The Basis of Belief
By Allen J. Dunckley, Th.D.

Every one believes something. Belief is the heart of life itself. Belief makes up the convictions we hold, the principles we live by, the ideas we have about the world around us, the confidence we have in someone or something, and even the “faith” we have in God. But what is “belief”?

Webster’s dictionary gives the following definitions for “belief”: “(1): a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing (2): something believed; especially: a tenet or body of tenets held by a group (3): conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.” These definitions raise further questions such as “How does one arrive at this state of belief? Upon what does belief stand?

Dissecting Belief: Getting to the foundation

Elements of Belief: God has equipped every human being with what psychologist call the “thought process.” This process of thinking is what sets us apart from all other created entities and it the heart of being created in God’s “own image” (Gen 1:26, 27). The writer of the Proverbs expresses this point by saying, “As he thinketh in his heart so is he,” Prov 23:7. It is this ability that sets man infinitely apart from animals. Isaiah relates the unique thought processes together in 55:8 where God say, “My thoughts are not your thoughts . . . as high as the heaven is above the earth so are My thoughts than your thoughts.” What are thoughts or what is the thought process? The complexity of this process is broken down as follows:

Epistemology: defined as one’s “basis of knowledge,” (We will discuss this key element in more detail below)
Bias: to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook to e.g. his background biases him against foreigners. Synonyms: prejudice, favor, inclination, predilection, partiality, forgone conclusion.
Presupposition(s): to suppose beforehand; to require as an antecedent in logic or fact. Synonyms: assumption, conjecture, premise, presumption
Interpretation: to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance. Synonyms: reading, construal, analysis, understanding
Conclusion: (1) a reasoned judgment: INFERENCE (2): the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises. Synonyms: Deduction, assumption, inference, supposition
Feedback: the return to the input of a system, or process. Synonyms: reaction, view, opinion

A person’s beginning mindset control’s the thought process, which in turn reinforces it. We can see how this works from a portion of Cornelius Hunter’s book, Darwin’s God: Evolution and the problem of evil. We could call this a “Tail of Two Philosophers.” After posing the question, Is it possible to explain the world without presupposing anything about the world? Hunter answers:

“Seventeenth-century philosopher Rene Descartes attempted to do this sort of thing. His first principle was to accept as true only that which he knew for certain to be true. From there he used proofs according to the laws of logic…. Descartes tried to find objective truths about the world that relied only on what he thought were provable premises, such as self-existence. “Cogito ergo sum – I think, therefore I am – was his famous starting point. From there Descartes proved the existence of God and truth without first assuming either one.

“Descartes’s approach was found to be faulty, but his quest for objective knowledge was taken up by many later thinkers. In the eighteenth century . . . David Hume used another dubious set of proofs to argue that miracles are impossible. Descartes’s theism contrasts with Hume’s skepticism, but for our purposes the similarity in their approaches is more important. Both Descartes and Hume believed that logical argument could produce ultimate truths, and not surprisingly both found truths that were remarkably similar to their own personal beliefs. Descartes the theist found God, and Hume the skeptic found materialism.” (sic) (Cornelius Hunter, Darwin’s God: Evolution and the problem of evil. (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, a division of Baker Book House Co, 2001) p.161-162).

In review, we are not advocating that having and using these elements as part of one’s individual belief system is wrong. What needs to be understood is that when dealing with someone on “belief” issues, we need to know “where he’s coming from” that is, what his bias is, and what is the epistemology upon which it rests. Then we can present focused arguments that will “cause him to think.” Every one has a bias and an epistemology upon which it is based; it is just what is the bias by which he or she is biased by? If one’s bias and epistemology rests within the boundaries of God’s revealed Truth—the Bible, then one is founded on the correct belief system.

Epistemology: understanding the leg we stand on
It is Greek in origin and defined as one’s “basis of knowledge,” from epistanai to understand, know, from epi- = on, upon, + histanai = derivative of histame = to stand, to cause to stand, e.g. to stand on, to cause to stand, STAND: i.e. it is that upon which a person is caused to stand. This is the warp and woof of one’s thinking. This is at the core one’s thought process; it is the pattern from which all other elements of thought are formed or governed. Therefore it is what causes a person to stand on in his thinking. It is the foundation (standing on) from which one develops their thoughts or forms their opinions. Synonyms: bias, prejudice, preconceived notion, preconception.

It is this epistemological base which Paul pin-points in Ephesians 3:17-18 when he says, “…that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend . . .” Rooted means to have a firm hold on the foundation; “grounded” means foundationed! That is, having the right basis for correct thoughts about Christ.

Process of belief: coming to know

It is important that we understand the person’s presuppositions that lie beneath their argument or position. This is why a scientific/philosophic interpretation of “fact” can not be totally objective. The progression goes something like this:

   Epistemology –> Bias ­–> presupposition –> interpretation –>conclusion –>feedback<–

That this thought process must be renewed is emphasized in Romans 12:1, 2 where Paul again addresses the believer’s mind set by stating that they are to be renewed in their mind; this is the way they think – the whole thought process! One’s whole thought process is corrupt through sin, the flesh, the world, and the devil. The starting point for renewal is one’s epistemology. We need to change the foundation upon which one’s thinking takes place.

Summary:
A person’s beliefs are brought about by the individual’s system of thought processes. These processes establish a person’s foundation for thought, which acts as a self cycling procedure. An epistemology is established that leads to a bias by which presuppositions are formulated that lead to how data are interpreted resulting in a conclusion which reinforces (e.g. feeds back to) their epistemology (that upon which they stand intellectually).
In summary, we are not advocating that having and using these elements as part of one’s individual belief system is wrong. What needs to be understood is that when dealing with someone on “belief” issues, we need to know “where he’s coming from” that is, what his bias is, and what is the epistemology upon which it rests. Then we can present focused arguments that will “cause him to think.” Every one has a bias and an epistemology upon which it is based; it is just what is the bias by which you are biased by? If one’s bias and epistemology rests in the boundaries of God’s revealed Truth—the bible, then one is founded on the correct belief system.

Application:
Many times when we get the opportunity to really present the gospel, we come away feeling frustrated because our “points” are so “clear” to us yet the person didn’t accept what we were trying to say. The issue is not that we were not clear; but that we were hitting the person’s thought process at the interpretation and conclusion level. He was hearing us perfectly, but he was interpreting our “points” (gospel facts) from his presuppositional perspective and arriving at a different conclusion than what we wanted or expected. As “soul-winners” we are to become equipped with the knowledge of the “times” for much of a person’s thinking stems from the “spirit of the age,” which for you and I is a post Christian perspective. Most people do posses all the right “facts” about God and Jesus and Sin; but the devil has fragmented their thinking and compartmentalized their thoughts so that they never associate their “facts” about God to Jesus; or do they associate Jesus’ death to their sin. Being “ready always to give an answer” involves, as we stated above, hitting at the person’s bias and epistemological level with questions to make them think through what they already know.