Diversity, Inclusion, Equity

[Immanuel Can]

If I understand you correctly, you will then argue that you cannot have "faith" in transubstantiation but in something else.

Well, let me say that I DO think there are instances of "bad faith," of people putting trust in things that are not worthy of their trust, and persisting in believing things contrary to all evidence. They hold unfalsifiable, unprovable, and unempirical beliefs, usually for some psychological or emotional reason.

The thing is, this is not a religious phenomenon. Or, to speak more precisely, there's nothing at all about "bad faith" that confines it to people who are religious. There are, for example, people whose faith in Socialism, or in "systemic racism," or in the intrinsic goodness of technology transcends in its irrational fervour all possibility of disproof. There is literally nothing you can say to some people to disabuse them of these notions; and even your attempt to do so is taken as confirmation that you are just a hopeless philistine, or Capitalist, or racist -- and thus that the ideology behind these things is even confirmed just by being opposed.

But is that what Christian faith is? No. Biblically, faith always has an object. There is no injunction or even a case anywhere in the Scriptures where faith is just "in faith." So whatever "religion" you might be talking about when you say faith has to be in nothing particular, it clearly ain't a Biblical "religion."

Agreed, you believe something "on faith" because you have vested authority to something other than rationality.

Well, we're not "agreed" on that. That is what I am denying, as a matter of fact. In fact, I am speaking to you rationally right now.

Let me explain it this way. If you can convince me of something through rational argumentation and critical inquiry, faith is not required.

Not so. For the necessity of faith is caused not by the adequacy of the object, but by your own human epistemic limitation. Human beings have to have faith because they are contingent and limited beings. Thus, we cannot avoid investing ourselves in ideas, projects and paradigms that we do not have the total epistemic possession of.

You did this when you married your wife, assuming you have one. When you proposed, you did not know she would not learn to hate you, or be unfaithful to you, or even go off with somebody else. You could not possibly have proved to yourself that would not happen -- no matter how fervently you hoped it. But you wanted to marry her. And you thought, believed, hoped, that because of what you already knew about her character and her relationship with you, she would not do that. And you had to make a decision: will you ask her to marry you?

If you had no faith in her, you'd never ask her to marry you. You'd be a fool to do it. But if you had a lot of faith in her, you might just bring yourself to believe that even though you don't actually KNOW she would not shatter you into a million pieces, she is trustworthy. And you asked. You invested yourself in something about which your knowledge was only partial, and which the danger was considerable. But you understood that without that, there was no future for the relationship.

That's faith. And without it, you'd never have been married. And without faith, it is also impossible to know God, too.

Faith is belief in absence of evidence.

Well, I know that's a fairly common -- and convenient -- belief among skeptics who want a quick excuse to dismiss the whole possibility of faith. But I'm afraid that whoever told you this misled you.. It's not. Faith is the belief one has when all the evidence possible is in, and we still have things we don't know for sure, but we have to make a decision and go forward. Which is to say, it's characteristic of all human knowing and believing -- both religious and secular.

[KLewchuk]

If I understand you correctly, you will then argue that you cannot have "faith" in transubstantiation but in something else.

Well, let me say that I DO think there are instances of "bad faith," of people putting trust in things that are not worthy of their trust, and persisting in believing things contrary to all evidence. They hold unfalsifiable, unprovable, and unempirical beliefs, usually for some psychological or emotional reason.

The thing is, this is not a religious phenomenon. Or, to speak more precisely, there's nothing at all about "bad faith" that confines it to people who are religious. There are, for example, people whose faith in Socialism, or in "systemic racism," or in the intrinsic goodness of technology transcends in its irrational fervour all possibility of disproof. There is literally nothing you can say to some people to disabuse them of these notions; and even your attempt to do so is taken as confirmation that you are just a hopeless philistine, or Capitalist, or racist -- and thus that the ideology behind these things is even confirmed just by being opposed.

But is that what Christian faith is? No. Biblically, faith always has an object. There is no injunction or even a case anywhere in the Scriptures where faith is just "in faith." So whatever "religion" you might be talking about when you say faith has to be in nothing particular, it clearly ain't a Biblical "religion."

Agreed, you believe something "on faith" because you have vested authority to something other than rationality.

Well, we're not "agreed" on that. That is what I am denying, as a matter of fact. In fact, I am speaking to you rationally right now.

Let me explain it this way. If you can convince me of something through rational argumentation and critical inquiry, faith is not required.

Not so. For the necessity of faith is caused not by the adequacy of the object, but by your own human epistemic limitation. Human beings have to have faith because they are contingent and limited beings. Thus, we cannot avoid investing ourselves in ideas, projects and paradigms that we do not have the total epistemic possession of.

You did this when you married your wife, assuming you have one. When you proposed, you did not know she would not learn to hate you, or be unfaithful to you, or even go off with somebody else. You could not possibly have proved to yourself that would not happen -- no matter how fervently you hoped it. But you wanted to marry her. And you thought, believed, hoped, that because of what you already knew about her character and her relationship with you, she would not do that. And you had to make a decision: will you ask her to marry you?

If you had no faith in her, you'd never ask her to marry you. You'd be a fool to do it. But if you had a lot of faith in her, you might just bring yourself to believe that even though you don't actually KNOW she would not shatter you into a million pieces, she is trustworthy. And you asked. You invested yourself in something about which your knowledge was only partial, and which the danger was considerable. But you understood that without that, there was no future for the relationship.

That's faith. And without it, you'd never have been married. And without faith, it is also impossible to know God, too.

Faith is belief in absence of evidence.

Well, I know that's a fairly common -- and convenient -- belief among skeptics who want a quick excuse to dismiss the whole possibility of faith. But I'm afraid that whoever told you this misled you.. It's not. Faith is the belief one has when all the evidence possible is in, and we still have things we don't know for sure, but we have to make a decision and go forward. Which is to say, it's characteristic of all human knowing and believing -- both religious and secular.

Omer gerd,

Again, you re-defining words. If you speak to a scientific naturalist, they would not call themselves "a person of faith". They would not be commonly understood as "people of faith". Granted, they obviously have "trust" in certain types of rationality and empiricism but this is not commonly understood as "faith". I trust that my car will start this afternoon, I don't typically say that I have "faith" that it will start.

You state that "faith" is when all evidence is in and we have to make a decision to go forward. Wrong. There are religions and philosophies that reject metaphysics. Simply, we do not need to speculate or make decisions on metaphysical questions.

Again, if you are saying that "faith" is merely accepting a position on an empirical question under uncertainty, that is not how the word is typically used. The word is typically used for things for which the evidence is against... inerrancy of scripture, transubstantiation, the return of Jesus (e.g. if Jesus returns are there multiple Jesus's, or Jesi, to accommodate time zones or will he just fly across the world one evening like Santa Clause). These things are not accepted based on the best evidence, but on "faith".

Another example, if I believe that the stock market will go up but have no basis for the belief, I may say that I have "faith" that the market will go up. If I do analysis and believe that it will go up based on that analysis, albeit under conditions of uncertainty, I would not say that I have "faith" that the market will go up. Don't confuse belief with faith. If the evidence supports your belief, faith is not required just because it is under conditions of uncertainty.

Historically, certain Christians were accused of being "irrational" and looked down upon. Hence, they created separate colleges handing out degrees and various streams of thought to try and show how their beliefs were "rational". Some held up, most were simply "preaching to the choir".

All that aside, again, the way the word is typically used is to believe something to be true for which there is no evidence.

[KLewchuk]

If I understand you correctly, you will then argue that you cannot have "faith" in transubstantiation but in something else.

Well, let me say that I DO think there are instances of "bad faith," of people putting trust in things that are not worthy of their trust, and persisting in believing things contrary to all evidence. They hold unfalsifiable, unprovable, and unempirical beliefs, usually for some psychological or emotional reason.

The thing is, this is not a religious phenomenon. Or, to speak more precisely, there's nothing at all about "bad faith" that confines it to people who are religious. There are, for example, people whose faith in Socialism, or in "systemic racism," or in the intrinsic goodness of technology transcends in its irrational fervour all possibility of disproof. There is literally nothing you can say to some people to disabuse them of these notions; and even your attempt to do so is taken as confirmation that you are just a hopeless philistine, or Capitalist, or racist -- and thus that the ideology behind these things is even confirmed just by being opposed.

But is that what Christian faith is? No. Biblically, faith always has an object. There is no injunction or even a case anywhere in the Scriptures where faith is just "in faith." So whatever "religion" you might be talking about when you say faith has to be in nothing particular, it clearly ain't a Biblical "religion."

Agreed, you believe something "on faith" because you have vested authority to something other than rationality.

Well, we're not "agreed" on that. That is what I am denying, as a matter of fact. In fact, I am speaking to you rationally right now.

Let me explain it this way. If you can convince me of something through rational argumentation and critical inquiry, faith is not required.

Not so. For the necessity of faith is caused not by the adequacy of the object, but by your own human epistemic limitation. Human beings have to have faith because they are contingent and limited beings. Thus, we cannot avoid investing ourselves in ideas, projects and paradigms that we do not have the total epistemic possession of.

You did this when you married your wife, assuming you have one. When you proposed, you did not know she would not learn to hate you, or be unfaithful to you, or even go off with somebody else. You could not possibly have proved to yourself that would not happen -- no matter how fervently you hoped it. But you wanted to marry her. And you thought, believed, hoped, that because of what you already knew about her character and her relationship with you, she would not do that. And you had to make a decision: will you ask her to marry you?

If you had no faith in her, you'd never ask her to marry you. You'd be a fool to do it. But if you had a lot of faith in her, you might just bring yourself to believe that even though you don't actually KNOW she would not shatter you into a million pieces, she is trustworthy. And you asked. You invested yourself in something about which your knowledge was only partial, and which the danger was considerable. But you understood that without that, there was no future for the relationship.

That's faith. And without it, you'd never have been married. And without faith, it is also impossible to know God, too.

Faith is belief in absence of evidence.

Well, I know that's a fairly common -- and convenient -- belief among skeptics who want a quick excuse to dismiss the whole possibility of faith. But I'm afraid that whoever told you this misled you.. It's not. Faith is the belief one has when all the evidence possible is in, and we still have things we don't know for sure, but we have to make a decision and go forward. Which is to say, it's characteristic of all human knowing and believing -- both religious and secular.

Let me try it this way.

If I lay out a strong, rational, argument, should you believe it? Let's assume, yes. Why? The underlying assumption is that it is "good" to be rational. In proper form, reason is a virtue. I may have "faith" that something will occur but that faith is based on reason; reason is the virtue.

Sometimes, certain beliefs are asserted which are not based on reason. Should you believe them? Let's assume, yes. Why? Well, it can't be due to reason because there is no adequate reason to believe them. You may still believe them, "on faith". The underlying assumption is that it is "good" to have faith, that faith is a virtue.

If you believe something on reason, reason is the virtue... if you believe something on faith, faith is the virtue.

Two different virtues. Now, if something is a virtue, typically more of it is better than less (in proper form, of course). So, they greater I can believe things without reason the more faith I have and the more virtuous I will be.

Of course, the failure in the above argument is the assumption that faith is a virtue.

[Immanuel Can]

If you speak to a scientific naturalist, they would not call themselves "a person of faith".

Of course. But that has at least three possible causes: naivete about their own level of epistemological certainty, ignorance of what "faith" is, or lack of self-awareness. I think none of those, though, changes the truth.

...this is not commonly understood as "faith".

Then the fault is in "common" prejudice.

I trust that my car will start this afternoon, I don't typically say that I have "faith" that it will start.

And yet, you could. You could also say, "I believe it will." But more likely, you won't think about it at all, because your expectation of the car starting is so absolute that you perhaps don't question it at all...

Still faith, though.

You state that "faith" is when all evidence is in and we have to make a decision to go forward. Wrong.

"Wrong"? On what basis? I'm a counter case to that conclusion myself. So's John Locke, as you have seen. And so, in fact, is the entire Biblical record. A rethink is in order, perhaps?

There are religions and philosophies that reject metaphysics.

Interesting. What's one of those?

The word is typically used for things for which the evidence is against

Well, that's true of the detractors and critics of faith. They find that definition convenient, of course. It's certainly not true of all people who have faith.

Another example, if I believe that the stock market will go up but have no basis for the belief, I may say that I have "faith" that the market will go up.

Now, wouldn't THAT be foolish. You'll probably lose your shirt.

Historically, certain Christians were accused of being "irrational" and looked down upon.

Actually, that has been a Modernist conceit, really only popular since the so-called "Enlightenment." (The self-congratulatory name proponents have given to that period being a real tip-off to that, of course.)

...the way the word is typically used is to believe something to be true for which there is no evidence.

Not among those I know. Not in the literature, and not in the Bible. Perhaps only among those with whom you have hitherto been familiar. I'm not able to say. But I'm a counter case, as I say, and more can be presented very easily.

Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, John Locke, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Charles Babbage...hey, it's beginning to sound like a "who's who" of science.

[Immanuel Can]

Let me try it this way.

What are you "trying"?

Me, I'm not "trying" anything...I'm just sharing a perspective. But okay.

If I lay out a strong, rational, argument, should you believe it?

Sure, ceteris paribus.

Why? The underlying assumption is that it is "good" to be rational.

I agree.

I may have "faith" that something will occur but that faith is based on reason; reason is the virtue.

Reason is A virtue. But reason doesn't get us all the way we need to get. You may say you "reasoned" your way to a proposal to your wife; but I doubt you did. You didn't know what she would say, or you wouldn't really have had "ask" at all, would you? You would just be able to say, "I know she's so desperately in love with me, she'll marry me anyway...reason told me."

Likewise, reason can tell you your car should start in the morning. It can't guarantee it will. If you wait until you have a genuine 100% certainty your car will start, you'll never start your car.

Sometimes, certain beliefs are asserted which are not based on reason. Should you believe them?

No.

Let's assume, yes.

Why are you answering for me? Are my own answers inconvenient to a theory you have?

Two different virtues.

This is the allegation I am denying. Faith is not the opposite of reason. It's not even incompatible with reason, nor is reason incompatible with faith. They are partners in the epistemological enterprise; and when we separate faith from reason, we stultify decisions; and when we separate reason from faith, we are frozen in our inability to know for certain.

Of course, the failure in the above argument is the assumption that faith is a virtue.

I think not. I think the failure is in the gratuitous and unrealistic dichotomy between faith and reason, which actually never exists.

[KLewchuk]

Let me try it this way.

What are you "trying"?

Me, I'm not "trying" anything...I'm just sharing a perspective. But okay.

If I lay out a strong, rational, argument, should you believe it?

Sure, ceteris paribus.

Why? The underlying assumption is that it is "good" to be rational.

I agree.

I may have "faith" that something will occur but that faith is based on reason; reason is the virtue.

Reason is A virtue. But reason doesn't get us all the way we need to get. You may say you "reasoned" your way to a proposal to your wife; but I doubt you did. You didn't know what she would say, or you wouldn't really have had "ask" at all, would you? You would just be able to say, "I know she's so desperately in love with me, she'll marry me anyway...reason told me."

Likewise, reason can tell you your car should start in the morning. It can't guarantee it will. If you wait until you have a genuine 100% certainty your car will start, you'll never start your car.

Sometimes, certain beliefs are asserted which are not based on reason. Should you believe them?

No.

Let's assume, yes.

Why are you answering for me? Are my own answers inconvenient to a theory you have?

Two different virtues.

This is the allegation I am denying. Faith is not the opposite of reason. It's not even incompatible with reason, nor is reason incompatible with faith. They are partners in the epistemological enterprise; and when we separate faith from reason, we stultify decisions; and when we separate reason from faith, we are frozen in our inability to know for certain.

Of course, the failure in the above argument is the assumption that faith is a virtue.

I think not. I think the failure is in the gratuitous and unrealistic dichotomy between faith and reason, which actually never exists.

OK, let's put "my theories" aside; this author does a good job of accurately defining this issue:

https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/3252 ... t-A-Virtue

[Immanuel Can]

OK, let's put "my theories" aside; this author does a good job of accurately defining this issue:
https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/3252 ... t-A-Virtue

I think the article is massively confused, and basically off, for the very reasons I have already pointed out.

So what's your question for me?

[Scott Mayers]

'faith IN faith'

That's redundant.

There is no such thing. Faith that lacks any grounding in a particular person, body of facts or rationality is mere fantasy. And it's a fantasy to think that everybody thinks that's what faith is.

Religious declarations of 'faith' is an IMPOSED belief because it demand others to trust what the speaker is declaring is something they have 'faith' in when the tactic itself is only to beg others NOT to trust normal everyday reasoning, ....like the fact that you cannot demonstrate your God's existence.

Well, I'm sorry to say, and it can sound unkind...it's not meant to be. But you don't really know how Christians think at all. Just as one philosophical example, take John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, "God" (IV). Whether you believe his argument or not, you can see he's not grounding it in a kind of "faith" that takes no thought for "normal everyday reasoning" or "demonstration." Rather, he's proposing to reason from undeniable facts accessible to every person.

So Christians don't think what you think they think.

All religious thinking has this property.

Well, then, the only conclusion has to be that Christianity is not religious. And, I suppose, I must not be religious either. And I would certainly accept that conclusion.

I was speaking of any religion, not simply Christianity. Nor do I think that you speak for all "Christians" as though they all have one identical system of belief.

But what is common, especially if you've argued with religious people as much as I have, is that most who assert 'faith' is how the argument ends on when they've exhausted all standard arguments....especially those that have been already debunked formally long beforehand.

They argue that faith is sufficient at this point. That is, besides repeating dead arguments in the hopes that the listener will be sufficiently convinced, ...even when they've already KNOWN the problem with the arguments, faith is treated as though the act itself is a virtue.

Did I not also mention how praying is just a form of begging nature to abide by your wishes and how odd it is that some think that God is somehow motivated MORE when more people pray along with them!!?? [as if God was the servant of people contrary to their assertion of the opposite.]

Since I'm talking with you particularly, it would help if you expressed what kind of particular religious background you have and to which churches/sources you find most 'correct'? Then I can show you directly how you'll end up on the last 'hope' of faith to be sufficiently justified.

For a good read about how one has faith in faith (or belief in belief), see Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell". Here is a YouTube overview from the authoer when promoting this book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WhQ8bSvcHQ

[Scott Mayers]

...

No; let's get precise. If I believe "X", I could ask "why" I believe in "X". If I believe in "X" based on evidence and reason, that that is the basis for my belief. If the basis of my belief is "faith", then evidence and reason are irrelevant. I may study apologetics, but if all the arguments were proven faulty would I change my belief. It depends, if my belief was based on faith I surely would not since the arguments were not the basis of my belief.

About half of all religions are split similar to the political divisions. As such, there is about half of each religion-class views that hold a faith-in the act of faith.

Now considering I would have responded to someone asserting that the Athiest, or scientist, or other non-religious class of people's disapproval of religion ALSO has 'faith' as though their use of it in defiance of religious arguments, this HAS to be because the opponent is arguing a 'virtue' in the acts of things like prayer and merely asserting that God exists without ANY apriori reason to assert beyond experience with being initially told something, the religious in general have a literal faith-in-faith.

It's either that or you'd have to express how and why one's PARTICULAR religious interpretation of who God is is dependent upon where you were born!!
Why, for instance, do Arabs 'believe' that Allah exists? Why do East Indians embrace Hinduism? Why, in general, that if you find any society in isolation of other groups, have different particular stories and interpretations of who god is (or who the gods are)?

You cannot expect to even BEGIN arguing for some universal historical claim that you all believe is universally true of us all on this Earth unless all people (and all animals, included) are not born to know and share the same identical being and its history.

That leaves 'faith' as the only 'gamble' you have to presume that I require DISPROVING your presumed 'default' that doesn't exist. Being witout a partiular religious belief is norm. So, to posit a faith prior to the proof is BEGGING that I require a pretense in its existence in a way that I think of it as evident as something I can see.

[Immanuel Can]

I was speaking of any religion, not simply Christianity.

That's the problem.

It's not better than when one speaks of any group of people as if "they are all the same." And we know how bad that can be.

Nor do I think that you speak for all "Christians" as though they all have one identical system of belief.

Well, if you are at pains to note the differences within Christianity, so that you doubt my credentials to speak for the whole, even though I am a Christian myself, how much worse is it to suppose you, who purport not to believe in any of them at all, can speak authoritatively of all religions in the world combined!

I would say that if you feel you want to make generalizations about every "religion" in the world, and from outside of them all, too, then you probably should allow that I might know something about my own belief system, no?

At least, you have to think it's possible I do...

Fortunately for me, Christians do have a basis of arbitration as to which beliefs are genuinely Christian and which are not. So we can speak about what is Biblical and what is not. While that still allows some smaller range of difference, it significantly restricts the range of disagreement that can happen among Christians.

But what is common, especially if you've argued with religious people as much as I have, is that most who assert 'faith' is how the argument ends on when they've exhausted all standard arguments....especially those that have been already debunked formally long beforehand.

Heh. Try me.

They argue that faith is sufficient at this point. That is, besides repeating dead arguments in the hopes that the listener will be sufficiently convinced, ...even when they've already KNOWN the problem with the arguments, faith is treated as though the act itself is a virtue.

Well, Biblically, they don't have a leg to stand on, on that one. So you're right to see that as illegitimate on their part, if that's what they've done. But it's not Biblical, and I don't do it.

Did I not also mention how praying is just a form of begging

No, you didn't. But it isn't. You've misunderstood Biblical prayer, I'm afraid.

Since I'm talking with you particularly, it would help if you expressed what kind of particular religious background you have and to which churches/sources you find most 'correct'?

As I say, use the Bible as your measure. As for me, I don't substitute God's authority for any intermediary human authority. I have no popes, prelates or other illegitimate intermediaries...just as the Bible mandates, actually. "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."

For a good read about how one has faith in faith (or belief in belief), see Daniel Dennett's...

Oh, I know Dennett. And Harris. And Dawkins. And Hitchens (well, he knows better than he did now, at least). And I also read the "big boys," like Hume, Nietzsche, Mackie, Weilenberg, Flew (he changed his mind, though), Sartre, Camus, not just the modern "pop" guys like Dennett.

I think that if one has a belief worth holding onto, it should at least be able to stand up to some tests from the other side, don't you think? I do. But I find that most Atheists don't.

What do you think?

[KLewchuk]

I was speaking of any religion, not simply Christianity.

That's the problem.

It's not better than when one speaks of any group of people as if "they are all the same." And we know how bad that can be.

Nor do I think that you speak for all "Christians" as though they all have one identical system of belief.

Well, if you are at pains to note the differences within Christianity, so that you doubt my credentials to speak for the whole, even though I am a Christian myself, how much worse is it to suppose you, who purport not to believe in any of them at all, can speak authoritatively of all religions in the world combined!

I would say that if you feel you want to make generalizations about every "religion" in the world, and from outside of them all, too, then you probably should allow that I might know something about my own belief system, no?

At least, you have to think it's possible I do...

Fortunately for me, Christians do have a basis of arbitration as to which beliefs are genuinely Christian and which are not. So we can speak about what is Biblical and what is not. While that still allows some smaller range of difference, it significantly restricts the range of disagreement that can happen among Christians.

But what is common, especially if you've argued with religious people as much as I have, is that most who assert 'faith' is how the argument ends on when they've exhausted all standard arguments....especially those that have been already debunked formally long beforehand.

Heh. Try me.

They argue that faith is sufficient at this point. That is, besides repeating dead arguments in the hopes that the listener will be sufficiently convinced, ...even when they've already KNOWN the problem with the arguments, faith is treated as though the act itself is a virtue.

Well, Biblically, they don't have a leg to stand on, on that one. So you're right to see that as illegitimate on their part, if that's what they've done. But it's not Biblical, and I don't do it.

Did I not also mention how praying is just a form of begging

No, you didn't. But it isn't. You've misunderstood Biblical prayer, I'm afraid.

Since I'm talking with you particularly, it would help if you expressed what kind of particular religious background you have and to which churches/sources you find most 'correct'?

As I say, use the Bible as your measure. As for me, I don't substitute God's authority for any intermediary human authority. I have no popes, prelates or other illegitimate intermediaries...just as the Bible mandates, actually. "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."

For a good read about how one has faith in faith (or belief in belief), see Daniel Dennett's...

Oh, I know Dennett. And Harris. And Dawkins. And Hitchens (well, he knows better than he did now, at least). And I also read the "big boys," like Hume, Nietzsche, Mackie, Weilenberg, Flew (he changed his mind, though), Sartre, Camus, not just the modern "pop" guys like Dennett.

I think that if one has a belief worth holding onto, it should at least be able to stand up to some tests from the other side, don't you think? I do. But I find that most Atheists don't.

What do you think?

Let me try this example on you...

Situation 1: I have a deck of 52 cards... 51 red and 1 black. I show you the cards to verify. I then tell you to pick a card, but before I do I ask you what color you believe the card you pick will be. Obviously, you don't "know" what color the card will be do to "epistemic" limitations. However, you decide to believe the color will be red. Why? Well, based on empirical evidence and rationality. In business, finance, etc., people make such judgments all the time (i.e. what do you believe the answer will be under conditions of uncertainty). However, beliefs based on empirical evidence and rationality under conditions of uncertainty is not typically termed "faith" as a matter of definition. If you want to call it "faith", you need a different term for Situation 2.

Situation 2: I tell you that there is a deck of cards. I tell you that you will pick a card, but before I do I ask you what the color you believe the card will be. You know nothing about the colors of the deck, or if there are colors, nor the number of cards in the deck. However, you decide to believe the color will be red. Why? Well, not on empirical evidence and rationality. This is typically called a decision to believe based on "faith".

Religious beliefs often involved decisions to believe based on insufficient, non-existent, or are even contrary to evidence. However, people choose to believe them anyway... "on faith".

An interesting aside, Bart Ehrman (New Testament Scholar, UNC Chapel Hill) tells a story how he identified an inconsistency in the New Testament (Paul, if I remember remember correctly) in writing a paper. From a position of faith in the inerrancy of scripture, he constructed an elaborate explanation for the inconsistency. His advisor found it interesting but asked, "did you consider that Paul could be wrong?". Once Bart did that, he realized that was the best explanation. What he accepted "on faith" was replaced by the truth he saw "through reason".

[Immanuel Can]

Let me try this example on you...Situation 1: I have a deck of 52 cards...

No, no...we're just going around in circles, then. I don't need an analogy, because I know exactly what you're trying to say.

Instead, let me try and summarize for us both.

You're trying to describe to me a definition of "faith" you've always thought was right. (I don't know who told you it was, if anybody did; or if you invented it, or read it in Dennett or something, but you obviously got it from somewhere, I assume.) That definition claims that faith is the opposite of evidence and reason. You think that they are mutually-exclusive things. The problem is that I fully understand what that definition says: I've run into it in a lot of skeptical writing, so you're not actually explaining it to me. I get it.

What I'm saying to you is that that definition is wrong. It's an error, a confusion, a mistake. That definition of faith is not represented anywhere in the Bible. The Bible does not teach anybody to have non-evidentiary, non-rational types of "faith." And I'm trying to explain to you what real "faith," Biblical faith, looks like.

If you want to call it "faith", you need a different term for Situation 2.

I have a different term: "Biblical faith." It's very different from the thing you're describing. You're describing what Sartre called "bad faith." What you perhaps need to consider is that Atheists have a vested interest in insisting on such a shallow, frivolous definition...for obvious reasons. It makes their job very easy.

Unfortunately for them, anyone interested in the facts can verify that it's just wrong. Theirs is a classic "straw man" argument. And you can check, because you'll find the Biblical account straightens that right out. There is not one account in the whole Bible of somebody having gratuitous faith, one ungrounded in any facts, evidence rationality or character. It's just not there...anywhere. See for yourself.

Religious beliefs often involved decisions to believe based on insufficient, non-existent, or are even contrary to evidence. However, people choose to believe them anyway... "on faith".

That, right there, is the summary of a bad definition of "faith." And you will find that it's not even a bit Biblical. So whomever it applies to, if anyone, it's surely not Christian faith, whether you get the definition from some Atheist, or whether you find somebody who you think is a "Christian" who doesn't know better, and thinks it might be right.

It's just wrong.

[KLewchuk]

Let me try this example on you...Situation 1: I have a deck of 52 cards...

No, no...we're just going around in circles, then. I don't need an analogy, because I know exactly what you're trying to say.

Instead, let me try and summarize for us both.

You're trying to describe to me a definition of "faith" you've always thought was right. (I don't know who told you it was, if anybody did; or if you invented it, or read it in Dennett or something, but you obviously got it from somewhere, I assume.) That definition claims that faith is the opposite of evidence and reason. You think that they are mutually-exclusive things. The problem is that I fully understand what that definition says: I've run into it in a lot of skeptical writing, so you're not actually explaining it to me. I get it.

What I'm saying to you is that that definition is wrong. It's an error, a confusion, a mistake. That definition of faith is not represented anywhere in the Bible. The Bible does not teach anybody to have non-evidentiary, non-rational types of "faith." And I'm trying to explain to you what real "faith," Biblical faith, looks like.

If you want to call it "faith", you need a different term for Situation 2.

I have a different term: "Biblical faith." It's very different from the thing you're describing. You're describing what Sartre called "bad faith." What you perhaps need to consider is that Atheists have a vested interest in insisting on such a shallow, frivolous definition...for obvious reasons. It makes their job very easy.

Unfortunately for them, anyone interested in the facts can verify that it's just wrong. Theirs is a classic "straw man" argument. And you can check, because you'll find the Biblical account straightens that right out. There is not one account in the whole Bible of somebody having gratuitous faith, one ungrounded in any facts, evidence rationality or character. It's just not there...anywhere. See for yourself.

Religious beliefs often involved decisions to believe based on insufficient, non-existent, or are even contrary to evidence. However, people choose to believe them anyway... "on faith".

That, right there, is the summary of a bad definition of "faith." And you will find that it's not even a bit Biblical. So whomever it applies to, if anyone, it's surely not Christian faith, whether you get the definition from some Atheist, or whether you find somebody who you think is a "Christian" who doesn't know better, and thinks it might be right.

It's just wrong.

Omer gerd,

OK, let me try this one.

I remember a philosophical debate that I was reading. It went something like this"
Person A: Q does not exist
Person B: It does, if you define "Q" this way
Person A: But that is not the common understanding of the definition of "Q"
Person B: The common understanding is wrong.

This is just a bullshit game of semantics.

Question: Do you understand the difference between the examples and, if so, what words would you use to communicate the difference?

To take it to a different religion, what is the difference between a) if I blow up things I get virgins in the afterlife, different from b) if I believe in transubstantiation it gets me rewards in the afterlife?

[Immanuel Can]

I remember a philosophical debate that I was reading. It went something like this"
Person A: Q does not exist
Person B: It does, if you define "Q" this way
Person A: But that is not the common understanding of the definition of "Q"
Person B: The common understanding is wrong.

This is just a bullshit game of semantics.

Those who think words don't matter don't understand words.

They are very powerful; and when one doesn't get them right, (as Orwell so poignantly said) one's thinking becomes sloppy, inaccurate or even foolish. It's always important, when you're discussing important things, to get the words right.

After all: we think in words. At least, most of the time, we do.

Question: Do you understand the difference between the examples and, if so, what words would you use to communicate the difference?

As I said, I understand the difference...and I already gave you the words that communicate the difference: you're talking about "bad faith," and I'm talking about "Biblical faith."

And we can settle it very easily. Look in the Bible for references to "faith." You'll see I'm right.

To take it to a different religion, what is the difference between a) if I blow up things I get virgins in the afterlife, different from b) if I believe in transubstantiation it gets me rewards in the afterlife?

Well, I don't believe either, actually. But to answer your question, I suppose it makes a great difference to people who get blown up. To my knowledge, though the belief in transubstantiation is irrational and unbiblical, it hasn't so far blown anybody up.

What you've got there, though, is two examples of "bad faith."

If you'll pardon me saying so, I get the sense you don't perhaps know very much about the Bible. That's probably why you don't know what it says about faith. It seems to me you've fielded your conception of "faith" largely from skeptical sources, those who have no interest at all in considering what it might really mean, but are in a rush to dismiss the whole matter.

I say that without insult implied, of course; a lot of people don't know much about what the Bible actually teaches. And we all get our ideas from somewhere.

[KLewchuk]

I remember a philosophical debate that I was reading. It went something like this"
Person A: Q does not exist
Person B: It does, if you define "Q" this way
Person A: But that is not the common understanding of the definition of "Q"
Person B: The common understanding is wrong.

This is just a bullshit game of semantics.

Those who think words don't matter don't understand words.

They are very powerful; and when one doesn't get them right, (as Orwell so poignantly said) one's thinking becomes sloppy, inaccurate or even foolish. It's always important, when you're discussing important things, to get the words right.

After all: we think in words. At least, most of the time, we do.

Question: Do you understand the difference between the examples and, if so, what words would you use to communicate the difference?

As I said, I understand the difference...and I already gave you the words that communicate the difference: you're talking about "bad faith," and I'm talking about "Biblical faith."

And we can settle it very easily. Look in the Bible for references to "faith." You'll see I'm right.

To take it to a different religion, what is the difference between a) if I blow up things I get virgins in the afterlife, different from b) if I believe in transubstantiation it gets me rewards in the afterlife?

Well, I don't believe either, actually. But to answer your question, I suppose it makes a great difference to people who get blown up. To my knowledge, though the belief in transubstantiation is irrational and unbiblical, it hasn't so far blown anybody up.

What you've got there, though, is two examples of "bad faith."

If you'll pardon me saying so, I get the sense you don't perhaps know very much about the Bible. That's probably why you don't know what it says about faith. It seems to me you've fielded your conception of "faith" largely from skeptical sources, those who have no interest at all in considering what it might really mean, but are in a rush to dismiss the whole matter.

I say that without insult implied, of course; a lot of people don't know much about what the Bible actually teaches. And we all get our ideas from somewhere.

LOL, my undergraduate degree was in exegetical theology; could struggle through the NT in Greek at one point.

It appears to me that the difference is that you are defining "faith" according to a certain interpretation which you feel is correct because it corresponds to your interpretation of a book which you believe is authoritative.

I am not approaching the topic within a certain "faith community" but rather how the concept is commonly understood.

If you say that rational beliefs are "good faith" and beliefs based on insufficient evidence are "bad faith". OK, we can then move on to what constitutes sufficient evidence. If you read Erhman, his opinion is that belief in the Bible as authoritative would be "bad faith". Again, a strange use of words but we can still communicate now that it appears we have the concepts understood.