01.002. Introduction

Introduction

Hebrews 11:1-40 has been one of the most inspiring chapters of faith in the Bible throughout the history of Christianity. The book of Hebrews itself is the sacred saga of God’s self-revealing of Himself as the salvation of the world through faith. The power of faith in God is indubitable. The horror of doubt is unimaginable. In My Confession, Leo Tolstoy, the Russian novelist and former atheist, confessed that it was faith in God that finally brought true meaning into the confused and crumbling structure of his life. A few years before faith had come to his aid, his life had started to seem meaningless and absurd to him, a feeling that was almost destroying him from the inside. He felt that he had no reason to either live or do the things he was doing.

…five years ago, a strange state of mind began to grow upon me: I had moments of perplexity, of a stoppage, as it were, of life, as if I did not know how I was to live, what I was to do, and I began to wander, and was a victim to low spirits…. These stoppages of life always presented themselves to me with the same questions: "Why?" and "What after?"

I was perfectly disconcerted, and knew not what to think. Another time, dwelling on the thought of how I should educate my children, I ask myself "Why?" Again, when considering by what means the well-being of the people might best be promoted, I suddenly exclaimed, "But what concern have I with it?" When I thought of the fame which my works were gaining me, I said to myself:

"Well, what if I should be more famous than Gogol, Pushkin, Shakespeare, Molière – than all the writers of the world – well, and what then?"…

I could find no reply. Such questions will not wait: they demand an immediate answer… but answer there was none.

I felt that the ground on which I stood was crumbling, that there was nothing for me to stand on, that what I had been living for was nothing, that I had no reason for living….

Tolstoy described this sense of meaninglessness as "some irresistible force" that was dragging him onward "to escape from life." Many do try to escape this situation by indulging in materialistic pleasures or pursuits. Drugs, parties, shopping, television, games, etc provide easy means for escaping the seriousness of life. However, this indulgence is not without its boredom and vexation of spirit; while the flesh is being indulged in its passions, the spirit is suffocated. After much study of this problem, Tolstoy found that it was true faith in God alone that gave him meaning in life. He said,

I remembered that I had lived only when I believed in a God. As it was before, so it was now. I had only to know God, and I lived; I had only to forget Him, not to believe in Him, and I died…. To know God and to live are one. God is life. The question that Tolstoy didn’t attempt to answer was "Is there really a God?" To him, as well, as to many believers that is not the beginning point. The Swiss theologian Karl Barth said that the existence of God is not a thesis to be proved but a fact of revelation that has to be accepted by faith. The believer doesn’t believe simply that God exists: he believes in God. The confrontation with God through faith is the most real one because God Himself is the author and source of all reality. It is a matter of fact that the Bible doesn’t begin with an attempt to prove God’s existence: it begins with faith in God. But faith and truth must be properly connected or else the result would be false belief.

FAITH AND TRUTH The faith of God (faith that is particularly related to God) is the most assured, trustworthy, irrefutable, truthful, and credible fact of Biblical experience. Therefore, the psalmist calls someone who denies God as a fool (Psalms 14:1). He is a fool not just in the sense of being unintelligent but in the sense of being wicked in sin since he knowingly denies what he irrefutably knows to be the truest fact, viz. the existence of God. He is also a fool because he thinks that by stating so he can escape the penetrating eyes of God. It is like a child who covers his eyes with his hands and then thinks no one is watching him. The importance of faith as inevitable for any relation among humans and between them and the universe is evident from the fact that the Romans worshipped Faith as a goddess, honoring her with temples, altars, and sacred rites, as Augustine mentions. But this deifying of Faith desacralized it since all worldly instances of faith among humans would be referred to originating from her in the same manner that all instances of love were related to Eros or Cupid. Secondly, this deifying of Faith desacralizes faith in the sense that it finds its source and end in the goddess herself and thus is rendered powerless to be the means of relating with the infinite and true God of all creation. Obviously, this Roman worship did signify in a sense the high value of faith in human society. However, Augustine rightly censured the deifying of it as being illogical, false, and vain. He calls faith as a part of justice, which is one of the four cardinal virtues, viz. prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance; and then questions why temples and altars were dedicated to faith but not to fortitude, temperance, and prudence. Someone might answer that they need not be worshipped separately since they are worshipped in the form of the goddess Virtue. But, he asks, if they could so be worshipped in the form of Virtue (of which faith is a part but is still worshipped separately) then they could thus worship the true God also. In other words, if the Romans could worship all the different virtues as the goddess Virtue then they do not need so many deities after all. The worship of the only one God would suffice all. Thus, the deifying of faith was both irrational and meaningless. But the deifying of faith as Faith didn’t end with the Romans. It has emerged in the popular positive thinking philosophy that looks at faith as if it were a god or a deity, possessing infinite power to accomplish anything. Now positive thinking in relation to divine revelation is healthy. But positive thinking in relation to positive thinking itself is baseless. The Bible doesn’t call us to faith in Faith but to faith in the truth of God; ultimately in God.

There is a popular saying in India that if one stubbornly believes a stone to be gold, it will become gold for him. I believe this is a dangerous belief that confuses truth with imagination. For instance, if a man boarded a train that was headed towards Chennai and kept on believing strongly that it is heading towards New Delhi; will the train change its direction just for the sake of his strong faith? What about the faith of the other passengers? Obviously, here faith deprived of truth is false. On the other hand, if there is a truth and it is not believed on, that truth becomes useless to the unbeliever. Thus, faith must be combined with truth in order to be productive. Therefore, the writer of Hebrews says regarding the Israelites: "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it" (Hebrews 4:2).

Faith, obviously, then is only productive when it is faith in the truth. While faith in temporal truths (like faith in the laws of physics or in some economic theory) has only temporal value (i.e. as long as one remains in this world or as long as this world remains); faith in the truth of God has eternal value and significance.

There are many faiths in this world. That doesn’t mean that all of them are true. For when two statements contradict each other, either one or both of them are false. They can’t be true at the same time. For instance, if I say that my pen has only blue ink and someone else says that my pen has only black ink, we have run into a contradiction. For since I said that it has only blue ink, it cannot have any other color of ink. Either I or the other person is right; or both are wrong (the pen may have red ink); but both cannot be true at the same time. Similarly, there are many differences in belief about God, man, and the universe. Either one of them is true or none of them is true. This is an undeniable assumption behind all valid reasoning.

Pluralism and Exclusivity of Truth

Pluralism, or the belief that all religions are equally valid ways to God or ultimate reality, has become an attractive philosophy in our times. This is so because pluralism seems to facilitate religious toleration and peace among people of different faiths. Certainly, the rise of militant religious sects and fundamentalist movements has created more terror and pain than peace among humans. It is disheartening to see that religion has become more a trouble-making element than a spirit-healing medium in modern times. Each group or sect claims to possess the truth and this orthodox holding on to belief is what is said to generate intolerance among people.

Therefore, some have opted for pluralism as the better answer. However, pluralism fails to accord with the logical law of non-contradiction stated earlier. Two opposing beliefs cannot be equally true. However, some will say that they can be equally justifiable. That is to say, one is justified in believing certain things if his reasons for believing it are justified in his eyes. This is to reduce faith to mere subjectivity, a problem which we illustrated earlier with the example of the man on the train. Faith segregated from truth can be both useless and dangerous. The law of non-contradiction must apply to truth. Even pluralism must accept this to maintain its assertion that its claims are true (implying that views opposite to it are false). Therefore, pluralism cannot be considered to be philosophically sound.

Criteria for Truth

One cannot also absolutely state that there is no way to measure the truthfulness of religious beliefs. Of course, some philosophers known as the logical positivists held that since religious beliefs were empirically unverifiable, they were meaningless or empty of meaning and therefore signified nothing. However, this view is self-conflicting since this principle of logical positivism itself is not empirically verifiable. There must be a way to measure the truth or else truth will have no meaning. The question is what is that measuring rod?

Philosophers generally agree on a set of laws as criteria of truth like the law of internal consistency (truth must not be self-contradictory), the law of correspondence (truth must correspond to reality), the pragmatic law (truth must be successful in the end; it must work), and the law of coherence (a statement of truth must cohere with other statements of truth). For instance, it is evident that the tribal belief about the sun being a god who needs blood to rise up in the morning neither corresponds to reality nor coheres with the set of scientific discoveries (not hypotheses) known to us. Therefore, it is a false belief. Similarly, the view that God is everything and everything is God (pantheism) involves internal inconsistency since by calling everything God, not only the distinctness of God is lost but also truth as opposed to falsehood is lost to this "everything". Likewise, the view that all experience is an illusion since plurality is false and reality is one (monism) fails all the tests since it neither corresponds to experienced reality nor is internally consistent (all is one is utterance possible only if more than two exist, at least the speaker and the statement) nor does it have any pragmatic value, added to its lack of coherence with available data. Polytheistic beliefs have largely been proven as mythical, failing the correspondence and coherence tests, in addition to the difficulty involved in grounding these beliefs into some explanatory framework: pantheism and monism have been tried in India. Other religious beliefs like beliefs about man, the universe, morality, and salvation can be evaluated in this manner.

However, mere religious belief and faith in God must be distinguished from each other. While religious belief is belief in a set of doctrinal statements, faith in God is a personal commitment to and reliance on God. Religious belief can be strong and orthodox owing to one’s strong binding with the religious community and submission to such authority or feelings of communalism. However, the justification for such beliefs is never found in an encounter with the truth of God. Faith, on the other hand, has only to do with statements of belief and forms of religiosity in so far as they make the relationship with God meaningful. Faith is primarily related to God in His self-revelation. It is not mere belief that such and such statement is true but is a commitment to God by the acceptance of the truth of God. One may believe, for instance, the statement "God exists" and yet not submit to Him in faith. The expression "believe that God", therefore, is not the same as "believe God". For instance, James says "You believe that there is one God, you do well; even the demons believe and tremble" (James 2:19, MKJV; italics mine). Then again he says "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness" (James 2:23, MKJV; italics again mine). Religious beliefs about creeds and traditions, therefore, cannot amount to faith in God. Those beliefs do not imply a relationship with God. But if one has faith in God that faith revolutionizes one’s total life since it connects him to God. This is the faith which the writer of Hebrews talks about in chapter 11 and which we seek to understand. But before we do that let’s take an overview of how beliefs, truth, and reality are related to each other. This, however, will be a little tedious one to some who do not wish to bother themselves with philosophical stuff. In such a case, the reader may skip to the next section without much loss if he or she wishes to and may come back to this whenever he or she likes. THE GRID OF INTERPRETATION

All knowledge is the product of interpretation. Every interpretation is governed by pre-understanding. Pre-understanding is composed of pre-beliefs. For instance, when the islanders of Melita saw a viper curled around Paul’s hand, they said to one another, "No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, being saved from the sea, Justice has not allowed to live" (Acts 28:4). Their interpretation of the event was based on several pre-beliefs like the belief in Justice (as a god perhaps), the belief that murder is unjust, and that Justice will never absolve anyone. However, when later they found out that Paul had neither been infected nor killed by the viper, they decided that he was a god. Their conclusion followed from the implicit belief that only a god could survive a viper’s bite. These pre-beliefs formed their pre-understanding and governed their interpretation of the event. Such pre-beliefs themselves are products of earlier interpretation. A set of beliefs regarding the world, man, God, life, and morality makes a world-view. Thus, one’s world-view is the framework in which one tries to understand newer things which are soon assimilated in that world-view to modify it. The chief sources of beliefs are direct perception (sense-experience, intuition, and feeling) and verbal testimony (hearsay, literature, oral traditions, etc). The process of interpreting direct perception and verbal testimony in order to form either opinion or belief is inference. Opinion is the result of incomplete interpretation. Belief is the result of complete interpretation. Opinion is based on guesswork and speculation to fill the gap of information required to finish the process of inference. Belief is based on inference from data considered to be sufficient for the interpretation. When the process of inference is faulty, the resulting belief will be false. But given the conditions that the pre-beliefs (premises) are true and the inference faultless, the resulting belief will be true. False belief is related to unreality since what is believed is not real. True belief is related to reality. Opinion is intermediate since it is incomplete inference. True belief is known as truth.

All inference is based on reason. Reason is the logical foundation of inference or reasoning. Reason doesn’t provide the data for belief or opinion: it provides the rationally irrefutable assumptions (or rules) of inference: e.g. the law of causality, the law of calculation (quantity, number), the law of necessary relation, etc. When one tries to force reason to provide data for interpretation, the result is absurdity; because it can only provide the rules and not the data for interpretation. For instance, we all lack the empirical data (from direct perception) to infer the size of the universe. However, if one turned to reason from experience to imaginatively speculate the size of the universe, one would draw the nonsensical conclusion that the universe is neither finite nor infinite; because the mind can neither conceive an infinite universe nor a finite one. If you don’t believe me then try imagining first that the universe is finite (or has a boundary); you can’t, since the mind says there must be something or at least some empty space beyond that boundary. But then, again try imagining the universe as infinite; you can’t, since the infinite cannot be limited in any conception in order to imagine the infinite one must infinitely keep imagining it because infinity surpasses boxed imagination. But since the universe, unlike transcendent concepts or ideas, is an object of spatio-temporal sense-experience, its infinity cannot be imagined. Thus, the resultant conclusion is absurd. However, some rationalists such as the Hindu non-dualists (monist) have accepted this to be true, thus denying the reality everything we experience. Obviously, then to avoid such absurdity one must not look to reason as the source of beliefs but only as the provider of the rules of inference. Similarly, the result of illogical or irrational interpretation of empirical data leads to false conclusions. For instance, I see a little boy eating a banana; then I see a monkey eating a banana; I conclude that there is no difference between the boy and the monkey because both of them eat bananas. The conclusion is false because there is no necessary relation between the two phenomena: a banana is not a necessary relation. However, if I see smoke rising from a nearby building, I immediately infer from it that there must be fire there; because smoke and fire are causally related. Thus, experience and reason must work together to produce knowledge. However, it is also true that most of our beliefs are not based on direct experience. We learn them from our parents, friends, teachers, books, TV, movies, etc. They are secondary information. All such information is processed by the interpretive grid of the mind as it seeks to relate it to the already existing framework of beliefs. The processing of new information leads to the modification of the framework by correction, development, or strengthening of the existing knowledge. However, one’s intentionality can sometimes interfere in the right processing of the information, in which case the interpretation may lead to twisted meaning and distorted truth.

Faith and Knowledge

Obviously, one’s way of looking at life is largely determined by one’s pre-understanding. It influences one’s way of thinking. One’s framework of beliefs, or worldview, determines to a great extent one’s interpretation of reality; for reality is never taken as it is – all belief is interpreted reality since reality by itself and in itself lacks meaning. Meaning is always found in a relation of things; that relating of things is interpretation. But meaning imposed (eisogesis) is not true meaning; for instance, a man may see a man picking a candy from a store and say he was stealing it, when in fact he may be the owner of the store. Meaning discovered (exegesis) is the only true meaning. False beliefs can lead to false conclusions. For instance, to an atheistic existentialist this universe is absurd, human life is absurd, and all toil is an illogical enterprise.

However, the worldview of an atheist is itself composed of several beliefs that are the result of interpretation – mainly of secondary information (i.e. chiefly through mimesis, i.e. imitation of popular beliefs or flowing with the cultural milieu). The historical development of the atheistic cultural milieu in the Universities needs no particular reference here. It all took impetus from the Enlightenment as we know. With each new interpretation, the atheistic grid of interpretation was modified. The modifying atheistic worldview took many forms: nihilism, fascism, Marxism, evolutionism, scientism, existentialism, etc. Thus, beliefs determine interpretation until the framework itself is doubted and a revolution in the pattern of thinking is secured, as we saw what happened in Tolstoy’s life.

There are several different worldviews in the world: e.g. Hindu karmic worldview, Hindu reformed worldview, Buddhist worldview, spiritualist worldview, occult worldview, liberal worldview, Pentecostal worldview, secular worldview, MTV culture worldview, etc. Each way of looking at life is distinct in itself. Each framework has developed its own method of contextual interpretation as well. Here we see two aspects of interpretation: rational and contextual. While rational interpretation is absolute involving the laws of reason, contextual interpretation is relative, i.e. relative to the framework; for instance, the karmic interpretation of time, liberal interpretation of the Bible, etc.

Such plurality of interpretive grids makes pluralism very attractive. But pluralism, or the belief that all belief-systems are valid ways in themselves, is an interpretive grid that attempts to overrule the others without their consent. Therefore, its ruling is objected by most who deny their way as equal to the others. Test of correspondence, coherence, consistency, and pragmatic value do help to a great extent; however, their significance is overruled by particular world-views; for instance, the non-dualist view admits neither the reality of the phenomenal world nor the effability (able to be expressed in words) of ultimate reality; thus, disannulling all the above stated tests of truth. But none of the views can violate the fundamental laws of logic without violating themselves. For instance, the law of non-contradiction doesn’t exist, I at the same time deny myself the right to make such a statement since by making that statement I assume that its contradictory statement "the law of non-contradiction" exists is false. But to accept such opposites is to assume the law of non-contradiction which was being denied earlier. Thus, this law is inescapable. Even if someone said that knowledge is not mental but transcends the logical limits of the mind and so cannot be expressed in language, such assertion itself assumes the law of non-contradiction; thus, the fundamental nature of rational rules is established.

Inconsistency or incoherence within the framework due to an acquirement or realization of a particular truth can cause doubt eventually leading to a faith-crisis. This faith-crisis is helpful, if accompanied by honesty, to revolutionize one’s way of thinking. However, one may also choose to be committed to the prior belief-system and reject the truth that now presents to him by suppressing it or trying to destroy it. But when mixed with truthfulness (honesty), faith-crisis can lead to truth. Thus, doubt when accompanied by a will-to-meaning propels investigation and facilitates openness to truth.

Rationality of belief is a fundamental responsibility of man. For that determines the nature of his decisions. True faith is never irrational (i.e., in conflict with itself and in conflict with rational acceptability), though not limited by reason. Common faith, however, is quite different from the faith of God as will be seen. In fact, the faith of God is more rational (coherent to one’s framework of knowledge and convincing to the heart) than the rationality of other beliefs. That is the reason why the writer of Hebrews says that faith in God is substance and evidence; not just conjecture and interpretation THINGS TO REMEMBER:

1. To not have faith in God, the Bible says, is to be foolish not only because it is moral dishonesty but also because if one can’t believe in God then one doesn’t have any rational reason to believe in anything else.

2. Truth that is not believed in is useless; belief that is not true can be dangerous!

3. If truth was as diverse as tastes are then courts of justice, legislative bodies, and universities would go berserk as rules of logic and all speech become meaningless.

4. Faith in God necessarily requires commitment to Him.