Michael A. answered • 03/16/21
College Professor for Writing, Biblical Studies, Theology, Philosophy
Great question!
"Faith" can mean many different things in Christian theology. For most laypersons, "faith" is a sort of knowing that is either parallel to or divergent from other, secular, forms of knowing (such as empiricism or rationalism). This, I am assuming, is the type of "faith" your question is addressing.
To that end, I am fairly pessimistic about the importance of faith in epistemology. Things like Biblical Archeology has largely been a failure in the attempt to "prove the Bible right." That is, when archeologists look for evidence of things like the Exodus, the Flood, the conquest of Canaan, etc., they've largely come up empty-handed. "Faith", in the sense of knowing, has taken many hits.
At the same time, the very act of research was motivated by St. Anselm's motto of "faith seeking understanding," which, loosely, says that we are often motivated to learn (epistemically or rationally) something because we first believe that thing by faith. It was the faith of the archeologists that motivated them to search for empirical evidence for their faith. That search for evidence, motivated by faith, has produced significant scientific and historical results.
But also significantly, these results created a dilemma for faith: What do you do when the thing you believed by faith does not pass the test of reason? Here, we see a fracturing of responses. On the one hand, we have people who double-down on faith; they create ad-hoc explanations, hold out hope that the proof of their faith is right around the corner, or take a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith", saying that God does not allow our faith to be confirmed externally because, by doing so, it would no longer be "faith," and, since we are "saved by faith," we would no longer be saved.
On the other hand, many people take the scientific results and use it for self-reflection and evaluation. If I believed in the Exodus as a historical event by faith, but evidence undermines that belief, then perhaps I need to reconsider my role in interpretation. Perhaps the Exodus is not true historically. Could it still be true mythically, as in it teaches us truths about ourselves, about community, about God, about suffering, about hope, etc.? Or, perhaps, after enough of these reinterpretations, we have to face the elephant in the room of biblical authority.
All of these later moves are, in my opinion, more about what the word "faith" means: it isn't a type of knowing so much as it is about a type of relationship with God: a God who is said to be "the Truth." If God is Truth, then searching for truth will lead us to God, not away. If, in that process, we find ourselves moving away from historical beliefs in the Exodus, or biblical inerrancy, or what-have-you, then so be it. Of course such an endeavor requires an incredible degree of deconstruction and self-criticism if to be done well so as not to "toss the baby with the bathwater," and it closely mirrors scientific methodology.
