It is also commonly heard, and taught, that science is supposed to be "understanding only on the basis of evidence." For example, if something cannot be seen, heard, touched, or felt (i.e. is not perceptible to the five senses), it is incompatible with scientific investigation. In other words, only empirical evidence is compatible with scientific investigation. Further, if something is observable, but non-repeatable (i.e. a one-time event), it is also not subject to scientific investigation, because the experiment cannot be subsequently verified by others.

But how accurate are these notions about biblical Christian faith and scientific inquiry? Simply put, they are false. It is false that biblically-defined Christian faith is a "blind faith" (i.e. "belief without evidence"), and it is false that science is "understanding only on the basis of evidence." Let's examine what makes these things so.

Science and Evidence

We shall not at this point engage in a full-scale investigation of the scientific method. Rather, at this point we need only to examine the actual role of evidence in the scientific method. As mentioned previously, one outstanding belief is that "science is understanding only on the basis of evidence." If that were true, however, science as we know it now simply would not exist. This is because none of the insights, hunches, and fortuitous chance discoveries of science could ever have occurred. The history of science and scientific discovery is full of incidents where understanding only on the basis of evidence did not occur. We call this scientific "reasoning beyond the evidence."

Here are just a few examples.  The discovery of penicillin was by chance, when a scientist found some mold growing on his bacterial cultures.  As the evidence dictated, he at first threw out the moldy plates of bacteria.  When he later just happened to retrieve some he noticed that the molds had inhibited the growth of the bacteria around them, so on a hunch he decided to investigate the molds anyway.  Thus, penicillin was discovered, but there was no “evidence-based” reasoning involved in his pulling the original spoiled experiment back out of the wash.  That was plain dumb luck, and his decision to investigate the molds anyway was just plain curiosity.  No “evidence-based reasoning there,” and we are tremendously grateful for those antibiotics today!

 The discovery of radioactivity was also by chance, when a scientist was in the midst of investigating how light causes some minerals to glow in the dark.  Afflicted by a sunless day, he stored some uranium salts in a drawer over some covered and unexposed photographic plates to await the next day of sunshine for further experiments.  But a long stretch of gloomy days ensued instead.  Then, despite a complete lack of evidence for doing so, he fetched the uranium salts and decided to develop the photographic plates anyway. He had no “scientific” reason to develop them, for there was no visible evidence at all that the photographic plates had been affected, and it must be remembered that radioactivity is not detected by the human senses. But he disregarded the lack of evidence, and chose to act “unscientifically.”  When he developed the plates, he found that they had actually been exposed by the uranium salts, through the light-proof covering.  By this, the phenomenon of radioactivity was discovered, yet the discovery would never have happened without plain dumb luck combined with a “scientifically unsupportable” hunch.

An even less “scientific” discovery involves the discovery of the chemical structure of the benzene molecule. The scientist who ultimately determined it was a ring-shaped structure of carbon did so because he had a day “vision” or reverie about a snake biting its tail and forming a ring.  Then, when he investigated whether a ring structure explained the properties of benzene, he found it did, although he did not publicly admit the inspiration for his discovery for over twenty-five years!  Here again, the crucial discovery was neither obtained by evidence nor through scientific reasoning.  It was derived from a hyper-vivid daydream of a legless reptile with a penchant for its posterior; a singular example of beneficial “circular reasoning” indeed!

There are many, many, many more examples of how science is far more complex than just interpreting evidence. Science includes curiosity, guesswork, and basic suppositions that are themselves not scientifically provable or even scientifically testable(under construction). Science is a very important way of knowing, but it is by no means an exalted one. So regardless of what some may think, or some may claim, science is not ‘understanding only on the basis of evidence.’

As for the claim that science does not address observable but non-repeatable events, a moment's thought will show this to be decidedly untrue. There are entire scientific fields built around investigating the beginnings of life and the origin of the universe, yet both these are clearly non-repeatable events. Further, forensic science deals exclusively with investigating non-repeatable phenomena, such as crimes like murder. Yet no one questions the scientific legitimacy of such investigations. Thus, there is far more to science than we think, and there is far less of it that is "scientific" than we readily admit!

Faith and Evidence

Now let’s talk about biblically-approved faith. Is the Christian faith really supposed to be ‘belief without evidence’? Is the Christian faith really supposed to be a "blind faith"? The answer is "Absolutely, positively No!" There is nothing in the Bible that supports the idea that Christian faith is supposed to be "belief without evidence." There is nothing in the Bible that supports the idea that Christian faith is supposed to be "blind faith." It is true that the New Testament teaches that Christians are to walk by faith, not by sight.¹ But "to walk by faith not by sight" simply means that we are to trust God for what is to come, on the basis of what He has already done. Blind faith would be accepting the word of a complete stranger, of sudden appearance, from an unknown land, who provides no reason to receive such trust. But God instructs us first -- to recount all that He has done, and second -- to understand Him according to what He has already revealed about Himself to us, and then, on the basis of that evidence, third -- He calls us to trust Him when He then tasks us to do something, whose end we cannot see.

God gives us evidence that we can see, then calls for obedience for what we cannot see. We walk by faith and not by sight in that we follow God’s leading even when we cannot see the end to which He is taking us. Biblical faith, therefore is hope in the unseen, it is not hope in the unknown.

In fact, you’ll find in the New Testament where the Apostle Paul explicitly confirms that we have to know what we hope in, even if we have not seen it yet with our own eyes.² In that particular case, Paul is speaking of the redemption of the body in the final resurrection, which the Bible teaches is coming, but which has not yet been seen.

So, we shall say it again, At no time in the biblical accounts does God require His people to believe without evidence. On the contrary, whenever God calls people to step out in faith, He calls them to do so on the basis of what He has already shown He has done. All throughout the Bible, one reads of such things as God saying "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." In so doing, the hearer or reader is reminded of God's activities as portrayed in Genesis. Many, many times one reads "I am the God who with mighty wonders led your fathers out of the land of Egypt," thus reminding the hearer or reader of God's activities as portrayed in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Again, one reads "I am the God who delivered your enemies into your hands," thus reminding the readers or hearers of His activities as portrayed in Deuteronomy and Joshua. God always calls us to trust Him on the basis of what He has already revealed of Himself to us. This is not "blind faith"!

The one possible exception to this would be the call of Abraham, whom the Bible describes as the father of all our faith. But when God called him to leave his ancestral home for the Promised Land, God Himself supernaturally spoke directly to Abraham, an event that is arguably evidential in nature. If a vastly more powerful and superior being started talking to you and started giving you orders, it would seem to be in your best interests to obey, regardless of how you felt about the matter! That Abraham’s faith needed to grow was evident in how he repeatedly lied to various kings about his wife Sara, by telling them she was his sister. Abraham lied about his wife because he was in fear for his life, which is hardly an act of tremendous faith. God's response was to "chew out" Abraham for both his falsity and this lack of faith. Interestingly enough, God did so through the pagan kings themselves. Eventually, Abraham grew to trust God greatly. But it is evident that the growth in Abraham's faith was at least partly because he could see God’s work in his life.

So, if biblical faith is belief with evidence, where does this then lead us? It leads us directly to the historical reliability of the Bible (under construction). In truth, the Bible itself is a vast mountain of evidence; a combination of historical and theological narratives that testify to the activity of God in human history. When Jesus would scold people for their lack of faith, it was because they were refusing to believe Him despite the evidence, and not because they were refusing to believe Him for lack of evidence. Jesus did not scold people about failing to have blind faith!

Further, the evidence Jesus referred to was not only the miracles He performed, but was also the record of evidence God provided to a religious community which had been specifically prepared by Him to receive Jesus’ message. We call this evidence the Old Testament. But if you want to hear Jesus’ attitude towards blind faith, this is what He has to say in the book of Matthew: that "if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit!"³ Where is there room for blind faith in that? There is no such room.

The false teaching of "blind faith" is one of the primary reasons there are so many problems rampant in the institutional church today. Simply put, if the shepherd is blind to the biblical truth about evidence and faith, the sheep will be ten times blind to it. If the leaders preach blind faith, the followers will be ten times susceptible to it. If the church is ruled by blind faith, it will invariably fall into the pit of unreasonable and irrational religiosity. The genuine Christian faith is NOT an unthinking faith!

In fact, blind faith leaves the church open to every false teaching, every false teacher, every false prophet, every false leader, every false pastor, and every other vicious wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing who comes around. These are those who are committed to keeping Christian minds closed, Christian mouths shut, and Christian wallets open! These are those who know the truth, and despise it anyway. And, unfortunately, the credibility of all Christians suffers at the hands of these false teachers, who try to make the Christian faith into a blind faith.

All right then, if we do not have a blind faith, but a knowing faith, this means that we have evidence-based faith. What is then the basis for our knowledge, what do we have faith in? Let’s take a look at the Bible, and its relationship to history. What does the evidence say about the reliability of the Bible? (under construction)

¹ Please see 2 Corinthians 5:7; also Romans 8:24-25 and Hebrews 11:1.

² Please see Romans 8:24-25.

³ Please see Matthew 15:14.