Faith and Evidence: Not Opposites
Is faith believing without evidence — or trusting on the basis of good reasons?
How to use this guide
This guide is built for a 45-60 minute small-group conversation about "Faith and Evidence: Not Opposites." Open with prayer, read the framing aloud, and use the questions below to surface what people actually think before you walk through the case. Aim for honest engagement over consensus.
Facilitator tips
- Read the lesson before the meeting; you do not need to be an expert, just a guide.
- Resist the urge to fill silence. The best discussions follow long pauses.
- When someone raises an objection you cannot answer, write it down and follow up next week.
- Close with a single takeaway from each member, not a doctrinal summary.
What we're studying
The idea that "faith = belief without evidence" is the single most common caricature in contemporary discourse. If Christians accept this definition, apologetics becomes pointless. If we challenge it, we discover that biblical faith has always meant something much closer to warranted trust.
The case in brief
The Greek word pistis means trust or confidence, not credulity. In the New Testament, faith is consistently grounded in what has been seen, heard, and historically attested (Luke 1:1-4; 1 John 1:1-3; 1 Cor 15:3-8). Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" — but the surrounding chapter grounds each example of faith in God's past demonstrated acts. Faith, biblically, is trust proportioned to evidence, not contrary to it. The popular "faith is pretending to know things you do not know" definition is a recent rhetorical move, not a historic definition.
Argument structure
Conclusion: Biblical faith is rational trust grounded in evidence, not a leap against evidence.
- The NT uses pistis in the sense of reasoned trust (trusting a doctor, a bridge, a testimony).
- NT authors repeatedly appeal to eyewitness evidence, historical events, and fulfilled prophecy.
- Every NT model of faith (Abraham, the disciples, Paul) is faith in someone who has given grounds to be trusted.
What if someone says...
"These are later texts that reflect the church's apologetic concerns, not Jesus' original teaching."
Even skeptical NT scholars (e.g., Bauckham on eyewitness testimony) affirm the NT's evidential posture is early and embedded. Jesus himself pointed to his works as evidence (John 10:38; Matt 11:2-6).
"Tertullian said "I believe because it is absurd.""
That is a mistranslation of a rhetorical point in De Carne Christi; Tertullian is arguing that no one would invent such a story, which makes it likelier to be true. It is a probabilistic argument, not a celebration of irrationality.
Discussion questions
- What definition of faith did you grow up with? Where did it come from?
- Is there anything else in life you trust without evidence? What evidence does your trust rest on?
- How would your conversations change if you replaced "blind faith" with "warranted trust" in your vocabulary?
- [Small group] Where in your own life does this question feel most pressing?
- [Small group] Who do you know that wrestles with this — and how could you talk with them about it this week?
Going deeper
- 1 Peter 3:15· NT Epistles
- 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (early creed)Paul of Tarsus · c. AD 53-55 · Pauline Epistles
- Warranted Christian BeliefAlvin Plantinga · 2000 · Religious epistemology
- Reasonable FaithWilliam Lane Craig · 2008 (3rd ed.) · Natural theology