Diversity, Inclusion, Equity

[Belinda]

I prefer reasonable faith. Reasonable faith characterises scientists, Humanists, Quakers, Unitarians, and also a few thinkers from other religious traditions.

Reason and faith are not always opposites.

You may think it is odd to group scientists and Humanists with Quakers and Unitarians. My reason for doing so is that without exception we all have to have faith in the widest sense of 'faith'.

What is often meant by 'faith' is belief in incredible supernatural events. Such beliefs are harmless except when the faithful believe God has intervened to instruct them to damage the other.

[KLewchuk]

I might point out that Locke is dead.

Not exactly a salient point. If he was right, he was right.

Again, in common language in 2020, when someone asserts something without sufficient evidence and are asked to give account for their belief... they will often claim to believe "on faith".

Locke says that was so, even in his day; but even back in his day, that was recognized as "a very improper way of speaking, "even if common use has so authorized it, that it would be folly either to oppose or hope to remedy it." (See above)

In other words, people in Locke's day were already getting that wrong, and were so committed to that wrongness that it was hopeless to straighten them out. Still, they were wrong about what Christians like Locke were actually thinking. And Biblically, a better definition of "faith" goes right back to the very beginning.

So if I say today that "faith" means to me, as a (post-?) modern Theist something quite different from what you have heard secular people say it means, you should believe me. The whole history of the term is on my side, and you can confirm that with reference to Locke, or to the Bible itself. You don't have to take my word for it, though I'm telling you the truth about how I think.

And I believe you, too...when you say that people have the misunderstanding of it you say they do. Locke agrees with you about that, too.

Given all that, the only silly thing would be for either me to insist everyone in the modern secular world understands the term my way, or for you to insist that I am somehow duty bound to concede it the other way. Both are true: modern people have one understanding of "faith," and rational Theists have another.

Fair enough?

Why should we care what Christians think. That aside, I pulled up my Masters dissertation for a project and was reminded of this:

Hebrews 11:1
11 Now faith is the [a]substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[KLewchuk]

Everybody knows stuff I don't know. God only is omniscient. I, same as you, am subject to my own experience.

Fair enough. But experience can expand. Things are not all equal in the realm of the "religions."

What I said, religions are on a scale ranging between liberal and authoritarian. Sure many of us can learn. Distinguish between getting educated and getting indoctrinated.Distinguish between learning dogma, and learning how to sift probability from the dross of improbability.

My point may be slightly different; let me put it this way. If you wanted to study "mysticism" you could group on Jewish mystics, Christian mystics, Muslim mystics, and certain Buddhists. They have much in common.

Similarly, you can group Christian fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists, and certain Buddhists easily. Not familiar with Jewish sorts to have an opinion.

In other words, the "liberal vs authoritarian" strains (for example) are found "across" religions.

[KLewchuk]

I might point out that Locke is dead.

Not exactly a salient point. If he was right, he was right.

Again, in common language in 2020, when someone asserts something without sufficient evidence and are asked to give account for their belief... they will often claim to believe "on faith".

Locke says that was so, even in his day; but even back in his day, that was recognized as "a very improper way of speaking, "even if common use has so authorized it, that it would be folly either to oppose or hope to remedy it." (See above)

In other words, people in Locke's day were already getting that wrong, and were so committed to that wrongness that it was hopeless to straighten them out. Still, they were wrong about what Christians like Locke were actually thinking. And Biblically, a better definition of "faith" goes right back to the very beginning.

So if I say today that "faith" means to me, as a (post-?) modern Theist something quite different from what you have heard secular people say it means, you should believe me. The whole history of the term is on my side, and you can confirm that with reference to Locke, or to the Bible itself. You don't have to take my word for it, though I'm telling you the truth about how I think.

And I believe you, too...when you say that people have the misunderstanding of it you say they do. Locke agrees with you about that, too.

Given all that, the only silly thing would be for either me to insist everyone in the modern secular world understands the term my way, or for you to insist that I am somehow duty bound to concede it the other way. Both are true: modern people have one understanding of "faith," and rational Theists have another.

Fair enough?

No, not when you are arguing semantics. Meanings of words change or fall out of common usage... useful for communication.

For the upteenth time;
People for belief based on different epistemologies. Some beliefs held by individuals are firm conclusions based on rationality and evidence. Other beliefs are held in spite of a lack of evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence.

If you want to say that firm conclusions based on rationality and evidence are called "faith" and those in absence of rationality and evidence are based on "ham". That is fine; but methinks your assertions contain a lot of pork.

[KLewchuk]

I might point out that Locke is dead.

Not exactly a salient point. If he was right, he was right.

Again, in common language in 2020, when someone asserts something without sufficient evidence and are asked to give account for their belief... they will often claim to believe "on faith".

Locke says that was so, even in his day; but even back in his day, that was recognized as "a very improper way of speaking, "even if common use has so authorized it, that it would be folly either to oppose or hope to remedy it." (See above)

In other words, people in Locke's day were already getting that wrong, and were so committed to that wrongness that it was hopeless to straighten them out. Still, they were wrong about what Christians like Locke were actually thinking. And Biblically, a better definition of "faith" goes right back to the very beginning.

So if I say today that "faith" means to me, as a (post-?) modern Theist something quite different from what you have heard secular people say it means, you should believe me. The whole history of the term is on my side, and you can confirm that with reference to Locke, or to the Bible itself. You don't have to take my word for it, though I'm telling you the truth about how I think.

And I believe you, too...when you say that people have the misunderstanding of it you say they do. Locke agrees with you about that, too.

Given all that, the only silly thing would be for either me to insist everyone in the modern secular world understands the term my way, or for you to insist that I am somehow duty bound to concede it the other way. Both are true: modern people have one understanding of "faith," and rational Theists have another.

Fair enough?

No, a rational theist would not believe the Bible to be authoritative (again, read Ehrman). I may refer to a dictionary for a definition but it would be irrational for me to believe the dictionary to be divinely inspired and immutable.

[Immanuel Can]

Why should we care what Christians think.

For many reasons. But one is that we are discussing what "faith" means. Atheists often claim they don't even use "faith," and so they're hardly positioned to say much about it, even if we take them at their word -- which I see no reason to do. (I think they're insufficiently self-aware on that point, but I can agree to disagree with them about that.)

Either way, they know, and admit they know, nothing about "faith." They mock it without having any real understanding of it at all.

That aside, I pulled up my Masters dissertation for a project and was reminded of this:

Hebrews 11:1
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Yes. That's correct. Good verse.

But to know what that means or implies, you'd best read the context, hadn't you? The whole context is a discussion of how people of the past trusted God concerning his promised Messiah. In other words, it does nothing to contradict any evidence or proof, far less to abandon reason. Faith is the relationship one has with God which permits one to trust Him for the future, based on what He has promised.

What this passage does not say is, "People had no facts, and yet had faith," or "Contrary to all reason, evidence and common sense," people believed stuff they had no reason to think was true." Such a thing would not, even in a Christian sense, be virtuous in any way. So the conventional Atheist definition of "faith" is nothing like what is being talked about in Hebrews 11.

Faith is trust in the character of God, not an exercise of personal defiance of all evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

Meanings of words change or fall out of common usage... useful for communication.

Yes, they do. That makes it all the more important for us to make sure we're actually using the same terms. Failure to do so will create an error of amphiboly.

Some beliefs held by individuals are firm conclusions based on rationality and evidence. Other beliefs are held in spite of a lack of evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence.

I never denied that. I simply pointed out that the latter has nothing to do with Biblical faith.

[Immanuel Can]

No, a rational theist would not believe the Bible to be authoritative...

Well, we'll see, won't we? And sooner, I think, than many suspect.

In any case, you and I both can see it's "authoritative" so far as what somebody who rightly calls themselves "Christian" ought to believe. If they don't regard the Biblical definition of "faith" as authoritative, then what's their basis for saying their definition is authentically "Christian" at all?

[KLewchuk]

No, a rational theist would not believe the Bible to be authoritative...

Well, we'll see, won't we? And sooner, I think, than many suspect.

In any case, you and I both can see it's "authoritative" so far as what somebody who rightly calls themselves "Christian" ought to believe. If they don't regard the Biblical definition of "faith" as authoritative, then what's their basis for saying their definition is authentically "Christian" at all?

You do make me laugh. You now get to define who is a Christian.

One way to investigate whether a belief is based on evidence is to query as to what contrary evidence would result in a person changing their belief. If a person cannot formulate the type of evidence that would cause them to change their belief, if it existed, then their beliefs are probably based on "faith".

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Faith is trust in the character of God, not an exercise of personal defiance of all evidence.

That is the less usual usage of the word 'trust'. As 'trust in' but not 'trust that'.

How do you trust in someone who can resist evil but does not do so?

[Immanuel Can]

No, a rational theist would not believe the Bible to be authoritative...

Well, we'll see, won't we? And sooner, I think, than many suspect.

In any case, you and I both can see it's "authoritative" so far as what somebody who rightly calls themselves "Christian" ought to believe. If they don't regard the Biblical definition of "faith" as authoritative, then what's their basis for saying their definition is authentically "Christian" at all?

You do make me laugh. You now get to define who is a Christian.

Look again.

You'll find I didn't say I get to. After all, who am I?

The Bible gets to. And you get to, based on how you read the Bible. Moreover, I invited you to suggest anything else, other than the Bible, that must justify the claim that one was a Christian.

But in point of fact, what you ascribe to me was not even what I actually said. All I said is that a Christian definition of faith had to come from the Bible, and I asked you where else you think you could get a legitimately "Christian" definition of that word.

One way to investigate whether a belief is based on evidence is to query as to what contrary evidence would result in a person changing their belief. If a person cannot formulate the type of evidence that would cause them to change their belief, if it existed, then their beliefs are probably based on "faith".

That's the mistaken definition of "faith" again. You're assuming that both evidence and counter-evidence cannot be considered in a "faith" situation. I'm arguing both can be considered, and indeed must be, if the situation is to involve any genuine "faith." For "faith" always takes an object; and as such, it always is based on something.

[Immanuel Can]

How do you trust in someone who can resist evil but does not do so?

Who are you thinking of?

[Belinda]

How do you trust in someone who can resist evil but does not do so?

Who are you thinking of?

God

[Immanuel Can]

How do you trust in someone who can resist evil but does not do so?

Who are you thinking of?

God

So, your supposition would be that God "does not resist evil"? What makes you think that?

[Belinda]

Who are you thinking of?

God

So, your supposition would be that God "does not resist evil"? What makes you think that?

Suffering exists.

If God is all powerful and all good He will not allow suffering , perhaps a little suffering so we know what is the nature of good. But an all powerful and all good Being would not allow the degree of suffering we poor men know about.

One of the traditional attributes of God must be abandoned if this Being is to be comprehensible. Either He is

1.
all-good and all -knowing but not all -powerful:
or He is

2.

all-knowing and all-powerful but not all- good:
or He is

3.

all-good and all-powerful but is painfully ignorant.