A recent post on Jimmy Akin's blog mentioned the term "motive of credibility" while answering a reader's question about how and when we stop relying on reason alone and make that necessary leap of faith. He explained it as such:
What people who are questioning what they're being told by others need is a reason to believe them, or what is sometimes called a "motive of credibility." The more motives of credibility they can establish regarding the truthfulness of what they are being told, the more reason they have to accept it.
For example, if a person who was blind from birth wants to know why he should believe, on the word of someone else, that grass is green and that the sky is blue, he is asking--in essence--for a motive of credibility. He can't perceive these things for himself, but he's seeking a reason that make the claims credible.
The logical one to offer in that case would be the testimony of others. The sighted person who has just told him that grass is green and that the sky is blue might say, "Don't just take my word for it. Ask other people! They'll tell you the same thing."
While a person blind from birth could never completely rule out the possibility of a society-wide conspiracy of Santa Claus-like scale to deceive blind people about the colors of objects (or even the existence of color itself), each person he talk to who confirms that grass is green and that the sky is blue provides him one more motive of credibility to accept these facts, and at some point the volume of the motives becomes such that (if he is rational), he'll end up saying, "Okay, I can't see these colors for myself, but it's reasonable for me to believe both that color exists and that grass is green and the sky is blue."
I like this term, and the concept is one I've touched on before here when talking about evidence vs. proof, and it's also an important concept in the excellent book, The Science Before Science. When in the realm of things that are simply not provable, it is the motives of credibility that help us to still have reasonable faith that something is true. It is relying on motives of credibility, examining what one faith system says and comparing it to reality as we know it, that helps us acknowledge truth, and helps us to consider one source more reliable than another. (This is how I came to accept Catholicism, at first I checked out every last claim...after finding claim after claim that rang true once I considered it, I started to trust that the Church has the wisdom she claims.)
And that is the difference between having a reasonable faith in something, and just arbitrarily deciding to believe that the latest guru on TV is correct that it is fairies who make the earth go round. This is what atheists and agnostics miss when they compare believing in God to believing in the tooth fairy, in fact most of them would probably say that reasonable faith is quite the oxymoron. But it is they who are being unreasonable in not acknowledging the fact that we all rely on motives of credibility and probabilities of truth every day and for important and vital information, and there is nothing irrational about doing so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I totally understand and accept where you are coming from on this Stephanie. . .and you explain it very well. I think that there is certainly strength in what you say.
I certainly describe myself as a Skeptic, and to some degree that rings true, but to another extent, I think that "spiritual individualist".
For me, it comes down to a question of "who you can trust" regarding communiques from a Higher Power--Whose "message from God" am I going to trust. The choices are, to either rely on the testimony and documents of people that I neither know or trust--"Apostles, Prophets, and Church Fathers", or to trust in my own good sense and good conscience. I choose the latter, because i DO have more faith in the purity of my own motives.
Jesus, whom you believe is the Son of God, said that people should be judged by their fruits. This is the approach that I take to organized religion. "The Proof is in the Pudding" as my dear old mother used to say, and the proofs of divinity within organized religion are indeed, to me, questionable. This is not to say that the evils of religion overshadow the good (although this is arguable), but to say that there is no more consistency and singularity of focus than any OTHER man made institution.
Therefore, in my opinion, is that the only read "motive of credibility" that I can trust is my own (and even that is suspect at times). This is not to say that I certainly think that Christianity or Catholicism, or whatever is inferior to any OTHER faith system. . .they are all ways in which men attempt to understand something greater than themselves. . .but if I am going to rely on a human attempt to understand God, I will rely on me, doing the best I can, for I know that there are no ulterior motives. . .no illicit gain sought. I am an honest seeker, doing my best to understand the infinite.
For me, it comes down to a question of "who you can trust" regarding communiques from a Higher Power--Whose "message from God" am I going to trust. The choices are, to either rely on the testimony and documents of people that I neither know or trust--"Apostles, Prophets, and Church Fathers", or to trust in my own good sense and good conscience. I choose the latter, because i DO have more faith in the purity of my own motives.
Oh I absolutely understand, and I agree, that's the point of the motives of credibility, to try and figure out, "Who can I trust?" And certainly we can and should rely on ourselves...the only problem I see with relying ONLY on oneself is that this severely limits things, because one person can only know so much, there is not time enough in this world to go topic by topic and prove or disprove every last thing. I also think it's a bit incongruous to say, "I only trust myself" when it comes to religion, but not to say the same in all other areas of life. It's as if people think there are scientists and historians and philosophers and experts in every field that can be trusted, but when it comes to religion, everyone is out to get you, no one is to be trusted, so much so that it's not even worth looking at.
And again, that's not to say I think everyone should jump on a religious bandwagon without testing the waters first and comparing what they say with reality, but sometimes it feels to me like people aren't even willing to begin to consider what this or that religious institution says, merely because the institution is, in fact, religious.
Jesus, whom you believe is the Son of God, said that people should be judged by their fruits. This is the approach that I take to organized religion. "The Proof is in the Pudding" as my dear old mother used to say, and the proofs of divinity within organized religion are indeed, to me, questionable. This is not to say that the evils of religion overshadow the good (although this is arguable), but to say that there is no more consistency and singularity of focus than any OTHER man made institution.
I absolutely agree, I used the same test while trying to figure things out myself. I also found along the way that it is of utmost importance to make sure the pudding you're looking at is the real thing and not a distortion. ;-) It's also important to look at what the chef is claiming about the pudding...if I complain that this pudding is brown instead of white, I should check first to see if the chef meant for it to be brown, kwim?
In other words, I see people crying foul over certain things people within the Church have done as proof against her, as if the Church claims that when someone joins the Church they cease being human and become perfection itself. It's unfair to point to the actions of individuals within the Church to prove that the teachings of the Church are not divinely guarded, and that's what I see happening a lot of the time. As C.S. Lewis (if I remember correctly) says, the most sensible way to see if a church's teachings are true is to look at the people who actually lived the teachings (like the saints), not to look at those who disobeyed them.
And granted, when a Church claims infallibility, it is absolutely necessary to check out that claim! But people often misinterpret that as a claim of impeccability, and again point to such things as the Inquisition and the Crusades (which, while I will not say were completely ok, have certainly been blown out of proportion and scrutinized out of their proper historical context) as proof that there's no way the *teachings* could be correct or divinely guarded. The more I think about it the less sense it makes to me, again, it just looks to me like saying "But the pudding is brown, not white!" when in fact no one said it would be white.
Anyway, sorry to blab on about that...it's just been floating around in my head for a bit!
I am an honest seeker, doing my best to understand the infinite.
And that, I wholeheartedly believe!
But...but...you mean it **isn't** fairies?!?
::sniffle::
(hee!)
Thomas, may God guide you in your search, and may you find the truth (and recognize it and be convinced of it when you do).
Not only was the original post great, but the follow-up to Thomas was great!
Post a Comment