible human beings with various bents and biases. But our goal should be an ongoing quest for the pure truth.

Now let's look at religious beliefs. Let's consider the belief that there is a God, that there is one God named Jehovah, that He created the universe in six days, that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the perfect God-man, that He arose from the dead three days after He was buried. Some people would call these religious "beliefs" with the idea that they are just notions some people choose to embrace.

However, these are not simply subjective notions. They are facts. And there is an overwhelming body of evidence to support these facts. God doesn't throw out isolated ideas and then expect us to believe them just because He says so. No, he gives us a TON of irrefutable evidence to back it up.

Faith, then, implies a choice to accept these facts based on solid evidence. It involves trusting God and taking Him at His Word. This is not blind faith, a leap into the darkness. No, it's based on facts.

I Corinthians 2:6-16 tells us, interestingly, that the unsaved person cannot understand or accept the irrefutable facts about God that are staring them in the face ... not without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. This is why some seem to totally abandon all logic when it comes to facts about God. They just don't get it. But it isn't because the evidence isn't there. It's because they choose to believe something different.

To demonstrate that the fundamental beliefs of evangelical Christianity are founded on solid, irrefutable facts, there is a science devoted to the scientific approach of research, fact-gathering, and logical reasoning to reveal the unquestionable evidence behind these facts. It's called Apologetics.

If you're interested in reading some really interesting books dealing with Apologetics, read any of Lee Strobel's books, such as The Case for Christ (see http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/03102093...), or Josh McDowell's material (see http://www.josh.org/apologetics/).

Does any of this help? Please feel free to write back to me. I would love to get your feedback, see if we're on the same track, and discuss further. This is an important topic.

Blessings, little sister.

Scott