How do we understand the act a Christian makes

when he says I believe?

Is this based purely on some kind of feeling

or a subjective inner conviction of heart?

Some skeptics would argue that since we don't

see directly the truth of the things we believe,

believing is fundamentally unreasonable or

an irrational thing to do.

Now to answer this question, it will help

us to turn to St. Thomas Aquinas and his explanation

of the four ways that we can respond to a

statement.

So suppose a friend shows me a newspaper article

saying that the local zookeeper is warning

everyone that a lion escaped from the zoo

last night and might be roaming our streets,

and my friend asks me whether I think this

is true.

Now I could respond, well I guess it probably

is.

I suppose the newspaper editor sent a reporter,

who did some checking on the story before

it was printed, and this kind of response

is what Aquinas calls opinion.

I affirm the statement, but with a qualification.

I think it's likely true, but I don't exclude

the possibility that it might be false.

But I also might say, well, I'd be surprised

if that article were really true.

The newspaper is probably exaggerating the

danger just to sell more papers.

Now, this kind of response is what St. Thomas

calls doubt.

I negate the proposition, but again with a

qualification.

It might be true, but I don't think it is.

Or I could say I know it is true, because

I was in my backyard last night and I saw

the lion.

This kind of response is what Aquinas calls

certain knowledge, or in Latin, scientia.

It's based either on direct first person experience

or on a valid, logical syllogism based on

certain premises.

I affirm a proposition without qualification,

because I know it to be true.

Finally, I could say I know the zookeeper,

and yes, I do believe him when he says this.

This is natural belief.

Now, it isn't yet an act of supernatural faith,

like our faith in God, but it is a reasonable

thing to do, to believe another person.

I assent to the proposition, what the person

tells me, without qualification, even though

I don't have knowledge myself about the lion

having escaped from the zoo.

Instead, I accept this as true based on the

word of another, in this case the zookeeper.

On Aquinas' account then, believing is not

principally an inner conviction, and even

less is it a feeling.

It really involves coming into contact with

a truth, coming to have the truth in our minds,

even though we haven't directly seen or verified

the proof of the statement.

This kind of belief is eminently rational,

and we all do it all the time.

Students rightly believe what scientists tell

them about the experiments that have generated

contemporary scientific conclusions.

It would be unreasonable for a chemistry student

to verify every experiment in his chemistry

textbook before accepting them.

Such truths are in principle knowable by direct

experience--that's true--but some things, even

very important things, are in principle not

knowable by direct experience.

So for example, what another person really

thinks of you, or whether another person really

loves you.

I can't truly know what you think of me unless

you tell me.
And even then, you might just be being nice.

In truth, we all believe all kinds of things

all the time.

It would be hard for us to go through life

without this kind of natural believing, so

accepting some truth, even though we don't

directly see the evidence for it, but rather

because we trust the word of another, this

is a very reasonable thing for us to do.

For readings, podcasts, and more videos like

this, go to Aquinas101.com.

While you're there, be sure to sign up for

one of our free video courses on Aquinas.

And don't forget to like and share with your

friends, because it matters what you think.