Biblical Faith - Earnest Expedition™

Faith can be hard to define from a theoretical or intellectual perspective. Another word that comes to mind is “belief.” We are told from Christian Biblical scripture that faith is required for salvation.¹ But what does it mean to have (or otherwise somehow generate) the kind of “faith” the New Testament of the Bible speaks of? Is such “faith” mere intellectual assent to something believed to be factually true, or is it something more?

I have always been fascinated by large aircraft. Give me a clear view of a runway at a large active airport, and I could stand around gazing at planes for hours as they slowly and gracefully lift off of the ground and land. Although I have never flown on this specific model, the Airbus A380 is the largest commercial aircraft in service. Fully loaded, an A380 weighs about 1,265,000 pounds.² With my chemical engineering background (which included studies in concepts like fluid dynamics), I understand the basics of flight science including thrust, weight, lift, and drag. I think we all can agree that the weight of an A380 is considerable compared to objects we encounter daily. To fly, the A380 must have specially designed wings as well as powerful engines to create thrust and make the aircraft move forward. After a minimum speed is reached, dynamic lift initiates because, in part, the air flowing over the wings (airfoils) has a greater distance to travel than the air flowing under the wings, creating a partial vacuum. Based on this science, I intellectually assent to the idea and concept of dynamic flight of aircraft based on dynamic lift created by thrust and airfoils—even for something as large as an A380. So, why am I still mesmerized by watching these things take off and land? Because it is still amazing—the idea of something so massive gracefully lifting off and cruising up to tens of thousands of feet—regardless of the fact it can be cogently explained by scientific theory. I believe it is true. I have seen these aircraft take off and land with my own eyes. But have I demonstrated “faith” in these specific aircraft? I would argue the answer is “no.” It is not until I step onboard one of these planes and place my life in the hands of the design engineers, maintenance engineers, and pilots that I demonstrate authentic faith.

“Skin in the game”: this idiomatic term is defined in Wikipedia as “incurring risk (monetary or otherwise) by being involved in achieving a goal.”³ If someone asks whether you believe in Jesus as God’s Son and as your Savior, they are effectively asking whether you have skin in the game—the “game” being the Christian faith. How do we calculate that? Ask yourself whether you will lose something significant if Jesus is not actually who He said He is in scripture. Have you incurred risk by believing in Jesus? If so, what are you risking? How much would you lose? That gives you some idea of the extent of your faith. It is not an exact science, but I am trying to provide a somewhat practical tool to try to help you gauge your own faith. If you stand to lose quite a bit, I believe you have evidence of authentic faith. If, on the other hand, you would lose very little or nothing if it turns out that Jesus was a fraud, it may be worth some deeper self-analysis on the matter. But do not be too discouraged. Jesus said that if you have the faith of a grain of mustard seed, you can move mountains.⁴ This suggests to me that Jesus was not asking us to be some new comic book character named “super-faith-man” with a giant cross on our chests. He is just asking that we bring something that is authentic—something that causes us to incur some risk by casting our lot with Him.

Some people are uncomfortable with the concept of “faith,” particularly as it relates to the context of Christianity. Many such people–the skeptics–associate “faith” with the concept of a “leap of blind [or semi-blind] faith” made by someone based on little or no evidence.⁵ As a curious card-carrying skeptic myself, I totally get it. As mentioned above, with a chemical engineering background and a legal background as a patent attorney, no judgment here for those who start any process or endeavor with serious doubts. However, the conclusions I have drawn for myself in my own life are not based on blind faith. Quite the contrary. The conclusions I have made are based on what I believe to be compelling evidence based on first principles and scientific reasoning.

I have had conversations with skeptical-minded people who indicate they prefer “science” over “religion” (which signals a false dilemma/dichotomy fallacy because of a false presupposition that the two categories are mutually exclusive or otherwise incompatible). In such conversations, such persons say they prefer an (implicitly positively framed) “open-minded” approach versus a (implicitly negatively framed) “close-minded” religious mentality. It is normally at that point in such conversations when I am pleased to discuss the scientific method in detail, which is described as “an empirical method for acquiring knowledge through careful observation, rigorous skepticism [e.g., open-mindedness], hypothesis testing, and experimental validation” wherein such “scientific inquiry includes creating a testable hypothesis through inductive reasoning, testing it through experiments and statistical analysis, and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on the results.”⁶ Here’s the kicker: the whole point of such process is to gain knowledge by starting with an open mind, establishing a hypothesis, gathering data based on said hypothesis, analyzing the data in light of said hypothesis, and drawing conclusions based on said analysis (i.e., closing or at least narrowing one’s mind based on the evidence). The more times the process is employed with consistent results on a given topic, the more reliable the conclusions become. As such, the very foundational approach of science is to take a person from an open mind to a narrowed (focused) mind by having them step out of complacency and do the work to seek knowledge, and ultimately, truth. Therefore, although some people might have a faith primarily based on personal conviction, peer pressure (societal norms), or other non-evidence-based criteria, it is incorrect to assume that all faith of all believers in the person of Jesus Christ is somehow divorced from science (as it is properly defined) and/or reliable evidence (including direct, circumstantial, physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence). The reality is that those believers that are skeptics at heart (like me and many others reading this) were persuaded to believe at least in part because of a treasure trove of evidence, not a lack of it.

To be clear, the scientific method has limitations, and one must, at some point, shift to philosophy on topics like faith in the person of Jesus Christ. However, evidence is still valid and valuable in philosophy even if the scientific method cannot be fully employed. Nonetheless, the real reason for lack of true faith by people in our world is often more about the heart than the mind–it is often more about preserving one’s own godship over his or her own life than about some generalized concept and false dichotomy of science versus religion. By default, we like to operate as our own god. Yielding to the true God means we do not get to make the rules as we go or operate autonomously with no regard for anything or anyone beyond ourselves. Humans have an amazing capacity for self-deception for the purpose of self preservation.⁷ This tendency can shift further to delusion when rational and reasonable evidence mounts, yet a person still ends up drawing false conclusions from valid and sound arguments based on such evidence.⁸

In contrast to self-deception and delusion, following and relying on data and evidence is a reasonable and sometimes counterintuitive approach. (Just ask any physicist that works in the field of quantum mechanics.) Sometimes our eyes and hearts (including our emotions and preconceived notions) deceive us. The challenge here is to stop walking around and looking at airplanes and actually board one. Scientific data will only take you to the limits of science, evidence of various types will take you further along the path of deductive reasoning and into full-on philosophy, but, at some point, faith is required. At that point, it’s not a giant leap, but rather the next step. As discussed in the previous post, you’re already placing your faith in/on something (either on purpose or by default).

If you’re on a journey that has you curious about the person of Jesus Christ and what he claimed (as recorded in reliable historical texts), a question that might come up is, “What must I do to generate true faith?” The answer might surprise you.

¹ See, e.g., Romans 3:28.

² Huber, Mark, “How Things Work: Stopping the A380,” Air & Space (August 2011).

³ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_game_(phrase) accessed February 14, 2021.

⁴ Matthew 17:20 (NIV). (actual full text: He [Jesus]replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”)

⁵ I would normally add the word “objective” here in front of the word “evidence,” but that presupposes that the concept of true objectivity exists, which, at its core, presupposes an absolute truth standard. This highlights the point that making basic core presuppositions is necessary–at least hypothetically–in developing an initial theoretical framework (hypothesis) for attempting to uncover something through investigation (experimentation) that could ultimately be concluded (after data gathering and analysis) to be defined as objective truth.

⁶ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method accessed December 7, 2025.

⁷ Bortolotti, Lisa and Matteo Mameli , “Self-Deception, Delusion and the Boundaries of Folk Psychology,” February 2012 (stating “Self-deception is thought to be a widespread phenomenon in the general (non-clinical) population.”); available at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3364711/.

⁸ Id.