Is Faith Just Wishful Thinking? | Faith and Reason with John Lennox

0:03[Music]

0:06We can never be 100% secure of anything,

0:10but that is what life is like. We can be

0:14sure enough to commit

0:18[Music]

0:34Hi there guys. My name is Tom Cousins

0:35and this is Professor John Lennox and

0:38welcome to The Best of John Lennox, a

0:40top hits album of John's most impactful

0:42messages from decades worth of teaching,

0:44debates, and writing on the most

0:46pressing issues of our time. Today we're

0:48looking at the subject of faith and

0:50reason. And John, I'd love to start by

0:52asking you to introduce yourself,

0:53please. I am a retired professor of

0:55mathematics at Oxford and I'm also a

0:59retired fellow in mathematics and

1:01philosophy of science from Green

1:02Templeton College and I've been

1:05interested in faith and reason for as

1:07long as I can remember.

1:08>> Thank you John. I I think when we come

1:10to this question of faith and reason uh

1:12we often find the word faith a difficult

1:15one to understand given that we

1:17generally associate faith with religion

1:19but I understand your opinion is that

1:21faith and religion are not necessarily

1:24the same thing

1:25>> it's not my opinion it's just the simple

1:27fact that faith has more than one

1:29meaning and that leads to confusion but

1:31the meanings are quite simple the first

1:34meaning is religion like the Christian

1:37faith the Muslim faith the Jewish faith

1:40where it means the things to be

1:42believed.

1:44The second use of the word faith is

1:47subjective. My faith, your faith, and

1:50that is your trust in something. Your

1:53faith in England to win the World Cup or

1:56something like this, your trust for your

1:59wife or a friend, your faith in the

2:03stock market, all those kind of things.

2:06So that you've got two very clear

2:08meanings and they often get confused and

2:10we need to ask which one are we talking

2:12about. First of all shorthand for

2:15religion. Secondly for the exercise of

2:20trust, commitment, faith, belief,

2:23they're all essentially equivalent that

2:25we exercise every day. You and I are

2:29sitting at this table. We have faith. We

2:32trust that the chairs are not going to

2:34collapse and let us drop in the ground.

2:36So faith is a very common thing and

2:39actually that use of it derives from the

2:43Latin word fedes which from which we get

2:46fidelity and so on. So the idea of trust

2:49is absolutely fundamental to it.

2:51>> Thank you John. I'd love to hear the

2:53story of why you've become so interested

2:55in this particular subject. Well, I was

2:58first interested in the faith as

3:02religion in that sense because I found

3:05myself in a family where my parents had

3:07a very strong commitment uh not only to

3:11the usefulness but to the truth of

3:12Christianity. So I was brought up in an

3:15environment where I could see they had a

3:18worldview that they trusted that they

3:21believed in and that actually made a

3:24profound difference to their life. And

3:26it was I was very young when I first

3:29having seen all that and examined it as

3:32best as I could. I came to trusting

3:36Christ by making the step of commitment

3:39because I was brought up to see from the

3:42New Testament that although we're all

3:44creatures of God uh by our birth, we're

3:47not all children of God, you have to

3:49become a child of God by trusting Christ

3:54as savior and lord. And I did that at a

3:56very early age. And of course that whole

4:00conviction began to grow because I could

4:04see early on that my parents had reasons

4:07for their belief, their faith. And it

4:12doesn't take more than a moment's

4:13reflection to realize that faith or

4:16commitment that isn't evidence-based can

4:19be very dangerous.

4:21That's what we call blind faith. But the

4:25confusion comes when you get people like

4:28the so-called new atheists who are old

4:30now uh telling us that faith is only a

4:35religious word and it means believing

4:37where there's no evidence. I want to say

4:39faith is a normal word and you need to

4:43be very wary of it if it's not based on

4:46evidence. If you go to your bank manager

4:48to get a mortgage and say to him just

4:51believe me he won't. you have to show

4:54him evidence that you've got collateral

4:57to support the mortgage. So, we're well

4:59used to the concept of evidence-based

5:02trust. The problem is in the world of

5:06science, I find many of my colleagues

5:09just cannot see this because use of the

5:13word faith, they're totally allergic to

5:15it because they think it's purely a

5:17religious concept. But it isn't. It's an

5:20ordinary concept. And as we go on, we'll

5:23see that it is essential to science.

5:25>> You mentioned that you had a conversion

5:28experience or you you made the decision

5:30to have faith in God at an early age.

5:33Can you describe more to me about that

5:34process?

5:35>> Well, it was that I grew up and my

5:39parents taught me the content of the

5:42Christian faith. That is the objective

5:44side. I could see that they not only

5:49knew the content, they trusted the

5:52Christ about whom the contents were. And

5:55that was a personal relationship. And I

5:57could see that was very real in them.

5:59And so I responded myself.

6:03It wasn't that I got converted from some

6:07deep life of syndicated crime at the age

6:10of seven. It was that at that kind of

6:14early age I was responding and believing

6:19the things there is a sense looking back

6:21in which I intuitively knew them to be

6:24true. That's a good start but it's not

6:26enough. Just as in the family I could

6:31sense my parents loved me. It would have

6:34been quite difficult to pin down exactly

6:36what the evidence was but I understood

6:39that very clearly. And so I trusted

6:42them. I had faith in them. And

6:44therefore, by extension, I tended to

6:46have faith in what they believed. Now,

6:49of course, that isn't enough when you

6:51become an adult. You need to check it,

6:53so to speak, externally so that you know

6:56that you have firm grounds for your

6:59commitment because it's a huge

7:02commitment to a a world view like that.

7:05Moving on to your later career, have you

7:06ever found uh that your commitment to

7:08both faith and reason is difficult to

7:11reconcile as a scientist and a

7:14mathematician?

7:15>> Not in the slightest because they're two

7:17extremely different things. You see, the

7:19only way people put faith in opposition

7:23to reason is when they define it as a

7:27religious word that is trusting

7:31something without evidence. In other

7:32words, without any reason. What I'm

7:35saying is faith is only as valid as the

7:39reasons which support it. Now let's

7:41think about it. Reason, we use reason

7:45and argument to establish truth. So a

7:50faith claim would be that Jesus is the

7:54son of God or that he rose from the

7:56dead. Well, now how do we establish

7:58that? Well, the main organ of

8:00establishing it is using our reason on

8:04the evidence and we build up uh studying

8:08the historical evidence and the

8:10existential evidence, the evidence of

8:13our experience until we come to a stage

8:17where we commit ourselves and take that

8:21step of faith. But it doesn't exclude

8:23reason. And they're not the same. You

8:25see, many people know that cigarette

8:29smoking causes lung cancer. They see the

8:32facts, but they don't commit themselves

8:34to it. They keep smoking. And that's a

8:37very clear example o of the difference.

8:40So, we're talking about I think it's

8:43Lewis talked about the organ of reason

8:46that it's the reason that makes the

8:50faith commitment meaningful and valid.

8:54Faith is justified both by reason and a

8:57second thing by experience.

8:59>> So when considering say the evidence for

9:02the bodily resurrection of Jesus, what

9:05are the categories of evidence you would

9:07consider? Pascal for instance talks

9:10about reason, experience, and tradition

9:13is forming a coherent.

9:15>> That's right. And and that that's a

9:17perfectly reasonable or rational

9:19approach to the whole thing. There are

9:21different categories and they start with

9:24the fact that this is a claim about

9:26something that happened in history. So

9:29we've got to apply to it the kind of

9:31reasoning that is appropriate to

9:34historical investigation. I say that

9:36because as a scientist people often

9:39think that the only valid sort of reason

9:42is the kind of inductive reasoning that

9:45you do when you conduct an experiment

9:47which is repeatable. But you can't say,

9:50well, we want to know about the

9:52resurrection of Jesus, so we'll go and

9:54repeat it. You can't do that. It's just

9:57like Inspector Morse and Puyro and all

9:59these kind of things. So, the body is

10:02lying in the study with a stab wound.

10:06Now, it would be absurd for Inspector

10:08Morse to say, "Well, we'll just rerun

10:10this and we'll see who did it." You

10:13can't use inductive reasoning. You can't

10:15repeat it. What you use is what's called

10:18abductive reasoning. That is much better

10:21phrase, I think, inference to the best

10:24explanation. It doesn't have the same

10:27authority.

10:28It's reason of course, but it doesn't

10:30have the same authority as inductive

10:32reasoning. But we mustn't make the

10:34mistake of thinking it can't be

10:37watertight enough to commit yourself to

10:39it. You see, there are so many things

10:42that we cannot repeat. and we do commit

10:46themselves to them. Now, they don't

10:49always have a big effect on our lives,

10:51at least not directly. The fact that

10:54that that Caesar invaded Britain or that

10:58King Harold came in 1066.

11:01We believe those things to be true

11:03because we've sufficient historical

11:05evidence. They don't make huge claims on

11:07us except in the background culture

11:11which we can forget about these

11:13purposes. But the bigger the claim, the

11:16more evidence, the more rational

11:18evidence you want. So with something

11:20like the resurrection of Jesus from the

11:23dead, you want to see right, what can we

11:27reason on? Well, first of all, there's

11:30the claim. Does it make sense? Do the

11:34documents actually carry any level of

11:37authenticity in which we find the record

11:40of the resurrection? And there we can

11:42begin to check again historically, but

11:45we can find because we got many

11:48brilliant ancient historians around. And

11:51once we begin to do that, we discover

11:53Luke has been checked out as an

11:55absolutely brilliant ancient historian

11:58and all the details of the things that

12:01are easily checkable. Place names, names

12:04of city officials, nautical terms, terms

12:08for winds, all this kind of thing. they

12:10check out perfectly and so that gives

12:13you an app priori reason ground for

12:17trusting what Luke says and so that

12:20builds up now we could go into more and

12:22more details that's the level that you

12:26get from history but then there's

12:30argument that is let's take an example

12:33of moral reasoning on the resurrection

12:36of Jesus the people that claim he had

12:39risen from the dead were the early

12:41disciples. They went on to live

12:44exemplary lives and they died

12:47for their faith that Jesus rose from the

12:50dead. Now many people say they uh made

12:54the story up and so on so that they knew

12:56it was a lie. That is morally unlikely,

13:00very unlikely for people to give their

13:03lives for a lie. Although some people

13:05do. uh they'll fly planes into tall

13:08buildings if they're sufficiently

13:10convinced that it'll get them into

13:12paradise. But actually that wasn't true.

13:14So we need to push into this really hard

13:19at the historical level. We build up an

13:22impression and then we ask another

13:26logical thing which is evidently to do

13:30with reason and that is this. If this

13:32claim is true, does it have any

13:35consequences

13:37that we can actually get to grips with

13:40existentially right now? And the answer

13:43is it does. Christ claims that because

13:45he's risen from the dead, he can offer

13:47people salvation and he can transform

13:50their lives. Now I've lived a long time

13:53and when I see as I've often done meet a

13:57student say who's maybe at the end of

14:00their tether they're uh hooked on

14:03narcotics their relationships are in a

14:05total mess and all this kind of thing

14:07and then I meet them six months later

14:09and they're radiant and I say what's

14:12happened to you and they may put it

14:14different ways they may say something

14:15like well I became a Christian I was

14:17born again I met Jesus but when you see

14:20that again and again you add two and two

14:22and you get four. That this business of

14:25trusting Jesus has an existential effect

14:28and it's a very powerful and positive

14:30effect. So that gives you a reason

14:34another reason to trust it to have faith

14:37in it for yourself.

14:39>> So John, I'd love to hear about your

14:41thoughts around inductive and abductive

14:43reasoning. Are they distinct categories

14:46or are there is there a hierarchy of

14:48which is superior?

14:50>> They are essentially distinct

14:52categories. The one is saying if you do

14:54this experiment you'd get that result

14:55and we can repeat it all the time. So

14:58it's a pretty sure conclusion. The other

15:01is inference the best explanation. If A

15:05then b you see b then that's a good

15:07reason for believing A and so on. Now

15:11that's not as secure

15:13as

15:15inductive reasoning. But we mustn't make

15:18the mistake that it cannot be sure

15:21enough. Let's come to a related matter

15:24where people are very confused and that

15:26is what do we mean by proof to establish

15:29something. Again there are two meanings

15:31of the word proof. The first is the

15:34logical mathematical sense. Start with

15:36these presuppositions or axioms. use an

15:40agreed chain of logic and you get to a

15:42secure conclusion. You only get that in

15:45mathematics in for example uklidian

15:47geometry and so on. You get it nowhere

15:50else not in physics, chemistry or any

15:52other scientific discipline. The best

15:55you can do even with inductive

15:58experimentation

16:00is to get evidence beyond reasonable

16:05doubt. Now think about it. I got on a

16:09plane not long ago to take me to the

16:11United States. There is a lot of

16:13inductive experience that goes into my

16:16being prepared to trust the plane

16:17because I've been on planes before all

16:19this kind of thing. But even that

16:22I cannot be absolutely sure that this

16:24particular plane on this particular day

16:26is going to get me to the US. But I

16:29commit my life to it. So the evidence

16:31must be pretty strong or I'm a fool. So

16:34there is a kind of hierarchy. We get

16:37evidence from different sides and

16:39leaving ma pure mathematics out. We can

16:43never be 100% secure of anything.

16:47But that is what life is like. We can be

16:51sure enough to commit. When a young man

16:54gets married or a young woman gets

16:56married, they can't know everything

16:58that's going to turn up, but they feel

17:01they know enough to commit. And it's

17:05exactly that that's involved in the

17:07basic Christian commitment and in the

17:09scientific commitment.

17:10>> As we look at this subject of faith and

17:12reason, one might be forgiven for

17:14thinking that we need to have a

17:15completely logically coherent worldview

17:18in order to say step into a Christian

17:22faith. But actually I think uh

17:25experiential reasoning is uh equally a

17:28way that many people come to faith in

17:31Christ. So for me when I was 14, uh

17:34coming to faith in Jesus was primarily

17:37about seeing God's power in a community

17:40of people who believed in the Christian

17:42message. I discovered a group of people

17:44who had very different lives, lives that

17:47look completely different. They seem to

17:48have uh joy and peace in amounts that

17:51I'd never seen as a teen. And it

17:53convinced me that there must be

17:55something potent here that I could not

17:56find elsewhere. It only became pertinent

17:58for me to think through logically

18:01whether I believed the message when uh I

18:05faced a particularly viciferous

18:07questioner at the University of

18:08Cambridge. My lecturer got me to stand

18:10up in front of my student colleagues and

18:14asked me if if and how I could believe

18:18in God when macro evolution was evident.

18:22I think the bio-engineering class must

18:23have been 40 really smart guys and girls

18:26who um all of whom were to my knowledge

18:30atheists. That really started me on this

18:32journey of thinking logically through

18:34some of the problems that I had with the

18:36Christian faith but also uh how there is

18:38so much evidence I would argue or

18:42reasonable things to think through when

18:44it comes to belief in God.

18:47>> There is a point that can be made

18:48though. You reasoned about your

18:50experience.

18:52>> Yes. This is

18:53>> it wasn't it wasn't you see it wasn't

18:56just that you left the rational side

18:59aside. You didn't you did no such thing

19:02because you expressed that you saw these

19:04people you saw the quality of your life.

19:06You're thinking about it and a

19:08reasonable explanation of it was there's

19:10a god behind it.

19:11>> Yeah. It's it's subtleness, you see. And

19:14people keep saying that they're not

19:18they're leaving reason behind when

19:19they're doing no such thing. They're

19:21reasoning about different things.

19:23They're not reasoning about a logic or a

19:26philosophical question. They're

19:28reasoning about what they've seen and

19:30experienced, but it's just as much

19:32reason. I think my point is a little bit

19:33more subtle that in fact when we talk

19:35about reason, experience and tradition

19:37in Pascal's triad say we are not saying

19:41that experience is unreasonable

19:43>> nor tradition

19:44>> nor tradition I think we haven't really

19:46touched on because tradition when you

19:48talk about historical evidence that uh

19:50appeals to

19:50>> we reason about all of these things

19:52they're actually in a different category

19:54it's not those aren't three categories

19:57>> unfortunately you could say philosophy

19:59experience and tradition but not

20:01reasoning Well, some have translated it

20:03given that it's French. Some have

20:05translated it that it's logic,

20:08experience, and tradition, which might

20:09be subtly different,

20:10>> right?

20:11>> But I wouldn't worry about it too much.

20:12>> No, I I think the question I'd really

20:14love you to explore now, John, is is one

20:16around the nature of science and faith

20:18as well. Do we need faith to conduct

20:21science? Did my lecturer need faith to

20:24conduct his science in macroevolutionary

20:26theory?

20:26>> Well, he very much did. Uh, I would want

20:29to say that with the late Sir John

20:32Pulingord who taught me at Cambridge

20:35that we're all creationists but not in

20:38the narrow sense. I'm a creationist in

20:41the sense that you have just explained.

20:43I believe in a creator.

20:45That's the primary thing. How it is done

20:49is another matter. As to whether you

20:51commit yourself to a specific view of

20:53it, that's another matter. But coming to

20:55this substantive point, it's very

20:58important. Your lecturer in Cambridge at

21:01that time didn't believe in certain

21:04aspects of what he called creationism,

21:06but he did believe in a whole lot of

21:09other things. In fact, he believed in a

21:12world view which is called atheism. Now,

21:16it's very funny. I meet again and again

21:19people that say, "But look, atheism

21:21simply means no god and doesn't entail

21:24any beliefs." That's sheer nonsense.

21:27Richard Dawkins wrote a book in which he

21:29says near the beginning um something

21:32like atheists have no faith. But the

21:35rest of the book is about what he

21:36believes. It seems to me when we use the

21:39word faith in any context, we must add

21:43in what? because otherwise people don't

21:46know whether we're talking about

21:48religion or the subjective aspect of my

21:52trust, my belief in something. Now I

21:56came to faith in science, you see, but

21:59I'd never put it that way.

22:01>> I trust in science for a number of

22:03reasons, but let me start and and really

22:07uh deal with the question as you asked

22:09it. Science involves faith at an utterly

22:12fundamental level. Let's take Pokey Hort

22:15since I mentioned him in one of his

22:16books. He said physics is powerless to

22:20explain. It's faith in the rational

22:23intelligibility of the universe. Why?

22:26Because you have to believe that the

22:28universe is rationally intelligible

22:30before you'll do any physics at all. So

22:33all of us who are scientists, we start

22:36off believing to put it as simply as

22:39possible that science can be done. Now

22:43we can ask why we believe that but it's

22:46the fact we believe science can be done.

22:48We have a faith commitment and it was

22:51that that Einstein referred to when he

22:54said I cannot imagine a genuine

22:57scientist without that faith. He wasn't

22:59talking about faith in God. He was

23:01talking about faith in his case in the

23:04fact that mathematics works. The

23:05universe is at least in part

23:07mathematically intelligible. Now this is

23:10the interesting thing that science is as

23:15much faith-based

23:17as Christianity

23:19and the same question applies.

23:22We ask what's the evidence upon which we

23:26can base our faith in Christ. What's the

23:29evidence upon which we can base our

23:31faith in science? But then science is

23:35not just one thing. It's a multitude of

23:37disciplines and a almost infinite

23:40variety of claims and you have to

23:42justify each one. It's not enough to say

23:44I have faith in science.

23:47You have to be much more specific than

23:50that. I don't have faith in all that is

23:52claimed to be science. But at that

23:55fundamental level, we have to trust. And

23:58what we have to trust is interesting. We

24:01have to actually trust our minds in

24:05order to do science. Now, belief in God

24:08is so much not against reason that it

24:12was the motor that drove the rise of

24:14modern science, which is an extremely

24:16rational endeavor. And therefore, I I

24:20want to say it's not a leap into the

24:23dark believing in God. It's a step into

24:26the light because there's rational

24:28evidence to support it. The step into

24:32the dark is to look at the evidence and

24:35say there is no God and then perhaps not

24:39realizing it, but you're embracing a

24:42very deep darkness because you now have

24:45no explanation for the rationality with

24:49which you're getting to that conclusion.

24:51CS Lewis once put it this way. He said

24:54any theory or any train of argument that

24:58proves that your or shows that you

25:02cannot depend upon your reason cannot be

25:04true because it depends on reason for

25:06stating it. So it seems to me that the

25:09light in that sense is all on the faith

25:12in God's side and very little on the

25:15other side. And the natural question to

25:18ask is why then can atheists do good

25:21science? because actually in their

25:23scientific work they depend on reason

25:25even though they've no basis for it.

25:28Christians have

25:28>> I think what we're saying in this

25:31conversation is in part that lecturer's

25:33belief consisted of a series of faith

25:35statements.

25:36>> Um he needed faith in order to do his

25:38scientific inquiry but he also needed

25:40faith in his own mind is what you're

25:42saying.

25:43>> Absolutely.

25:44>> I think things have shifted since then.

25:45So he would have been what you might

25:47consider a new atheist when we discussed

25:49after class as well discussed his views

25:51and I think today if you look at the

25:53younger generation they have quite a

25:55different set of beliefs uh they're much

25:57more open spiritually um than previous

26:00generations even in the last 10 years

26:02we've seen a major shift do you think

26:04there are any helpful ways in which we

26:05can understand this shift in culture

26:08John

26:08>> I think one of them is the bankruptcy of

26:10the new atheism because it became shrill

26:13and harsh and aggressive

26:15And that doesn't fit well with the

26:19current spirit of the age, so to speak.

26:23And people began to rebel against it.

26:26How how why do you feel so strongly

26:28about this? If there's no God, why do

26:30you get so upset? And why are you so

26:32anti- people's commitment, religious

26:35commitments and so on? I think that has

26:38worked itself out to a degree. And also

26:42what you're saying is that true today

26:44that more and more young people are

26:46seeing credible Christian lives around

26:49them. Mind you, I think it has changed

26:51in another way. If that lecture stood up

26:54and did the same thing today, he might

26:55lose his job.

26:56>> Mhm. There's a lot of thinking around

26:59spiritual experience and the place that

27:02that has in a reasonable faith. say,

27:05where do you think experience and

27:07especially spiritual experience fits in

27:10with faith and reason?

27:12>> Well, I think it fits in precisely where

27:15I've been describing it in the

27:17transformation of life in weaning people

27:20away from things that they themselves

27:21know are destructive and giving them an

27:25experience of and I didn't mention these

27:27so I will now. Christ promises to those

27:30that come to him repenting of the mess

27:33they've made of their lives and possibly

27:35the lives of others and the things they

27:37know they've done wrong and saying to

27:40God look I've made a mess here I'm sorry

27:43for this and I want to be different so I

27:45commit myself to you as the one who died

27:49for me then their experience will

27:52include a huge release from guilt now

27:57you can investigate that endlessly by

28:00just talking to Christians and the

28:02difference it makes when somebody's

28:03really in a mess and the guilt is

28:05lifted.

28:07Their conscience no longer accuses them

28:10viciously.

28:11Then they have that inner sense of peace

28:14and harmony with God and that extends to

28:17other people. And above all, perhaps

28:21they find that the things they used to

28:23do, they've got new power to resist

28:25them, overcome them, and have the energy

28:30through God's spirit to do really good

28:33things, and to help other people, and to

28:37have their lives filled with meaning.

28:38Now, all of those things relate very

28:42much to young people who sense some kind

28:44of there must be something out there,

28:46but there's a spiritual vacuum and

28:48they're looking for something.

28:49>> John, how do you think the Christian

28:51message feeds into that spiritual

28:53vacuum? When it comes to people who have

28:56big questions and maybe very uneasy,

28:59many people I meet are fed up with this

29:02materialism that's around both in the

29:05consumerism but also in the more

29:07philosophical sense that we are

29:09meaningless and eczema on the face of

29:12the universe as somebody put it years

29:14ago that we're just about as you

29:17valuable as slime mold. that kind of

29:20statement and they know in their hearts

29:23that this is false. But where are we

29:25going to get an answer? And the message

29:29that Jesus brings addresses first of all

29:32this unease that's partially guilt

29:36because when we break moral laws whether

29:40we realize it or not we are damaging

29:43ourselves and we've got a mechanism

29:45called a conscience. Now that conscience

29:47is a bit like the old alarm clock. You

29:50know, if you set it for 6:00 in the

29:54morning and you ignore it for 3 weeks,

29:56you'll not hear it anymore. So, it's

30:00connected deeply, I believe, to the way

30:02we're constituted in the image of God as

30:04moral beings. But it needs to be

30:07refreshed. And if we don't listen to it,

30:09we won't hear it. But I think many young

30:12people are hearing it. They don't like

30:15the mess they've got into. They'd like

30:17to get out of it and they want release

30:19and they want peace and they want some

30:21sort of meaningful flourishing of life.

30:24And I believe that Christianity feeds

30:27into this by giving a message that meets

30:29them where they are. Because first of

30:31all, it tells them, let's face it, guys,

30:35you've messed up. Now, what are we going

30:37to do about that? You know, you haven't

30:39got the power to put it right yourself.

30:42And the Christian message is unique,

30:44which is going to tell you straight, you

30:46can't do it anyway. But it's going to

30:49say that God has made provision and that

30:53Christ has died for you. Now, you may

30:55not understand that to begin with, but

30:57God has done something whereby he can

31:01lift the guilt that your rebellion

31:04against God and your sins against other

31:07people have caused. He has in a

31:11wonderful way taken those upon himself.

31:14And that's what happened on the cross.

31:16Just listen to my explanation before you

31:19reject it. I always say to people, it's

31:21good to listen to an explanation by a

31:25doctor before you refuse to take the

31:27medicine. And what Jesus then says is

31:31that if you accept him as Lord, he will

31:33lift that burden from you. The

31:36fact is that you will now discover that

31:39you've got new desires but also a new

31:42power to live in the way God wants you

31:46to live as he has created you to be. You

31:49become a new person and that is

31:50absolutely wonderful. And why should we

31:53not consider that message since all the

31:56others don't work? what Christ offers is

31:58utterly unique and it's reasonable in

32:02the sense that it deals with our basic

32:06problem and then it's got all these

32:08other side reasons to back it up and you

32:12can list them but the principle one I

32:14think in the end is it works

32:16>> yeah as you've said historically

32:19Christianity offers not simply a

32:21definition of what is good a vision of

32:24what is good but also the power to

32:26achieve That that's exactly right.

32:28>> I think what I'm really I'm hearing from

32:30you, John, is that in considering a

32:33reasonable faith, there are a number of

32:35categories that we should look at. The

32:37first being looking at the evidence

32:40required to believe say in the

32:42resurrection of Christ, but second

32:45looking at the experiential evidence. If

32:47what Christ says, what the Bible says is

32:50true, does it actually ring true in our

32:53lives? And I have a more general

32:55question. Is it important for us to make

32:59a decision first or is there an

33:01opportunity to taste and see that the

33:03Lord is good? How does it work?

33:04>> Well, it works differently from

33:06different people. We come to this in

33:08different ways. There's only one God and

33:10only one Christ and only one salvation.

33:13But our paths to it are very very

33:16different. And it it's person dependent.

33:19The two things happen to be

33:21simultaneously in a sense. I I saw it

33:25real in my parents. But they encouraged

33:27me to think about it and I could see

33:31therefore it occupied uh both their

33:34minds and their hearts and their lives.

33:36And of course this holistic

33:40evidence is much more powerful than just

33:42one of the evidences at a time. Perhaps

33:46it's it would be good to say which I

33:48didn't that Jesus himself

33:51expects us to trust on the basis of

33:54evidence. Now why do I say that? Because

33:57there's a leading philosopher in this

33:59country who was offered a column in the

34:05new scientist some time ago and I don't

34:08know what the title was. It was

34:10something like Jesus expects blind

34:12faith. Now this philosopher his name is

34:15AC Gring and I read this with great

34:18interest and to my utter amazement his

34:23evidence that Jesus expects blind faith

34:26was a famous story and it's connected

34:28with the resurrection of doubting Thomas

34:33who came among the other disciples. They

34:35said Jesus has risen from the dead and

34:37he didn't believe it. He was a real

34:39skeptic and he said, "Look guys, sorry

34:42you may believe this, but until I put my

34:46finger into the hole in his side where

34:47the spear penetrated his heart and put

34:51my finger into the hole in his hand

34:53where the nails nailed it across, I

34:55won't believe." And then Jesus appears

35:00and says to Thomas because you've seen

35:03you've believed but blessed meaning

35:06happy are those who have not seen and

35:10yet believe. And there says greatly

35:13there it is Jesus expects you to believe

35:16without evidence. My response to that is

35:18can the man not read? Jesus did not say

35:22blessed are those who have had no

35:25evidence and yet believe. He said

35:27blessed are those who have not seen.

35:31Seeing is only one part of evidence.

35:34There I have never actually seen Jesus

35:36but yet I believe. It's not blind faith

35:39because there's lots of other evidence.

35:41I I'm just amazed that a philosopher

35:43with of his reputation would think of

35:46seeing as the only way of finding a

35:50basis for belief then blind people could

35:53believe nothing. It is so elementary and

35:56foolish and the irony of it is supreme

35:59because the very next verses say this in

36:02John Jesus did many other signs his

36:05miracles his supernatural deeds in the

36:08presence of his disciples which are not

36:11written in this book but these are

36:13written says John that you might believe

36:18that Jesus is the Messiah the son of God

36:20and that believing you might have life

36:22in his name. In other words, immediately

36:24after the Thomas incident, John turns to

36:28address people who haven't seen by

36:31definition. So he collects the evidence,

36:34says here I've collected the evidence

36:36that you might believe, thus

36:38contradicting completely the nonsense

36:40that AC Graing wrote. So it's very

36:44important to realize that Jesus does not

36:47expect us to be blind in our faith

36:51because that's very dangerous. Let's

36:54take a simple example. All drugs,

36:57medicines are designed to heal, but if

36:59you take the wrong one for the wrong

37:01illness, you kill yourself. It's no

37:03point in saying this is medicine. I

37:05believe it'll cure me and just

37:06swallowing it. That would be foolish.

37:08John, I'd just love to ask you at the

37:10end of this exploration of faith and

37:13reason, what are the next steps that

37:15you'd suggest for someone who's

37:17exploring the Christian faith and wants

37:19to find a reasonable faith? The next

37:21steps I believe are to get involved at

37:25different levels. We cannot put our

37:27faith in something we don't know about.

37:30And so there's a absolutely fundamental

37:33is getting to know what Christianity

37:36actually says, what its claims are. And

37:39in order to do that, obviously the first

37:42thing to do is to expose yourself,

37:44particularly if you've never done so as

37:45an adult, to some of the fundamental New

37:48Testament gospels and letters and say

37:52start with the Gospel of John. But read

37:55it with an inquisitive mind because

37:58often when we read things, we remember

38:00nothing because we don't ask any

38:02questions. And we should bring our big

38:05questions to this. Does it make sense to

38:08us? Is it coherent? And all this kind of

38:11thing. The second thing I would say is

38:15get to know some Christians whom you

38:18respect and really give them a grilling

38:21as to why they believe what they believe

38:23and what difference it makes etc. And

38:26that will enable you to build up a store

38:30of knowledge of knowledge not only of

38:33facts and claims but of experiences of

38:36others which will help you to make your

38:38own decision. What I I think the

38:41important thing to emphasize at this

38:43stage is this. Don't give up and reject

38:47Christianity without being sure you've

38:50understood it. That's the important

38:52thing. I believe that God responds to

38:55the open and willing heart, which I

38:57believe many people have. That if we're

39:00honest to God, uh scripture says, "If

39:03any man wills to do God's will, he will

39:06know of the teaching." I notice how

39:08carefully that's put. It doesn't simply

39:10say if anybody wants to know. It's if

39:13any man wills to do. In other words, the

39:16intellectually honest position is not

39:18simply I want to know and then I'll

39:20think about whether I want to do

39:22anything. It's no, I'm prepared to

39:25follow evidence where it leads. And if

39:27it leads to something that I need to do,

39:30well then so be it. Remember the

39:33philosopher can't his three big

39:35questions. What can I hope for? What can

39:38I know? And what must I do?

39:42>> John, I love that. And I'd just love to

39:43add as well, taste and see that the Lord

39:46is good. There's opportunity

39:48>> um to meet with Christians and ask them

39:50your uh difficult questions and to see

39:53what transformation they might have in

39:55their own lives.

39:56>> Yeah. Let me give you a silly little

39:57analogy. If I claim to you that there's

40:00a red Ferrari sitting at the front door

40:02of this house that you can take a drive

40:04in, we could sit here and talk

40:06philosophically

40:08to the end of time. You will never know

40:11whether it's there or not unless you go

40:12and look. And what we're saying to

40:14people, go and look.

40:16>> Thank you, John. Thank you so much. And

40:19thank you all for listening. This has

40:20been the best of Professor John Lennox.

40:23Bye.

40:25>> You can talk about the ethical

40:26foundations of science, but

40:32>> you can.

40:33>> You happy with that, John?

40:34>> Yes.

40:35>> Yes. Um,

40:37you Oh, we need to No, no, no. We have

40:38an origins, life, destiny thing.

40:42>> I don't believe in wearing a shirt for

40:43more than 3 weeks at a time. Um,

40:47>> do you want a coffee, John?

40:48>> No. What we need is pure apple juice.

40:52>> And you just sip it and it's perfect.

40:54>> Ah, that's good.

40:55>> Life's good.

40:56>> Ah, that's good.

40:57>> Thanks, guys. Is that it?

41:03[Laughter]