How Religious People Think

[sdelsolray]

Unreasonable? Hahaha. Only if you require empirical evidence ONLY for the existence of something. There are a lot of unreasonable beliefs, and a lot of Christians don't think logically (which really is quite tragic). To paint us all with the unreasonable brush is not a reasonable conclusion. Why does the existence of something have to be based wholly on empirical evidence?

 

I do like the premise of the thread though. Fundies = no thinking. That would answer your question about them. They don't think, they just listen and lap it all up. I was raised to be a critical thinker, as everyone should be.

At the risk of sounding patronizing (which is not my intent), I am enjoying our discussions.  And, by the way, welcome to the forum.

 

Yes, painting with a broad brush often results in painting something that should not be painted.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

Without the divinity of Jesus or the power of God, the easiest thing to say is magic, or perhaps coincidence causes such things. That's the typical response. The difficulty is that both of those things sound absurd, whether because of statistical improbability, or because magic is silly. What you end up with are two separate conclusions. 

If you are going to claim that the divinity of jesus is more statistically probable than magic or coincidence, then I'm going to need you to demonstrate the formula you are using to arrive at your probability, and show your work.  In essence, even if we assume that a god does exist, there is still no compelling reason, outside the bible (which is not evidence) to believe that jesus is that god.  So, please, at least support the claim that jesus' divinity is more statistically probable than magic.

 

Nitpick:  The Bible is evidence.  How reliable it is as evidence is another question.

 

I don't accept it as evidence as no one can authenticate its validity or veracity.

 

That goes to the credibility, reliability and admissibility of the evidence, not to whether the Bible is evidence.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

Without the divinity of Jesus or the power of God, the easiest thing to say is magic, or perhaps coincidence causes such things. That's the typical response. The difficulty is that both of those things sound absurd, whether because of statistical improbability, or because magic is silly. What you end up with are two separate conclusions. 

If you are going to claim that the divinity of jesus is more statistically probable than magic or coincidence, then I'm going to need you to demonstrate the formula you are using to arrive at your probability, and show your work.  In essence, even if we assume that a god does exist, there is still no compelling reason, outside the bible (which is not evidence) to believe that jesus is that god.  So, please, at least support the claim that jesus' divinity is more statistically probable than magic.

 

Nitpick:  The Bible is evidence.  How reliable it is as evidence is another question.

 

I don't accept it as evidence as no one can authenticate its validity or veracity.

 

That goes to the credibility, reliability and admissibility of the evidence, not to whether the Bible is evidence.

 

You win.

[Wololo]

 

 

 

 

I also want to add as a note that there should be a difference between informed faith and blind faith. Don't believe something that has absolutely no basis (or worse, has contradictions.)

I see what you attempting to distinguish, and I agree it should be done.  The word "faith" is a loaded word that has more than one definition.  Accordingly, it's use can easily cause confusion and miscommunication.  So, before adding adjectives to the word "faith", how about providing a working definition of the word "faith"?  There's the Biblical passage that is more or less a definition.  There's a few secular definitions.

 

 

Faith is something that should be better discussed. I like to use adjectives because it's a concept that has evolved over time and is based on context. Faith is simply confidence in things unseen. Blind faith is confidence in things that have no basis at all. It's believing in something where you can't 'see' anything but still believe.

 

Good.  Before we get to modifying the noun "faith" with the use of adjectives, a working definition of the word faith would be useful.  You claim the word "faith" simply means "confidence in things unseen" (your words).  That's fine.  However, that is not how the Bible defines "faith".  According to the Bible, faith is evidence of things unseen, not confidence of things unseen.  Faith itself, according to the Bible, is the substance of things hoped for, in short, wishful thinking.  It is the wishful thinking, once held as a thought by a believer, that acts as evidence (to whom is unclear) of unseen things.

 

I do agree that the amount of actual evidence which may support the believer's wishful thinking can vary from none, to very little to very much.  Once there is "much" or "very much" supporting evidence, the word "faith" is usually replaced with other words such as "trust" or "knowledge".  Here are two examples.

 

1)  My son has always done well in school.  He is taking a new class in history.  Instead of saying, "I have faith he will do well in the class", I would probably say, "I trust he will do well in the class" or "I think he will do well in the class" or "I would be surprised if he did not do well in the class".

 

2)  My wife is making a tofu stir fry for dinner.  It's almost ready.  Instead of saying, "I have faith that I will have a tofu stir fry for dinner tonight", I would say, "I'm having a tofu stir fry for dinner tonight."

 

My point is that the more evidence available makes the use of the word faith less and less likely in discourse and conversation.

 

Returning to the definition of faith, according to the Bible, it is the substance of things hoped for.  What is this "substance"?  Well, that would depend on what is believed.  In my two examples above, each is a mundane set of events that commonly occur in reality (i.e., son taking a class, having dinner).  In the case of many religious beliefs, it usually involves supernatural claims, such as creation of the universe by a particular agent, performance of miracles which violate the laws of physics, etc.  The actual evidence which supports this "substance" is invariably weak to non-existent.  This is where theists professing faith in such things and rational thinkers diverge.  The theist will expound his faith in the extraordinary claim.  The rational thinker will say, "I don't know", or "Please provide evidence supporting your claim".

 

As to attempting to equate the adherence to faith between a theist and a rational thinker, that is a cute parlor trick that does not take into account the different situations for use of the word.  For example, a rational thinker might say to a theist, "Your belief in God is based merely on faith", to which the theist might say, "Your belief in the Biological Theory of Evolution is based merely on faith."  Well, that attempt to equate the two is not quite right.  A rational thinker will more accurately state, "To me, the Biological Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of all of the relevant evidence."  It is not wishful thinking.  It is a conclusion based on the inferences from examination of the evidence.  Indeed, the rational thinker would likely go on to say, "If I can surmise a better explanation from the same evidence, I will discard the earlier explanation." 

 

In trying to answer the question of why a person would maintain (religious) faith when the substance of that (religious) faith is tenuous, unlikely, improbable, or even impossible, the best I have come up with is the psychological and emotional needs of the believer require him to maintain the (religious) faith.  My layperson research into this area reveals that the underlying causes of the psychological and emotional needs include (i) childhood indoctrination by trusted adults, (ii) peer pressure from family, friends and people with similar psychological and emotional needs, (iii) fear and/or (iv) underdevelopment of critical thinking skills.

 

 

Faith is an expansive topic, and may even be better suited for its own thread. Let's examine Hebrews 11 for a moment to get some context. I like the ESV translation (for various reasons), and this is what it reads:

 

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

 

Conviction is a strong form of confidence. It's a solid belief. One should not form a solid belief on something groundless. If you really want to distill faith down to its essence, at least Biblical faith, it's more about having a conviction in something that is 1) not entirely certain, and 2) that cannot be discovered empirically. I go as far as to say that everyone has a form of faith, and it is exercised frequently. Faith is not something to be afraid of. The issue becomes when we take faith too far. Biblical faith is certainly a hope. Wishful thinking is a bit of a negative spin. This is more how I approach it. 

 

We should have an informed faith. It's a faith where there is evidence in support of it. It needs to be grounded. When I am driving a car, I have faith that the other driver is not going to collide with me. This faith is based on several things. First, that they have a valid driver's licence. Second, is that they are a competent driver. Third is that they are not inebriated or with impaired judgment. Fourth is that they are not feeling malicious or suicidal. Every time I get in a car to drive, I'm having faith in others. I drive without fear because I am confident that everyone else is going to be a safe driver. I am convicted in it, and it's based on evidence. It is not certain (and can't be). That sort of faith is common...and it's small faith. We just don't blink at it. There are other more serious examples I can provide too, but they are a little bit less practical. The Biblical context revolves around hope, but the concept of faith remains when you pull it out of the Bible.

 

This is why I really want to make a distinction between blind faith (which is not real faith), and actual faith, not only what is written in scripture, but what is practical in the outside world. You should only have faith in something that has evidence of some sort. It doesn't have to be empirical evidence, but it needs to be evidence.

 

To extend this to my faith in God, I can make a good case for why he exists, it's just not an empirical one. I wouldn't believe in God if there was no evidence at all.

 

Yes, I was certainly exposed to this when I was young, and that played a part in why I am a Christian now, but there still comes a time when I needed to decide what was worth believing in...so I explored and found that there is indeed a philosophical framework where God exists. In fact, it's not even that implausible. For me, faith is just an extension of the evidence. I will probably need to clarify when you post again.

 

 

I want to specifically address miracles. I don't think there's anything supernatural about them. I just think that since Jesus is God, you'd think he would have a perfect understanding of natural mechanics. His edge over us is that he can manipulate the world because he knew how it worked. Water into wine? I'm sure he had a way of manipulating its chemical structure. Knowledge is power.

But he didn't know that boiling willow bark produces aspirin?  He didn't know that hand-washing and basic sanitation prevents many common diseases?  He didn't know that leprosy was caused by bacteria or that demon-possession was actually schizophrenia?  He didn't realize that most medicines are derivatives of chemical compounds commonly found in berries, roots, flowers, and herbs?  If he knew how things work, why did he not mention any of it.

 

Incidentally, does the name stevebennett mean anything to you?

 

 

The concerns of Jesus were less practical and more focused on salvation. He wasn't there to make revolutions in quality of life on the Earth. Aside from that...I'm not in a position to speak for his actions, just as I can't speak for yours.

 

No, I don't know the name.

 

 

Without the divinity of Jesus or the power of God, the easiest thing to say is magic, or perhaps coincidence causes such things. That's the typical response. The difficulty is that both of those things sound absurd, whether because of statistical improbability, or because magic is silly. What you end up with are two separate conclusions. 

If you are going to claim that the divinity of jesus is more statistically probable than magic or coincidence, then I'm going to need you to demonstrate the formula you are using to arrive at your probability, and show your work.  In essence, even if we assume that a god does exist, there is still no compelling reason, outside the bible (which is not evidence) to believe that jesus is that god.  So, please, at least support the claim that jesus' divinity is more statistically probable than magic.

 

 

I believe the testimony of the people that were witnesses. That's precisely why I believe what I believe. I don't roll the dice about that sort of thing.

 

The Bible isn't one book. It's many books in one. I give them credit like any other historical texts. The validity of the Bible is something that can only be evaluated by checking the validity of every single book it contains. Don't look at the Bible as a whole thing that was written from one side to the other. It's a collection of books that were compiled for you to read. Each testimony and historical record should be given a fair evaluation. I would do the same thing with any other historical text, and with the Bible especially, since there are an incredible number of very old copies of its books.

 

 

Unreasonable? Hahaha. Only if you require empirical evidence ONLY for the existence of something. There are a lot of unreasonable beliefs, and a lot of Christians don't think logically (which really is quite tragic). To paint us all with the unreasonable brush is not a reasonable conclusion. Why does the existence of something have to be based wholly on empirical evidence?

 

I do like the premise of the thread though. Fundies = no thinking. That would answer your question about them. They don't think, they just listen and lap it all up. I was raised to be a critical thinker, as everyone should be.

At the risk of sounding patronizing (which is not my intent), I am enjoying our discussions.  And, by the way, welcome to the forum.

 

Yes, painting with a broad brush often results in painting something that should not be painted.

 

 

I'm here because I enjoy discussion and debate. I've developed a thick skin over the years of doing this. Just stay reasonable (and avoid logical fallacies) and I won't have any problems with any of you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, Wololo, I see you ignored the most important question I asked you.  I am compelled to ask it again.

 

Does the name stevebennett mean anything to you?

[Wololo]

So, Wololo, I see you ignored the most important question I asked you.  I am compelled to ask it again.

 

Does the name stevebennett mean anything to you?

 

I said no. It doesn't mean anything to me. No idea who or what that is.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

So, Wololo, I see you ignored the most important question I asked you.  I am compelled to ask it again.

 

Does the name stevebennett mean anything to you?

 

I said no. It doesn't mean anything to me. No idea who or what that is.

 

I stand corrected; you did address the question.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

 

 

I also want to add as a note that there should be a difference between informed faith and blind faith. Don't believe something that has absolutely no basis (or worse, has contradictions.)

I see what you attempting to distinguish, and I agree it should be done.  The word "faith" is a loaded word that has more than one definition.  Accordingly, it's use can easily cause confusion and miscommunication.  So, before adding adjectives to the word "faith", how about providing a working definition of the word "faith"?  There's the Biblical passage that is more or less a definition.  There's a few secular definitions.

 

 

Faith is something that should be better discussed. I like to use adjectives because it's a concept that has evolved over time and is based on context. Faith is simply confidence in things unseen. Blind faith is confidence in things that have no basis at all. It's believing in something where you can't 'see' anything but still believe.

 

Good.  Before we get to modifying the noun "faith" with the use of adjectives, a working definition of the word faith would be useful.  You claim the word "faith" simply means "confidence in things unseen" (your words).  That's fine.  However, that is not how the Bible defines "faith".  According to the Bible, faith is evidence of things unseen, not confidence of things unseen.  Faith itself, according to the Bible, is the substance of things hoped for, in short, wishful thinking.  It is the wishful thinking, once held as a thought by a believer, that acts as evidence (to whom is unclear) of unseen things.

 

I do agree that the amount of actual evidence which may support the believer's wishful thinking can vary from none, to very little to very much.  Once there is "much" or "very much" supporting evidence, the word "faith" is usually replaced with other words such as "trust" or "knowledge".  Here are two examples.

 

1)  My son has always done well in school.  He is taking a new class in history.  Instead of saying, "I have faith he will do well in the class", I would probably say, "I trust he will do well in the class" or "I think he will do well in the class" or "I would be surprised if he did not do well in the class".

 

2)  My wife is making a tofu stir fry for dinner.  It's almost ready.  Instead of saying, "I have faith that I will have a tofu stir fry for dinner tonight", I would say, "I'm having a tofu stir fry for dinner tonight."

 

My point is that the more evidence available makes the use of the word faith less and less likely in discourse and conversation.

 

Returning to the definition of faith, according to the Bible, it is the substance of things hoped for.  What is this "substance"?  Well, that would depend on what is believed.  In my two examples above, each is a mundane set of events that commonly occur in reality (i.e., son taking a class, having dinner).  In the case of many religious beliefs, it usually involves supernatural claims, such as creation of the universe by a particular agent, performance of miracles which violate the laws of physics, etc.  The actual evidence which supports this "substance" is invariably weak to non-existent.  This is where theists professing faith in such things and rational thinkers diverge.  The theist will expound his faith in the extraordinary claim.  The rational thinker will say, "I don't know", or "Please provide evidence supporting your claim".

 

As to attempting to equate the adherence to faith between a theist and a rational thinker, that is a cute parlor trick that does not take into account the different situations for use of the word.  For example, a rational thinker might say to a theist, "Your belief in God is based merely on faith", to which the theist might say, "Your belief in the Biological Theory of Evolution is based merely on faith."  Well, that attempt to equate the two is not quite right.  A rational thinker will more accurately state, "To me, the Biological Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of all of the relevant evidence."  It is not wishful thinking.  It is a conclusion based on the inferences from examination of the evidence.  Indeed, the rational thinker would likely go on to say, "If I can surmise a better explanation from the same evidence, I will discard the earlier explanation." 

 

In trying to answer the question of why a person would maintain (religious) faith when the substance of that (religious) faith is tenuous, unlikely, improbable, or even impossible, the best I have come up with is the psychological and emotional needs of the believer require him to maintain the (religious) faith.  My layperson research into this area reveals that the underlying causes of the psychological and emotional needs include (i) childhood indoctrination by trusted adults, (ii) peer pressure from family, friends and people with similar psychological and emotional needs, (iii) fear and/or (iv) underdevelopment of critical thinking skills.

 

 

Faith is an expansive topic, and may even be better suited for its own thread. Let's examine Hebrews 11 for a moment to get some context. I like the ESV translation (for various reasons), and this is what it reads:

 

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

 

Conviction is a strong form of confidence. It's a solid belief. One should not form a solid belief on something groundless. If you really want to distill faith down to its essence, at least Biblical faith, it's more about having a conviction in something that is 1) not entirely certain, and 2) that cannot be discovered empirically. I go as far as to say that everyone has a form of faith, and it is exercised frequently. Faith is not something to be afraid of. The issue becomes when we take faith too far. Biblical faith is certainly a hope. Wishful thinking is a bit of a negative spin. This is more how I approach it. 

 

We should have an informed faith. It's a faith where there is evidence in support of it. It needs to be grounded. When I am driving a car, I have faith that the other driver is not going to collide with me. This faith is based on several things. First, that they have a valid driver's licence. Second, is that they are a competent driver. Third is that they are not inebriated or with impaired judgment. Fourth is that they are not feeling malicious or suicidal. Every time I get in a car to drive, I'm having faith in others. I drive without fear because I am confident that everyone else is going to be a safe driver. I am convicted in it, and it's based on evidence. It is not certain (and can't be). That sort of faith is common...and it's small faith. We just don't blink at it. There are other more serious examples I can provide too, but they are a little bit less practical. The Biblical context revolves around hope, but the concept of faith remains when you pull it out of the Bible.

 

This is why I really want to make a distinction between blind faith (which is not real faith), and actual faith, not only what is written in scripture, but what is practical in the outside world. You should only have faith in something that has evidence of some sort. It doesn't have to be empirical evidence, but it needs to be evidence.

 

To extend this to my faith in God, I can make a good case for why he exists, it's just not an empirical one. I wouldn't believe in God if there was no evidence at all.

 

Yes, I was certainly exposed to this when I was young, and that played a part in why I am a Christian now, but there still comes a time when I needed to decide what was worth believing in...so I explored and found that there is indeed a philosophical framework where God exists. In fact, it's not even that implausible. For me, faith is just an extension of the evidence. I will probably need to clarify when you post again.

 

I think we are in agreement, for the most part, about a definition for the word "faith".  It is interesting how different Biblical translations of verses (e.g., Hebrews 11:1) can potentially effect things.

 

That being said, you have not addressed my main point regarding the content of the "substance" (or using your word from ESV "assurance") existing (or not existing) in the formation of faith.  I distinguished between mundane things, such as my son's class, from extraordinary things, such as creation of the universe or miracles.  You mentioned a mundane example regarding driving your car.  You claim that the "substance" (or using your version, the "assurance") of or relating to extraordinary things is not subject to the same standards that would be applied to mundane things.  We disagree on this point.   Here is a summary of that difference as I see it:

 

Me - Mundane things or events require mundane empirical evidence to demonstrate their existence or occurrence.  Extraordinary things or events require extraordinary empirical evidence to demonstrate their existence or occurrence.

 

You - Mundane things or events require mundane empirical evidence to demonstrate their existence or occurrence.  Extraordinary things or events are demonstrated by a recipe of (i) interpretations of a small body of mundane empirical evidence (i.e., your religious Scriptures) and (ii) philosophical arguments you favor.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, we need context. The Old Testament certainly gives a dark picture of God. Good thing there's the New Testament. They both require each other to make proper sense.

So you haven't read the bible then.  Really reading it, the whole thing, dark picture and all.

 

 

I know it inside and out. Interpretation is where people run into problems.

 

So does that mean you think the bible provides a moral framework for living?

 

Tell me this, and depending on your answer I will either treat you with civility or just throw you in with the other christians here.

 

Do you advocate the teaching of creationism in public education?

Do you think homosexuality is a sin and LGBT folks can't get married?

Are you here to evangelize?

 

If you said yes to any of these, then this 4th question is also for you:

If you were living in the time of Moses, would you follow the orders god gave him?

 

Heck no.

No, sin is not an action, it is an attitude. I have nothing against their marriage.

Nope. I'm here to discuss and debate. If you're aggressive, I will be aggressive. If you're respectful, I will be respectful. I came here because I want to keep the idea alive that some of us who are still Christians are reasonable people, and I wanted to discuss things with people who are no longer Christians. I'm a curious person too, you know.

 

You might wanna read the ToS, they're at the bottom of the page.  If you ever think you're justified in acting aggressive here, note this part especially:

 These forums exist for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind. It is not an open challenge to Christians to avenge what they perceive as an offense against their beliefs.

 

My family are xians and I would say they are reasonable people.  So I don't need your "witness".

 

I don't think xians are unreasonable, although individuals may be at times.  I just think that believing the god of the bible exists is a mistake.  It can't be supported by good reason or good evidence.  Not in a way that could convince me anyway.

 

Clearly you misunderstand what I mean by aggressive. I just made it clear I'm not here to evangelize. I'm not here to "save the lost". When I talk about aggressive, it means I'm not really the 'apologetics' type where I sit and just answer questions as though I have a weak position that constantly needs defending. It means that I'm comfortable asking questions of my own, some of which don't have easy answers. If you're going to be aggressive with me, I can return in kind. That's what I'm saying.

 

I also like to visit different forums in order to dispel some of the myths about Christians, and it does seem a lot of you have had a rough time with conservatives and evangelicals...as do those of us that are still believers. Just by reading through the posts here I can see that they have caused a lot of problems.

 

I'm here because of curiosity, and because I like to encourage people to think. My questions are going to differ from the fundamentalist questions.

 

I have only been a member here for a short time but I have never seen a fundamentalist come here to debate, they are always liberals like you, so can we drop all the fundy references.  It's a bit insulting to say (repeatedly) that we just knew the wrong type of xians and if we'd only hung out with nice warm fluffy liberals things would have been better for us.  I have as much of a problem with liberal xianity as I do with fundies.

 

Anyway I will now sit back and watch you answer questions from our more experienced members, which is quite interesting.

[Ravenstar]

"The gospels are the written testimonies of 4 people."  Which 4 people?

[Guest afireinside]

John, Paul, George and Ringo

[Wololo]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also want to add as a note that there should be a difference between informed faith and blind faith. Don't believe something that has absolutely no basis (or worse, has contradictions.)

I see what you attempting to distinguish, and I agree it should be done.  The word "faith" is a loaded word that has more than one definition.  Accordingly, it's use can easily cause confusion and miscommunication.  So, before adding adjectives to the word "faith", how about providing a working definition of the word "faith"?  There's the Biblical passage that is more or less a definition.  There's a few secular definitions.

 

 

Faith is something that should be better discussed. I like to use adjectives because it's a concept that has evolved over time and is based on context. Faith is simply confidence in things unseen. Blind faith is confidence in things that have no basis at all. It's believing in something where you can't 'see' anything but still believe.

 

Good.  Before we get to modifying the noun "faith" with the use of adjectives, a working definition of the word faith would be useful.  You claim the word "faith" simply means "confidence in things unseen" (your words).  That's fine.  However, that is not how the Bible defines "faith".  According to the Bible, faith is evidence of things unseen, not confidence of things unseen.  Faith itself, according to the Bible, is the substance of things hoped for, in short, wishful thinking.  It is the wishful thinking, once held as a thought by a believer, that acts as evidence (to whom is unclear) of unseen things.

 

I do agree that the amount of actual evidence which may support the believer's wishful thinking can vary from none, to very little to very much.  Once there is "much" or "very much" supporting evidence, the word "faith" is usually replaced with other words such as "trust" or "knowledge".  Here are two examples.

 

1)  My son has always done well in school.  He is taking a new class in history.  Instead of saying, "I have faith he will do well in the class", I would probably say, "I trust he will do well in the class" or "I think he will do well in the class" or "I would be surprised if he did not do well in the class".

 

2)  My wife is making a tofu stir fry for dinner.  It's almost ready.  Instead of saying, "I have faith that I will have a tofu stir fry for dinner tonight", I would say, "I'm having a tofu stir fry for dinner tonight."

 

My point is that the more evidence available makes the use of the word faith less and less likely in discourse and conversation.

 

Returning to the definition of faith, according to the Bible, it is the substance of things hoped for.  What is this "substance"?  Well, that would depend on what is believed.  In my two examples above, each is a mundane set of events that commonly occur in reality (i.e., son taking a class, having dinner).  In the case of many religious beliefs, it usually involves supernatural claims, such as creation of the universe by a particular agent, performance of miracles which violate the laws of physics, etc.  The actual evidence which supports this "substance" is invariably weak to non-existent.  This is where theists professing faith in such things and rational thinkers diverge.  The theist will expound his faith in the extraordinary claim.  The rational thinker will say, "I don't know", or "Please provide evidence supporting your claim".

 

As to attempting to equate the adherence to faith between a theist and a rational thinker, that is a cute parlor trick that does not take into account the different situations for use of the word.  For example, a rational thinker might say to a theist, "Your belief in God is based merely on faith", to which the theist might say, "Your belief in the Biological Theory of Evolution is based merely on faith."  Well, that attempt to equate the two is not quite right.  A rational thinker will more accurately state, "To me, the Biological Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of all of the relevant evidence."  It is not wishful thinking.  It is a conclusion based on the inferences from examination of the evidence.  Indeed, the rational thinker would likely go on to say, "If I can surmise a better explanation from the same evidence, I will discard the earlier explanation." 

 

In trying to answer the question of why a person would maintain (religious) faith when the substance of that (religious) faith is tenuous, unlikely, improbable, or even impossible, the best I have come up with is the psychological and emotional needs of the believer require him to maintain the (religious) faith.  My layperson research into this area reveals that the underlying causes of the psychological and emotional needs include (i) childhood indoctrination by trusted adults, (ii) peer pressure from family, friends and people with similar psychological and emotional needs, (iii) fear and/or (iv) underdevelopment of critical thinking skills.

 

 

Faith is an expansive topic, and may even be better suited for its own thread. Let's examine Hebrews 11 for a moment to get some context. I like the ESV translation (for various reasons), and this is what it reads:

 

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

 

Conviction is a strong form of confidence. It's a solid belief. One should not form a solid belief on something groundless. If you really want to distill faith down to its essence, at least Biblical faith, it's more about having a conviction in something that is 1) not entirely certain, and 2) that cannot be discovered empirically. I go as far as to say that everyone has a form of faith, and it is exercised frequently. Faith is not something to be afraid of. The issue becomes when we take faith too far. Biblical faith is certainly a hope. Wishful thinking is a bit of a negative spin. This is more how I approach it. 

 

We should have an informed faith. It's a faith where there is evidence in support of it. It needs to be grounded. When I am driving a car, I have faith that the other driver is not going to collide with me. This faith is based on several things. First, that they have a valid driver's licence. Second, is that they are a competent driver. Third is that they are not inebriated or with impaired judgment. Fourth is that they are not feeling malicious or suicidal. Every time I get in a car to drive, I'm having faith in others. I drive without fear because I am confident that everyone else is going to be a safe driver. I am convicted in it, and it's based on evidence. It is not certain (and can't be). That sort of faith is common...and it's small faith. We just don't blink at it. There are other more serious examples I can provide too, but they are a little bit less practical. The Biblical context revolves around hope, but the concept of faith remains when you pull it out of the Bible.

 

This is why I really want to make a distinction between blind faith (which is not real faith), and actual faith, not only what is written in scripture, but what is practical in the outside world. You should only have faith in something that has evidence of some sort. It doesn't have to be empirical evidence, but it needs to be evidence.

 

To extend this to my faith in God, I can make a good case for why he exists, it's just not an empirical one. I wouldn't believe in God if there was no evidence at all.

 

Yes, I was certainly exposed to this when I was young, and that played a part in why I am a Christian now, but there still comes a time when I needed to decide what was worth believing in...so I explored and found that there is indeed a philosophical framework where God exists. In fact, it's not even that implausible. For me, faith is just an extension of the evidence. I will probably need to clarify when you post again.

 

I think we are in agreement, for the most part, about a definition for the word "faith".  It is interesting how different Biblical translations of verses (e.g., Hebrews 11:1) can potentially effect things.

 

That being said, you have not addressed my main point regarding the content of the "substance" (or using your word from ESV "assurance") existing (or not existing) in the formation of faith.  I distinguished between mundane things, such as my son's class, from extraordinary things, such as creation of the universe or miracles.  You mentioned a mundane example regarding driving your car.  You claim that the "substance" (or using your version, the "assurance") of or relating to extraordinary things is not subject to the same standards that would be applied to mundane things.  We disagree on this point.   Here is a summary of that difference as I see it:

 

Me - Mundane things or events require mundane empirical evidence to demonstrate their existence or occurrence.  Extraordinary things or events require extraordinary empirical evidence to demonstrate their existence or occurrence.

 

You - Mundane things or events require mundane empirical evidence to demonstrate their existence or occurrence.  Extraordinary things or events are demonstrated by a recipe of (i) interpretations of a small body of mundane empirical evidence (i.e., your religious Scriptures) and (ii) philosophical arguments you favor.

 

 

Assurance/substance...the original Greek word ('upostasis') is along the lines of "grounding". You could read it sort of like this: Faith is the anchor for things hoped for. The faith itself is not 'wishful thinking'. It's what your hopes are based on. In a linear sense, it's evidence -> faith -> hope. You start out with evidence for something, you have faith because the evidence is not complete (or enough), and you end up with hope. If you have hope, it is based on faith in something, which must be based on some form of evidence, or else it is blind, and not really faith anymore.

 

God isn't a scientific claim. In the realm of philosophy, he's not even really that extraordinary...but the possibility of his existence does need to be evaluated and there does need to be evidence.

 

Why does God have to be proven with empirical evidence? He's not even an empirical entity.

 

@ FreeThinkerNZ: No, but the baggage from Christianity was caused by fundies. That's why I reference them. Liberals might come visit, but the issues were likely not caused by them.

 

"The gospels are the written testimonies of 4 people."  Which 4 people?

 

People going by the name of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I'd have to go dig up some sources, but they were real people.

 

John, Paul, George and Ringo

 

Maybe in another universe. Heheheheheheh

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

@ FreeThinkerNZ: No, but the baggage from Christianity was caused by fundies. That's why I reference them. Liberals might come visit, but the issues were likely not caused by them.

I disagree.  There is baggage with liberals too.  All of xianity does significant harm in the world, whether you own it or not.

[midniterider]

I also want to add as a note that there should be a difference between informed faith and blind faith. Don't believe something that has absolutely no basis (or worse, has contradictions.)

 

Absolutely no basis and full of contradictions..... You mean, like the bible, right?

[thereisnoperfect]

 

 

People going by the name of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I'd have to go dig up some sources, but they were real people.

You'd better do that digging if you're going to make a claim like that around here. I mean, of course they were written by real people--but if you're going to claim we know who wrote, for example, the gospel of John, and that we know what that person's degree of connection to a historical Jesus was--pony up the evidence.

[Guest]

 

 

 

People going by the name of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I'd have to go dig up some sources, but they were real people.

You'd better do that digging if you're going to make a claim like that around here. I mean, of course they were written by real people--but if you're going to claim we know who wrote, for example, the gospel of John, and that we know what that person's degree of connection to a historical Jesus was--pony up the evidence.

 

 

But what about the things that are currently in the gospel that weren't originally?  You can say that Mark wrote the book of Mark, but who wrote Mark chapter 16?  That whole chapter was an add on that is not in the earliest of manuscripts…There are most likely hundreds or thousands of "add ons" in the bible we have no idea about.  How did the gospel writers know about what happened to jesus when he prayed in the garden alone?  Or when he went to the wilderness alone?  or when he was put on trial privately without the disciples there?  Not to mention that at least one gospel (thankfully I can't remember which one) says in the fist few sentences it is NOT an eye witness account...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

I want to specifically address miracles. I don't think there's anything supernatural about them. I just think that since Jesus is God, you'd think he would have a perfect understanding of natural mechanics. His edge over us is that he can manipulate the world because he knew how it worked. Water into wine? I'm sure he had a way of manipulating its chemical structure. Knowledge is power.

But he didn't know that boiling willow bark produces aspirin?  He didn't know that hand-washing and basic sanitation prevents many common diseases?  He didn't know that leprosy was caused by bacteria or that demon-possession was actually schizophrenia?  He didn't realize that most medicines are derivatives of chemical compounds commonly found in berries, roots, flowers, and herbs?  If he knew how things work, why did he not mention any of it.

 

Incidentally, does the name stevebennett mean anything to you?

 

 

The concerns of Jesus were less practical and more focused on salvation. He wasn't there to make revolutions in quality of life on the Earth. Aside from that...I'm not in a position to speak for his actions, just as I can't speak for yours.

 

No, I don't know the name.

 

 

Without the divinity of Jesus or the power of God, the easiest thing to say is magic, or perhaps coincidence causes such things. That's the typical response. The difficulty is that both of those things sound absurd, whether because of statistical improbability, or because magic is silly. What you end up with are two separate conclusions. 

If you are going to claim that the divinity of jesus is more statistically probable than magic or coincidence, then I'm going to need you to demonstrate the formula you are using to arrive at your probability, and show your work.  In essence, even if we assume that a god does exist, there is still no compelling reason, outside the bible (which is not evidence) to believe that jesus is that god.  So, please, at least support the claim that jesus' divinity is more statistically probable than magic.

 

 

I believe the testimony of the people that were witnesses. That's precisely why I believe what I believe. I don't roll the dice about that sort of thing.

 

The Bible isn't one book. It's many books in one. I give them credit like any other historical texts. The validity of the Bible is something that can only be evaluated by checking the validity of every single book it contains. Don't look at the Bible as a whole thing that was written from one side to the other. It's a collection of books that were compiled for you to read. Each testimony and historical record should be given a fair evaluation. I would do the same thing with any other historical text, and with the Bible especially, since there are an incredible number of very old copies of its books.

 

 His focus was on salvation but not on keeping people alive long enough to find salvation?  That doesn't quite scan for me.  If, as you say, he could turn water into wine becuase he was clued in on the chemical properties and such, then he could have just as easily made medicines using the same information.  What sort of loving god would rather get people drunk at a wedding than truly heal the sick (by that I mean on a more permanent basis).

 

Secondly, I have evaluated each of the books of the bible and have found that each of them contain errors, edits, and many of them contradict themselves and the other books.  I have researched the history of the bible and found that the books were cobbled together for various social and political reasons.  What I have not found is any evidence that the books of the bible were written by historically credible witnesses.  Even the gospels were written decades after jesus supposedly lived.

 

With that said, please stay on topic.  You said that the divinity of jesus was more statistically probable than magic.  Provide the formula you used to arrive at this probability and show your work.  Remember, it was you who removed proof of god from the realm of science.  Now demonstrate your claim.

 

For this reason, as well as the reason I posted on another thread (god's message is eternal and unchanging), attempting to understand the bible in its historic context is an unnecessary waste of time.  With that in mind, Wololo, what, in your opinion, would be the proper lense with which to view the sacred texts?

[Ravenstar]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also want to add as a note that there should be a difference between informed faith and blind faith. Don't believe something that has absolutely no basis (or worse, has contradictions.)

I see what you attempting to distinguish, and I agree it should be done.  The word "faith" is a loaded word that has more than one definition.  Accordingly, it's use can easily cause confusion and miscommunication.  So, before adding adjectives to the word "faith", how about providing a working definition of the word "faith"?  There's the Biblical passage that is more or less a definition.  There's a few secular definitions.

 

 

Faith is something that should be better discussed. I like to use adjectives because it's a concept that has evolved over time and is based on context. Faith is simply confidence in things unseen. Blind faith is confidence in things that have no basis at all. It's believing in something where you can't 'see' anything but still believe.

 

Good.  Before we get to modifying the noun "faith" with the use of adjectives, a working definition of the word faith would be useful.  You claim the word "faith" simply means "confidence in things unseen" (your words).  That's fine.  However, that is not how the Bible defines "faith".  According to the Bible, faith is evidence of things unseen, not confidence of things unseen.  Faith itself, according to the Bible, is the substance of things hoped for, in short, wishful thinking.  It is the wishful thinking, once held as a thought by a believer, that acts as evidence (to whom is unclear) of unseen things.

 

I do agree that the amount of actual evidence which may support the believer's wishful thinking can vary from none, to very little to very much.  Once there is "much" or "very much" supporting evidence, the word "faith" is usually replaced with other words such as "trust" or "knowledge".  Here are two examples.

 

1)  My son has always done well in school.  He is taking a new class in history.  Instead of saying, "I have faith he will do well in the class", I would probably say, "I trust he will do well in the class" or "I think he will do well in the class" or "I would be surprised if he did not do well in the class".

 

2)  My wife is making a tofu stir fry for dinner.  It's almost ready.  Instead of saying, "I have faith that I will have a tofu stir fry for dinner tonight", I would say, "I'm having a tofu stir fry for dinner tonight."

 

My point is that the more evidence available makes the use of the word faith less and less likely in discourse and conversation.

 

Returning to the definition of faith, according to the Bible, it is the substance of things hoped for.  What is this "substance"?  Well, that would depend on what is believed.  In my two examples above, each is a mundane set of events that commonly occur in reality (i.e., son taking a class, having dinner).  In the case of many religious beliefs, it usually involves supernatural claims, such as creation of the universe by a particular agent, performance of miracles which violate the laws of physics, etc.  The actual evidence which supports this "substance" is invariably weak to non-existent.  This is where theists professing faith in such things and rational thinkers diverge.  The theist will expound his faith in the extraordinary claim.  The rational thinker will say, "I don't know", or "Please provide evidence supporting your claim".

 

As to attempting to equate the adherence to faith between a theist and a rational thinker, that is a cute parlor trick that does not take into account the different situations for use of the word.  For example, a rational thinker might say to a theist, "Your belief in God is based merely on faith", to which the theist might say, "Your belief in the Biological Theory of Evolution is based merely on faith."  Well, that attempt to equate the two is not quite right.  A rational thinker will more accurately state, "To me, the Biological Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of all of the relevant evidence."  It is not wishful thinking.  It is a conclusion based on the inferences from examination of the evidence.  Indeed, the rational thinker would likely go on to say, "If I can surmise a better explanation from the same evidence, I will discard the earlier explanation." 

 

In trying to answer the question of why a person would maintain (religious) faith when the substance of that (religious) faith is tenuous, unlikely, improbable, or even impossible, the best I have come up with is the psychological and emotional needs of the believer require him to maintain the (religious) faith.  My layperson research into this area reveals that the underlying causes of the psychological and emotional needs include (i) childhood indoctrination by trusted adults, (ii) peer pressure from family, friends and people with similar psychological and emotional needs, (iii) fear and/or (iv) underdevelopment of critical thinking skills.

 

 

Faith is an expansive topic, and may even be better suited for its own thread. Let's examine Hebrews 11 for a moment to get some context. I like the ESV translation (for various reasons), and this is what it reads:

 

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

 

Conviction is a strong form of confidence. It's a solid belief. One should not form a solid belief on something groundless. If you really want to distill faith down to its essence, at least Biblical faith, it's more about having a conviction in something that is 1) not entirely certain, and 2) that cannot be discovered empirically. I go as far as to say that everyone has a form of faith, and it is exercised frequently. Faith is not something to be afraid of. The issue becomes when we take faith too far. Biblical faith is certainly a hope. Wishful thinking is a bit of a negative spin. This is more how I approach it. 

 

We should have an informed faith. It's a faith where there is evidence in support of it. It needs to be grounded. When I am driving a car, I have faith that the other driver is not going to collide with me. This faith is based on several things. First, that they have a valid driver's licence. Second, is that they are a competent driver. Third is that they are not inebriated or with impaired judgment. Fourth is that they are not feeling malicious or suicidal. Every time I get in a car to drive, I'm having faith in others. I drive without fear because I am confident that everyone else is going to be a safe driver. I am convicted in it, and it's based on evidence. It is not certain (and can't be). That sort of faith is common...and it's small faith. We just don't blink at it. There are other more serious examples I can provide too, but they are a little bit less practical. The Biblical context revolves around hope, but the concept of faith remains when you pull it out of the Bible.

 

This is why I really want to make a distinction between blind faith (which is not real faith), and actual faith, not only what is written in scripture, but what is practical in the outside world. You should only have faith in something that has evidence of some sort. It doesn't have to be empirical evidence, but it needs to be evidence.

 

To extend this to my faith in God, I can make a good case for why he exists, it's just not an empirical one. I wouldn't believe in God if there was no evidence at all.

 

Yes, I was certainly exposed to this when I was young, and that played a part in why I am a Christian now, but there still comes a time when I needed to decide what was worth believing in...so I explored and found that there is indeed a philosophical framework where God exists. In fact, it's not even that implausible. For me, faith is just an extension of the evidence. I will probably need to clarify when you post again.

 

I think we are in agreement, for the most part, about a definition for the word "faith".  It is interesting how different Biblical translations of verses (e.g., Hebrews 11:1) can potentially effect things.

 

That being said, you have not addressed my main point regarding the content of the "substance" (or using your word from ESV "assurance") existing (or not existing) in the formation of faith.  I distinguished between mundane things, such as my son's class, from extraordinary things, such as creation of the universe or miracles.  You mentioned a mundane example regarding driving your car.  You claim that the "substance" (or using your version, the "assurance") of or relating to extraordinary things is not subject to the same standards that would be applied to mundane things.  We disagree on this point.   Here is a summary of that difference as I see it:

 

Me - Mundane things or events require mundane empirical evidence to demonstrate their existence or occurrence.  Extraordinary things or events require extraordinary empirical evidence to demonstrate their existence or occurrence.

 

You - Mundane things or events require mundane empirical evidence to demonstrate their existence or occurrence.  Extraordinary things or events are demonstrated by a recipe of (i) interpretations of a small body of mundane empirical evidence (i.e., your religious Scriptures) and (ii) philosophical arguments you favor.

 

 

Assurance/substance...the original Greek word ('upostasis') is along the lines of "grounding". You could read it sort of like this: Faith is the anchor for things hoped for. The faith itself is not 'wishful thinking'. It's what your hopes are based on. In a linear sense, it's evidence -> faith -> hope. You start out with evidence for something, you have faith because the evidence is not complete (or enough), and you end up with hope. If you have hope, it is based on faith in something, which must be based on some form of evidence, or else it is blind, and not really faith anymore.

 

God isn't a scientific claim. In the realm of philosophy, he's not even really that extraordinary...but the possibility of his existence does need to be evaluated and there does need to be evidence.

 

Why does God have to be proven with empirical evidence? He's not even an empirical entity.

 

@ FreeThinkerNZ: No, but the baggage from Christianity was caused by fundies. That's why I reference them. Liberals might come visit, but the issues were likely not caused by them.

 

"The gospels are the written testimonies of 4 people."  Which 4 people?

 

People going by the name of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I'd have to go dig up some sources, but they were real people.

 

John, Paul, George and Ringo

 

Maybe in another universe. Heheheheheheh

 

No… the gospels are written anonymously… and given the names of Matthew, Mark Luke and John. History is a good field of study. Just saying'. The earliest gospel was written probably 40 hers or more after the 'events'. Ficino is much more versed in NT history than I am… for me it's OT stuff.

 

I sure hope you don't believe that the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote them?….  tee hee, no.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

You have faith in your beliefs, because you don't know they are certainly true (something I hope to show some of you as we go on.)  Posted yesterday at 10:33PM by Wololo on the thread Ten Things Christians Should Keep In Mind While Debating Atheists.

 

 

I just made it clear I'm not here to evangelize. I'm not here to "save the lost". 

 

I'm here because of curiosity, and because I like to encourage people to think. 

You can disguise your true purposes behind all the clever verbiage you would like; however, the first quote, which you posted yesterday, reveals your true motivation.  You are here to evangelize; that quote demonstrates it.

 

Now you would invite us to believe that you are here out of curiosity and to make people think.  You are clearly speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and are at cross purposes with yourself.

 

Bump!  Have you still no defense to offer on this charge?

[Aries256]

wait......religious people think?

[Neverlandrut]

Unreasonable? Hahaha. Only if you require empirical evidence ONLY for the existence of something. There are a lot of unreasonable beliefs, and a lot of Christians don't think logically (which really is quite tragic). To paint us all with the unreasonable brush is not a reasonable conclusion. Why does the existence of something have to be based wholly on empirical evidence?

 

I do like the premise of the thread though. Fundies = no thinking. That would answer your question about them. They don't think, they just listen and lap it all up. I was raised to be a critical thinker, as everyone should be.

Without empirical evidence, there is no way to know if the thing in question exists. It's mere possibility.

 

I think I was somewhat like you for a good while. I got to a point where I creatively interpreted the bible to avoid the glaring contradictions and such. I do agree with some apologetic explanations of biblical contradictions to a point. Some critics like to paint two opposing statements as mutually exclusive when they are not. That being said, It seems to me that the bible takes an extraordinary amount of creative interpretations, making assumptions about the events that aren't supported by the text, adding parts of different accounts together, etc. I just think that an omnipotent, omniscient god who wanted to communicate his word to us could have done much better than relying on ancient texts written in (in some cases) dead languages without preserving the originals, and allowing human error to drift into the translations and transcriptions. These are points for which there is little debate even among Christian scholars. I also know full well that if you really really want something to be true, you can find a way to creatively interpret things to support your view. Even if there were no contradictions in the bible and it was completely internally consistent (which it isn't on the textual level), that still would not even begin to prove it's supernatural claims are true. No amount of text can possibly prove a supernatural claim. Internal consistency is ONE prerequisite for truth, but far from the only. I can compile a whole volume of literature that is internally consistent and it be completely made up (the definition of fiction).

 

On a related note, I hear some apologists say they believe in Jesus because the evidence for his resurrection is undeniable. You cited that Christians dying for their beliefs proves they weren't lying. I agree. I don't think they were lying. But that does not prove their beliefs were true. It only proves they sincerely believed it. How do you explain Muslims dying for their beliefs? Are their beliefs true because they died for them? What about ancient peoples who gladly volunteered to be human sacrifices? My question for you is, do you believe there is evidence for Jesus' resurrection? If so, as a rational person, you must realize that the claims in the bible do not count as evidence of the claim. The stories in the bible ARE the claim and they are the very things that need evidence.

[buffettphan]

wait......religious people think?

 

 

LOL...my first thought too!  Whenever I catch myself typing something about a religious person thinking, I do this

 

Christian thinks believes .......