« O Oriens | Main | A Dear Friend Passed Away Today »

December 21, 2012


In Monday’s post, I offered a definition of Biblical “faith” that was more akin to “trusting the best inference from the evidence” than “believing something that lacks supporting evidence”. Whenever I make this distinction, someone inevitably asks, “If you’re simply making the most reasonable inference from the evidence, what’s the need for ‘faith’ at all?”

Here's something interesting I learned this semester. It's called Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Basically, it's a mathematical theorem that Kurt Godel proved in the early 20th century, and it implies that something true is not always provable. Or, to put it another way, Godel proved that there must exist things that are true that cannot possibly have any formal proof.

This to me is about as close as I've seen to a secular, formal proof that there is such thing as faith.

So, in the end, the decision that a jury makes (based on the evidence that has been presented to them) requires them to decide and act on something for which they have less than complete knowledge. We usually think of such an action as an “act of faith”.

Oh, the smoke is thick here.

The jury is asked if the evidence shows that the defendant is probably guilty.


The standard of probability is not "100% certainly guilty"; it is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. That's it. That's all. Nothing about faith.

In life, not just in the jury box, we are forced to make decisions with incomplete information, but we are never forced to go beyond evidence.

Anyone who holds to naturalism rather than theism has taken more steps beyond the end of raw physical data than any theist has. All material testifies of its forerunner and given that all material, every bit of it, does this, we have actual, present, observable data, which is just all of science, that the material cannot self-account. Naturalism and its cousin Materialism thus necessarily extend further beyond the end of the trail called Evidence than does Theism of any sort.

Now, Faith is none of this stuff, but involves Person-Trust arenas, but that can be left to another day. I know my wife exists; but what her next act me-ward will be is a matter of Trust, or, as some call it, Faith based on the available information I already have on her own unique nature, tendencies, and preferences.

No one has ever seen, touched, measured, sniffed, tasted, weighed, or heard the uncreated, everlasting, uncaused cause that is our Free Lunch.

That it exists is self-evident.

We *know* such a thing exists.

*Knowing* here extends beyond measuring, beyond mathematics, and beyond the physical eye. Self-Evidence is evidence, at least here.

Logic is like this and extends necessarily to the end of ad infinitum and into the everlasting, at least here.

Thus the futility of agnosticism, for what this thing we call Logic can do at least here is proof enough it can do elsewhere. As it turns out, other things besides Logic can and do this sort of thing as well. Love, for instance.


Gödel's Incompleteness theorem is about "computable axiomatic systems" - not about metaphysics.



Incorrect. The specific proof is indeed about "computable axiomatic systems", but the implications go much further and indeed is as I stated. To disregard that is intellectual dishonesty.


Back it up.



RonH and these guys from either side have been at this a long time and at least in my case they're usually about seven steps out ahead sort of coaxing me in.....so use care and take small steps. At the very least it's educational ;)

As for the No-Proof-Proof there is the Self-Evident Root which just is and happens to be a Lunch of sort that is, in the fullest sense of the word, Free.

Everyone knows it's there, over there, right around the corner, just out of sight.


The point is that the (non-hung) jury makes an inference based on the evidence. But they aren't giving a class report on their inferences when they are done. They're taking an action based on that inference. Whatever their confidence in their inferences, their verdict is an action they are performing 100%. The accused won't be sent 99% to prison.

But even if the jury were 100% certain of their inference, it is still a totally separate issue whether they will act on their inference and hand down the verdict that corresponds to it.

Drawing a correct inference is understanding and assent. Giving a verdict on the basis of that inference is trust. Faith is understanding, assent and trust.

I think Warner shows an evidentialist stripe by giving too much to the power of evidence to speak brutely. Esepcially when it comes to spiritual facts.

Every kind of sense perception [aka evidence] is in need of interpretation, none of it speaks brutely enough that everyone perceives it the same--if anything could be brute fact, this would be a good canditate.

Logical proofs are more certain, so long as they aren't improperly resting upon sense perceptions, thus the failing of evedentialist apologetics.


I don't understand your last two sentences very well. Maybe that will show...

As a jury member, you vote 'guilty' if you are convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Otherwise, you are not doing as instructed.

Someday, maybe we'll go a step further in jury instructions:

There is a balance the system is implicitly aiming at - between the harm done convicting innocent people and that done acquitting guilty ones.

If we set the standard of evidence too high, we acquit a lot of guilty people.

If we set it too low, we convict a lot of the innocent.

A 'reasonable' level of doubt is at the point between the extremes where the sum of the two kinds of harm is minimized.

Of course, we can't actually do such a calculation. But I think this is the intuition that motivates the standard.


Night of Fire and Facthood:

It seems like WL is drawing a distinction which goes a bit beyond that of RonH’s here. RonH is describing the scenario where there is doubt in all directions, and in that we choose the more reasonable doubt and then move, or act, or “verdict” in that direction. It’s all about doubt: Doubt A vs Doubt B. But WL is showing that doubt or no doubt isn’t the real issue, for in this world we necessarily have incomplete know-ing and on all fronts we are exercising three things: Understand, Assent, and Verdict-ing or Act-ing. He uses the word Trust to replace the word Verdict-ing or Act-ing. That is: Trust is Motion. Trust is Acting On something prior, even doubt. He is then calling Faith the Sum Composite of those three: understand, assent, move-on-it.

Faith we know will one day end. Knowledge (as we now know it) will one day end. Love will not end. And what is Love but Motion among and between the Realest of Reals? And what is every Self asked to do but Trust? The Motion in-to or out-of the Self vs. the Other/Outer is the whole show in this Now and it seems forever and even within the uncreated we find just those Motions among Self/Other. It seems Motion will never leave us. But I think WL is accurate here in that the way he defines Faith, as an act based on what is in this world necessarily incomplete understanding followed by assent followed by motion or acting-on-it, is the sort of thing that will in fact one day end. Faith in that sense will one day end for our incomplete knowing will be replaced by the whole show. Motion however will never end. The Self is forever asked to abdicate and there just is no such thing in heaven or hell or earth as “Static”. We are never perfectly still. We are always in motion. In fact, it is impossible for any living thing to be Static. Life-less things can be static.

The only bridge to Brad B’s brute awareness is Faith in this sense. Spiritual facts, such as God’s presence in some particular moment of prayer, are brutally forceful (undeniable) and just plain brutal (one is left on one’s face in tears). The eyewitness of such will Know in the fullest sense and though he will offer you no physical evidence he will say as Dr. Alexander, “That place is more real than this place.” Every so often such Spiritual Fact-Hood breaks through, but the bridge there is not this or that bit of physical some-thing but rather it is to be forever Moving Faith-ward: Trusting. Motion. The horse must come before the cart. There are exceptions. Like Paul. Most often though such brute fact comes as a Pascalian Night of Fire.

One cannot insist on such. One must ask. And keep on ask*ing*. Never Static. That is just a spiritual fact.

Brad B,

I understand why you jab: 'an evidentialist stripe'. For example...

- Rom 8:30 (I guess there are others.)

But can you please explain what you mean by "giving too much to the power of evidence".

It sounds like you believe there is a right place to draw the line: cross the line and you are giving too much to the power of evidence.

So, where's the line?

The passage above and

- (Acts 16:30-31)

together seem, to me, to say evidence is, according to the Bible, irrelevant to salvation.

Of course you can say something like: God somehow uses the evidence you offer to reach someone.

But, this presumes God imposes a constraint on himself: Being omnipotent, He could just make the people know and make them believe, but instead he contrives this Rube Goldberg thing involving 'evidence'.

(That such a conflict would exist in a book written by human authors who are ultimately responsible for its contents is not surprising. But something else is claimed for the Bible.)

After coming to faith, via this 'evidence', the believer is to discount it.

If they don't, other Christians will admonish them - as you have.


I'm responding to the OP which makes courtroom analogy.

Guilt, in court, means you probably did it; otherwise you are innocent.

Probably, in a criminal court, means 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

So, what does that mean? If you want to put a number on it, you might choose 99% or better.

If you said 90% that would mean you accept the notion 10% of those convicted are innocent.

This seems like a lot.

If you chose 99.99%, that would mean you accept 1 in 10,000 of those convicted being innocent.

This seems better IF you keep in mind the danger of acquitting the guilty.

One one side of the analogy you have the proposition

The defendant is guilty.
on the other side
Christianity is true.
The analogy recognizes that the evangelist has the burden of evidence. Apologists often deny this or at least ignore it. They almost always avoid talking about the standard of evidence. And they never carry the criminal standard 'beyond a reasonable doubt' over.

"Otherwise, you are not doing as instructed."

Exactly. And do you think all jury members do as they are instructed.

Ever heard of jury nullification? That's where the jury knows darn well, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty, but they still declare him innocent.

There are also plenty of cases where juries really do have reasonable doubts, but they're pretty sure that he defendant is guilty, and they decide to go with what they're pretty sure of anyway and declare him guilty.

The point is that jurors have to do something other than simply make an inference. They have to trust or distrust their inference. They can trust in accordance to their instructions or against their instructions. They can trust where they have sufficient evidence. they can where they have good, but not quite sufficient evidence. They can refuse to trust even where they have overwhelming evidence.

Trusting your conclusion is a separate mental move from drawing your conclusion.

And it is that separate move that makes the difference between mere belief and faith. Or, as James puts it, between a dead and a living faith.

Suppose that one is asked to rely on the truth of X. Faith is understanding what X means. Agreeing that X is true. And finally, depending on X as a result of that.

Notice that that second term in the definition, agreement, can be given for any reason or for no reason at all. It's still faith in all events.

But you must either have or lack reasons for or against your agreement. And if you have reasons they must be sufficient or insufficient. The reasons for your agreement will determine whether the faith is blind or reasonable, whether you've made a leap of faith or not etc. They do not determine whether you have faith.

Hi RonH, answers to your questions are more complex than any one response will adequately cover, but some generic foundational biblical propositions might provide a starting point.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge"

I believe that biblical apopogetics efforts are only for believers, those who are already born again so that they beging to act like believers--their faith becomes reasonable as they know propositional truths that confirm the faith they already possess.

After being born again, the mind needs to adjust from the first principle that doesn't acknowledge God to the first principle that does know God Is.

For unbelievers, evangelism by preaching the gospel, which can use argument and evidence in certain ways is the only fruitful endeavor because without faith it will never be reasonable in the first place.

Trying to convince someone to become a believer by argument without understanding that no evidence will convince someone at an ultimate foundational level if they dont fear God--that is without an undeniable sense that God Is, evidence will not be reasonable. It doesn't cohere with their foundational proposition. Only God can change that initial disposition, and no man without the Spirit of God can understand.

The apostle Paul writes:

"1Cr 2:2For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
1Cr 2:3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,

And further,


This is not to say that evidence has no place in the evangelistic endeavor, but it has no use apart from the gospel which explains that man is in insurmountable debt, but God did something about it while the man was still an enemy.

You quote Rom. 8, I'll quote John 6:44


The word draw is greek helko meaning drag or compel by force. Men dont seek God, or come to Him unless the Spirit of God has already done the work first.

Evidentialists use a method that is unbiblical by relying on reason to convince men of a truth that they neither can nor want to see--by reason or sense perceptions[aka evidence]. I wouldn't want to leave this off without stating that God uses means to accomplish His ends, in other words, your allusion that God could've just made them to belive is without foundation. He chose the foolishness of preaching, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

Brad B,

[A response to your last comment]

I apologize for being one of those pests that doesnt read the entire discussion, thereby being at a loss for the full context. Likewise, I did not read your comment in full Brad B, but I noticed from the emboldened words an inappropriate entailment. You quote John 6:44, "No one comes to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him..." (Call this A).Then you extrapolate from this to say, "Men don't seek God...unless the Spirit of God has already done the work first" (Call this B). My problem with this is that there is no temporal commitment in the verse - from what I can see that is; I am not trained in Greek. If that is the case, then the conditional statement you present (A -> B) does not follow. It may very well be true, it's just that this given case would not qualify as support for the claim. Again I apologize for butting in on a conversation that probably has taken many turns of which I have not participated.

I realize I was a bit vague in why the temporality is key. In the consequent (B) of the reasoning you provide, temporality is imperative as to the point you are trying to convey - namely, that God acted "first". The problem is that the antecedent has no mention of temporality. So, if the point is to speak of divine action preceding man's action, which it seems that is your point, then importing temporality in the consequent issues in a nonsequitur.

Hi James, I appreciate the inquiry, I admit even at the first of my recent comment to RonH that it'd take too long to fully answer his questions and took liberty to hopefully cover a lot of ground with little space used. In the context of evidence producing belief, I was providing some support that it isn't supported by biblical reference that reasoning, argumentation, or evidence has anything to do with belief or following Jesus apart from faith.

If I'm understanding the critique aright, you're reading the quote from John apart from the rest of the conversation where RonH used the Romans 8 golden chain, a classical proof for the ordo salutis, or "order of salvation" which I think allowed me to jump from John 6:44 to my commentary that "no man seeks God" prior to God moving first. If no man can come, except God draw him, then in the order of salvation, this is at least conceptually a starting point, no the starting point. After that, it may appear that evidence is convincing, but like has been argued above, no evidence is independent of interpretation or brute enough to speak against the prior commitments that are being used to interpret the evidence. If I haven't answered your question, please respond.

Hi James, it seems that I was writing a response while you were clarifying. Thanks again for your detailed critique.

I hope your question was answered and it makes sense that I wasn't intending on making the case to RonH on John 6:44 alone, that is, without his already bringing up Rom 8:30. In my haste above, I really messed up the ordo by naming the calling the starting point when really the starting point is in God's foreknowledge but again in context of this conversation the point is that evidence doesn't produce belief, faith does and is dependant on God acting first. And again I'm, in the interest of conserving space, jumping from God's calling to His grace of faith being given [necessarily subsequent to His calling] without taking time to justify it by scripture, this is the order--if it has to be proved, it can be shown reasonably by scripture proofs.


Evidence is not enough. In fact, where tasting a Person is concerned, no amount of anything, except tasting that Person, can be enough.

There is a point at which evidence, or sign-posts, or pointers, are just not enough, for they are not themselves “the thing” but are only of value in whatever degree that they point toward something *else*. In this way we find that they actually *necessitate* that eventual turn-of-the-neck from a kind of gazing-on-them toward “That-Thing” to which they refer, and thus the eyes must turn necessarily *off* of them in order to fix on “The-Thing” toward which they simply point.

There is a point in which we leave all the evidence behind us, and beyond that point the rest is simply the Beloved whom we gaze upon. We do this every day with our Beloveds and so that we find the Knowing-Of-God to be just like this ought not frighten us or cause us to cry “Foul!” One must know where to find the Person that is one’s wife. It is not out there or in here or over in that book or here in this theory. It is in her and nowhere else. “Evidence” is nonsense once one finds oneself wrapped up in her arms. In fact, once one finds oneself there in that embrace, no amount of evidence to the contrary shall be of any significance at all. “Person” is just like that whereas “evidence” and “physical stuff” just is not. “Physical Stuff” is ultimately Out-Powered by Person. It is not out there somewhere, but rather it is through the Beloved’s eyes, inside her very Being, where she, or where Person, is found. If your goal is intellectual stimulation *alone* then you shall never take your eyes off of “physical stuff” long enough to look into your Beloved’s eyes. Person Out-Powers Stuff and within the Beloved’s embrace, and nowhere else, such is *known*.

The Spiritual experience will show Him to us, but Truth is costly, and a certain form of Trust is the bridge to that Joy which we value, and Joy truly is the serious business of Heaven. You will not find Him beneath any rock in this or that country. You will not find Him in this or that super nova. You will not find Him in this or that intellectual stimulant. You will not find Him in this or that theorem. You will not find Him in this or that manuscript or building. You will find Him in and by Spirit. The Pascalian Night of Fire will be on His terms, not yours, and physical stuff will be out-powered by Person.

The two worst things that can happen to you, RonH, are, either, you actually find Him, or, worst of all, He finds you in the middle of playing little intellectual games wherein you value Physical Stuff more than Person. Person matters more than Stuff. That is, Immaterial precedes Material and takes priority over it. As in:

“…….the shock comes at the precise moment when the thrill of "life" is communicated to us along the clue we have been following. It is always shocking to meet life where we thought we were alone. "Look out!" we cry, "It's alive." And therefore this is the very point at which so many draw back---I would have done so myself if I could---and proceed no further..... An 'impersonal' God, well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads, better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap, best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband--- that is quite another matter. There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a "real" footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (Man's search for God) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to THAT. Worse still, supposing He had found us?”

“All Joy reminds. It is never a possession, it is always a desire or something longer ago or further away or still about to be…… I saw that all my waitings and watchings for Joy, all my vain hopes to find some mental content on which I could, so to speak, lay my finger and say, "This is it," had been a futile attempt to contemplate the enjoyed. All that such wanting and waiting ever COULD find would be either an image (Asgard, the Western Garden, or what not) or a quiver in the diaphragm. I should never have to bother again about these images or sensations. I knew now that they were merely the mental track left by the passage of Joy--- not the wave but the wave's imprint in the sand. The inherent dialectic of desire itself had in a way already shown me this; for all images and sensations, if idolatrously mistaken for Joy itself, soon honestly confessed themselves inadequate. All said, in the last resort, "It is not I, I am only the reminder. Look! Look! What do I remind you of?"

“But I know now that the experience, considered as a state of my own mind, had never had the kind of importance I once gave it. It was valuable only as a pointer to something other and outer. While that other was in doubt, the pointer naturally loomed large in my thoughts. When we are lost in the woods the sight of a signpost is a great matter. He who first sees it cries, "Look!" The whole party gathers round and stares. But when we have found the road and are passing signposts every few miles, we shall not stop and stare. They will encourage us and we shall be grateful to the authority that set them up. But we shall not stop and stare, or not much; not on this road, though their pillars are of silver and their lettering of gold. "We would be at Jerusalem." (quotes of C.S. Lewis)

As I noted earlier, the bridge there is not this or that bit of physical some-thing but rather it is to be forever Moving Faith-ward: Trusting. Motion. The horse must come before the cart. There are exceptions. Like Paul. Most often though such brute fact comes as a Pascalian Night of Fire. One cannot insist on such. One must ask. And keep on ask*ing*. Never Static. That is just a spiritual fact.



Inference means drawing conclusions from premises known (or assumed) to be true. Valid inference arrives a conclusion - a proposition/statement that IS true if the premises were true. (I know: you know that.)

Bayesian inference means updating the probability of a hypothesis (e.g. 'guilty') from uncertain premises (evidence). Bayesian inference arrives at a probability of the hypothesis - not a conclusion that the hypothesis is true or false.

Best inference? Irrelevant. Move on. Nothing to see here. Our standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The 'best inference' might have a probably of 51% - even less in a crowded field.

Since a criminal case involves uncertain premises, a juror is asked first to make a Bayesian inference - to come up with a probability, based on the trial evidence, that the defendant is guilty. Call that probability PG.

Secondly, he's asked to compare PG to the court's standard, RD = beyond a reasonable doubt. Were you to put on a number on it, this might be: 99% certain of guilt .

Are you 99% or more certain that the defendant did this crime?

Thirdly: Vote Guilty if PG > RD. Otherwise, vote Not Guilty.


Note that the juror is NOT asked to 'trust' anything or take any other steps.

Try looking online for the word 'trust' (used as above) in jury instructions about reasonable doubt.

Remember that 'trust' is being used here as an apologetic euphemism for 'faith'.

Try finding faith in jury instructions.


The acts are still to understand, to assent (gut feel of 99%), and to move-on-it.

There are no calculators in the juror's hands with a Guilt button to press........

The problem is, one cannot find, or meet, or know, one's wife by knowing any pile of evidence. Even if one knows that pile of Stuff to the Nth degree. The reason is obvious to any thinking person. Physical stuff just is not her. She just is not that pile of stuff. So long as one values Physical Stuff more than Person, one can never value Person, and, should one never value Person, one just will not know Person. One must turn one's neck, and one's eyes must come off of that pile of stuff. Only then can they fall onto one's wife. Evidence merely points toward her. It is not her. And it never can be. And so it never will be.

Brad B,

Thanks for your reply.

For now, I just want you to know I'm chewing on it.


Why should I have to assume that jury instructions must include the words faith or trust in order to support the claim that following said instructions does involve faith and trust.

I'm fairly certain that the instructions won't contain the words premise or inference either. But jurors will make use of premises and inferences.

Evidence of all vectors whatsoever:


The comments to this entry are closed.