How Do You Know?

[AJG]

This is the question one should always be ready to ask a Christian about what he believes.  How do you know?  Don't get off on a tangent about sin or evolution or free will.  Get to the heart of the matter.  How do you know that what you believe is true?  Don't let him off the hook.

 

Inevitably, the Christian will admit that his view is a matter of faith.  At that point, he's toast because faith is nothing more than hope without empirical evidence.  It says so in the Bible itself:

 

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."  Hebrews 11:1

 

Science, on the other hand, provides a method for determining what is true given what can be observed and detected, not what is hoped for based on what cannot be observed or detected.  Make sure you hammer this point home.  According to the Bible itself, faith is hope without observable evidence.  Use scripture to point out why faith is a poor method to determine what is true.

 

When I was a Christian and taught Bible studies for many years, I always tried to find a way to make this verse seem better than it actually is.  I tried to find a way to make faith more than just hope without evidence.  But the Christian can't do that.  The Bible's definition of faith is just hoping for something to true.  I think even a Christian, if he is honest, will admit that that is a potentially flawed way to discern fact from fantasy.

 

Science has centuries of proven results that have measurably improved humanity.  Religion has done no such thing.  One way or knowing has resulted in medicine, technology and explanations about how the world works.  The other way of "knowing" is just hope without evidence.  It's right there in the holy book.

[sdelsolray]

Note how the Biblical definition of "faith" is not falsifiable by others.  It is personal only.  How convenient.  Yes, religious faith is wishful thinking, and it acts as conviction of the same faithful adherent's wishful thinking.  Quite circular.

 

Still, many theists insist that they do have evidence supporting their faith.  And, of course, the word "faith" has other definitions, one of which is trust (presumably based on relevant evidence or historical experience with the natural world).  For example, I trust that my car will start in the morning.  I base this on relevant empirical evidence and relevant historical experience in the natural world, such as (i) the car has always started in the past, (ii) it's not very cold outside and (iii) the battery was recently replaced.  Stating, "I have faith that may car will start in the morning" is based on quality evidence and historical experience and is not based on wishful thinking.  What theists do is confuse these two different definitions of the word "faith", i.e., the religious definition (belief without evidence, aka wishful thinking) and the secular definition (trust based on actual evidence and/or prior experience).

 

Another layer of the onion deals with the fact that theists do have evidence which they claim supports their beliefs.  They have the Bible, they have personal experiences and they have a laundry list of logical fallacies (such as others agreeing with them, or it's too complicated thus goddidit).  To that I say the quality, relevance and credibility of the evidence must be considered.  For example, any claim that, "Christianity is true because a billion people believe it." is not quality or credible evidence because it is a logical fallacy.  Nevertheless, theists use this frequently.  This is because they do not apply rational thinking to their religious beliefs.  Their use of the Bible as evidence is often quite comical.  Frequently utilizing the circular reasoning (aka begging the question) fallacy, I often hear theists say, "My God exists because the Bible says so".

 

A slight nitpick:  Science proves nothing, at least insofar as the definitions of "proof" or "prove" goes.  The scientific method is a process which allows for conclusions to be drawn from particular evidence using inductive reasoning (not deductive reasoning).  As such, the conclusions are always tentative, always falsifiable and always subject to change, modification or outright rejection.  Thus, for example, even though biological evolution is a fact, the Biological Theory of Evolution is simply the best set of explanations for the relevant empirical data which is subject to change, modification or rejection in the future (based on additional relevant empirical data).

[MerryG]

Ahead of you on this one, AJG! When someone wants to try and convert me, if I engage at all I always tell them, "I'm more interested in HOW you believe -- what facts and chains of logic bring you to your beliefs -- than I am in WHAT you believe. If your 'how' makes sense, I'll listen to your 'what.' Otherwise, you got nothin' for me."

[RipVanWinkle]

Is Hebrews the only book in the bible that provides a definition of faith?  I always found it interesting that in Corinthians 13 Paul says, "And now abides faith, hope and charity, but the greatest of these is charity." I understand that charity means love. If that's true, then how can faith trump love as the sole method of salvation? Why would love not be the key to heaven? How could faith get one to heaven when love fails if love is greater than faith? Can one be full of love and go to hell because he doesn't have enough faith? Or could faith get one to heaven if he has no love? How then can love be rated by god greater than faith if you aren't forgiven no matter how much love one has for god, jesus and for one's neighbors?   bill

[sdelsolray]

W7D:

 

Religious faith and love are not necessarily tied at the hip, despite Christian dogmatic claims to the contrary.  A skeptical human, who rejects all forms of belief without evidence, can experience and create love without handicap.

[xtify]

Is Hebrews the only book in the bible that provides a definition of faith?  I always found it interesting that in Corinthians 13 Paul says, "And now abides faith, hope and charity, but the greatest of these is charity." I understand that charity means love. If that's true, then how can faith trump love as the sole method of salvation? Why would love not be the key to heaven? How could faith get one to heaven when love fails if love is greater than faith? Can one be full of love and go to hell because he doesn't have enough faith? Or could faith get one to heaven if he has no love? How then can love be rated by god greater than faith if you aren't forgiven no matter how much love one has for god, jesus and for one's neighbors?   bill

 

That's an interesting point, Bill.  I never noticed that before.  What a confusing book!

[Roz]

Tried this question many times, and all they see is an opening to "share their faith and testimony."

 

Them:  I know because x y z blah blah

Me:  I've heard this before, you know I used to believe it

Them:  God wants you to hear it again, he loves you

Me:  Doesn't he love the muslims, the jews, the hindus, and everyone else?

Them:  Yes

Me:  Then how do you know you're right and they're wrong?  For example, how do you know the world was created in 6 days?

Them:  You know the story, god made it

Me:  You're using the bible to prove the bible, no

Them:  You just won't listen, here, I'll share god's wonderful evidence of his intelligent design.  It's so obvious

 

The muslims use the same damn tactic.  Discredit science to where they can comfortably say "it's just faith like religion."  Or they elevate their religion with "teach the controversy" and "let children learn ALL the science."

 

This is why I hit them with being willing to rape and kill for god.  This is why I hit them on their morality.  I used to dodge scientific arguments like the professional apologists, then counter with "if there's no god, then there's no objective morality."  Bullshit, I knew I was dodging questions I couldn't answer. 

[Aggie]

Is Hebrews the only book in the bible that provides a definition of faith?  I always found it interesting that in Corinthians 13 Paul says, "And now abides faith, hope and charity, but the greatest of these is charity." I understand that charity means love. If that's true, then how can faith trump love as the sole method of salvation? Why would love not be the key to heaven? How could faith get one to heaven when love fails if love is greater than faith? Can one be full of love and go to hell because he doesn't have enough faith? Or could faith get one to heaven if he has no love? How then can love be rated by god greater than faith if you aren't forgiven no matter how much love one has for god, jesus and for one's neighbors?   bill

 

Bill, that's actually a Catholic apologetic against "faith alone" theology.  If you have faith and not love, your faith is worth nothing (etc.)

 

I read an interesting article once about how Paul may not have written 1 Cor 13.  It does seem a little disjointed where it's placed and it's far more profound than the rest of the letter IMO-- in part because of its denigration of faith in comparison to love.  

 

It also would suggest that God is not love on many, many occasions in holy writ.   Relatedly, have you seen this nonstampcollector vid?  

   

[Aggie]

This is the question one should always be ready to ask a Christian about what he believes.  How do you know?  Don't get off on a tangent about sin or evolution or free will.  Get to the heart of the matter.  How do you know that what you believe is true?  Don't let him off the hook.

 

Inevitably, the Christian will admit that his view is a matter of faith.  At that point, he's toast because faith is nothing more than hope without empirical evidence.  It says so in the Bible itself:

 

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."  Hebrews 11:1

 

Science, on the other hand, provides a method for determining what is true given what can be observed and detected, not what is hoped for based on what cannot be observed or detected.  Make sure you hammer this point home.  According to the Bible itself, faith is hope without observable evidence.  Use scripture to point out why faith is a poor method to determine what is true.

 

When I was a Christian and taught Bible studies for many years, I always tried to find a way to make this verse seem better than it actually is.  I tried to find a way to make faith more than just hope without evidence.  But the Christian can't do that.  The Bible's definition of faith is just hoping for something to true.  I think even a Christian, if he is honest, will admit that that is a potentially flawed way to discern fact from fantasy.

 

Science has centuries of proven results that have measurably improved humanity.  Religion has done no such thing.  One way or knowing has resulted in medicine, technology and explanations about how the world works.  The other way of "knowing" is just hope without evidence.  It's right there in the holy book.

 

AJG, good points.

 

I think it is important to direct the conversation back to the flaws of Christian metaphysics.  Skepticism should only be about believing what is most likely-- i.e., disbelieving the improbable.  I think non-believers make a critical error many times when they try to fight fundamentalist "certainties" with their own "certain" doubts.  People are not omniscient and lack perfect judgment.  A fundamentalist can always show that a skeptic is not infallible and look like they're scoring "points" when they are really not.

 

How did the universe come into being?  Why is the universe so amazing?  Why is there something rather than nothing? Am I 100% sure that the Resurrection didn't happen?  These are rabbit trails, a distraction from the improbability of any of the particular fundamentalist forms of belief.

 

To the dogmatic Christian it's -- why is your brand of Christianity the best among 41,000 choices?  Why is Christianity better than the thousands of other religions?  Why do large numbers of other Christians think you're going to hell?  Why are your particular theological perspectives absent from pre-Reformation Christianity?/Why has your church changed on so many issues during the centuries?  (What was the Holy Spirit doing all that time?)  Why should people be tortured for eternity if they doubt speculative metaphysical beliefs?  Why does God's "absolute morality" allow the killing of infants, stoning, slavery, burning people alive, and the rest in the OT?  Why did God curse the human race because a mythical man ate a piece of fruit?  How do you as a fallible being know that the Bible is infallible?  That the Bible has the infallibly correct number of books?  Questions are the death of fundamentalism IMO...