After reading the Oct. 6 letter by Nathan Treloar, I am further convinced that many people have misconceptions regarding the notion of faith. Treloar writes: “Faith, by definition, has no explanation.”

I am not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean or what dictionary Treloar uses for definitions.

The third edition of the American Heritage College Dictionary defines faith as “confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an idea, or a thing.”

Treloar’s argument seems to be: 1.) Our beliefs are based on experience. 2.) Experience is subjective. 3.) Therefore, our beliefs are subjective. It logically follows from this that religious faith is totally subjective and that one cannot give a rational defense of his or her faith. I think Treloar is leaving out something important: Our capacity to reason.

Religious faith need not be reduced to subjective experience. There are many thinkers who are professing Christians who claim their religious beliefs are rationally justifiable. William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas and Alvin Plantinga are three.

Most of the Christians I know are seeking out a rational basis for their beliefs.

I am not denying the place of faith in religious commitment. However, it seems unreasonable to go so far as to state, “It is impossible for a person of any religion to give a … reasonable explanation as to why they believe.”

In the words of Christian philosopher Norman Geisler, “Belief that’ is an intellectual matter and there are rational arguments for it. But ‘belief in’ is an existential concern that has no such objective tests for truth.”

Religious faith ultimately has to do with an act of the will, or “belief in” — placing a profound trust in the object of one’s faith, which can have a rational basis.

Tony Lombardo

Religious studies

Junior