| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
ReflectionWhat is being Questioned as a Christian by Believing in Christianity which is Based on Fact?
What was I being questioned about, thinking that the universe was important? For those who are interested in the universe to be asked about the importance of the universe is similar to those who are interested in the Bible to be asked about the importance of the Bible being true.
Why does it matter whether the Bible states facts or not?― As Bruce states, the answer would be too outspoken: "Because the Bible states facts." If this question were to ask for a definition of what orthodox Christianity is, then although it is unkind that answer would be sufficient for the moment. He points out that people who doubt not the "factuality of biblical articles" but the "importance of biblical articles being factual" think of Christianity as a "teaching", and therefore consider the veracity of the historical accounts in the Bible to be inconsequential.
However, the question "Is it an important issue whether the Bible states facts or not?" is not actually directed at the Bible or Christianity. It is a question directed to our way of life.
According to moral supremacism, which opposes profit-seeking-ism, our way of life should not be influenced by the facts of the world. For a religion that teaches that we should do good because there is a God is tantamount to teaching that if there is no God, then anything can be done. Such a teaching does not deserve to be called ethics, at least in the light of Kantian ethics.
Therefore, if Christianity is a lofty religion, it must teach, not "You should do this because the world is like this," but "You should do this no matter what the world is like." As such, it must be thought of as a religion that does not depend on the state of the world, that is, as a doctrine that is not fact-based, and therefore "whether or not Jesus actually taught it is completely immaterial."
People who hold this kind of thinking have a different value system regarding the veracity of the historical accounts of the Bible than orthodox Christians. They would say, "So what?" even if the historical accounts of the Bible were proven to be true. They are not saying that the Bible articles are lies. He is saying that it doesn't matter if it's a lie or the truth.
Based on a conviction that has existed since the Renaissance, they believe that the separation of science and religion is their basic idea, and that the correct way to have faith is not to be influenced by facts. To people who take this kind of idealistic way of being as a matter of course, anyone who cares whether the Bible is true or not seems strange. This is because living according to the facts of the world seems wrong to them.
Therefore, Bruce's question, "Is the reliability of the New Testament documents really important?" is related to the "attitude to life" behind the person asking the question, and cannot be addressed simply by presenting the central doctrine of Christianity as the "Gospel". "Some people" does not ask us what is at the heart of Christianity: doctrine or gospel, but to choose between two different ethics: idealistic ethics and factual ethics.
Hence, to those who ask this question, Christianity would have to answer as follows. It is not an answer that settles the issue, but it is an honest and accurate response that doesn't dismiss the question.
"It is important that what is written in the Bible is true. This is because before we claim that Christianity is a religion that presupposes this, we believe that living in accordance with the facts of the world is a good thing. On that basis, we believe that the world taught in the Bible is the truth of the world."
Is it a good thing to live one's life taking into account the world facts, or is it a good thing to live by ideals that are not influenced by the world facts, and why? This is the question that is asked in the "fact-based faith" of Christianity, which advocates a faith based on facts.
Then asking those who believe in the Bible about the meaning of its veracity is the same as asking those who are interested in the universe why a view of the universe is important. It is also asking whether the origin of species can be an important issue for us who exist as descendants of species.
How would I answer this question? Would I still regard the facts of the world as important and say, "Since the world is as it is, I must live according to it?" Or, as "someone" says, should we live refusing to base our view of life on such things, no matter what the world is like, whether there is a God or not, how mankind was born, or whether the articles of the Bible are true or not?
The way Kant's ethics shows us is like a person who is trying to maintain something while remaining completely alone in the absence of help anywhere in the world. I see my former self there. I understand that theologically, this is an image of a sinner who does not know God and is trying to maintain his own righteousness. However, philosophically, I understand it to be an ethical form superior to religion, which seeks to eliminate constraints from the outside world and simply pursue human conscience and honesty. Nevertheless, what about the following point?
It is certainly possible to live a life that does not depend on the world, no matter what it is. However, no one can say that he or she lives regardless of what he or she is. Kant's rigorism ethics would overlook this "finiteness" of the self. Based on the acknowledgment, Christianity tells us that "man cannot live by duty alone." The insistence on beliefs and ideals can sometimes be a sign of despair, as in the case of "the Samaritan woman". The Bible urges that us should give up our stubbornness and rather be defeated by the world and our own ways.― This may be Christianity's answer to Kantian rigorism.