thedoc wrote: I believe we have more things in common than we know.
That seems likely. We seem to be on the same page about quite a bit.
all religions are based on faith rather than evidence,
Well, as a Christian I would certainly agree that "without faith it is impossible to please God," as the Bible says; faith is a good thing, and a necessary thing. I would even go so far as to say it's the dynamic one has to use in order to come into any relationship with God. It is essential. But I would add that faith is a generally insufficiently parsed concept.
Certain extremist groups, like the "Fideists," are perhaps guilty of perpetuating a problem for the rational defense of Christianity. Fideists think it's the opposite of facts, or the opposite of evidence, or the opposite of reasons. And the detractors of Christianity agree: "faith" they say, "is believing what you know ain't true." Therefore they conclude that Christians must, by definition be irrational, and the whole faith can be dismissed as lunatic.
Not so. Properly understood, "faith" is a basic quality of all knowing: indisputably of
inductive knowing (the basis of science), and even of
deduction (math, formal logic). Faith is not the lack or absence of evidence, far less a disregarding of evidence. It's the belief one invests in the most plausible explanation of a phenomenon, based on the facts, reasons and evidence in hand. It's the final step of trust that turns the evidence that brings one from only, say 99% certainty about something to the final step of committing to action.
It is also the basis of all relationship. Those in whom we have no "faith," that is, no confidence in their character, we simply find ourselves unable to trust, and hence we are unable to relate to them in a confident and committed way. So faith is what every husband must exercise in the character of his wife, and ever wife in the character of her husband: absent such faith, they would never risk marriage.
But, on the other hand, it would not be even remotely true to say that in opting for marriage they had eliminated the need for facts, reasons or evidence. Rather, it would only be because of some history of knowledge of each other's characters that they would dare to commit.
Faith, then, is much more routine, human and normal than most people realize. And far from being the opposite of evidence, it is the supplementary investment of trust that turns good evidence into reasonable action. Consequently, I would not concede that
claiming the lack of evidence as a proof that the religion is invalid, is a bit of a fools errand.
or that
Christianity cannot fail in terms of evidence because it is not based on evidence in the first place.
I understand some extremists (Calvinists, for example) see "faith" as a sort of Divine magic that hits the incapacitated secular mind and renders it capable of reason. But that is Biblically denied by Romans 1, among other passages, and is not experientially plausible either. The Calvinists argue over
when reasons are useful (i.e. whether before or after the 'gift' of faith) but
that they are relevant at some time (whether before, as persuasion, or afterward, as confirmation) they do not dispute at all. So reasons, evidence, arguments, persuasion and so forth are integral to the Christian faith experience, by any account but that of extremist Fideists. And their view just doesn't compute logically at any time.
Now, I understand the impulse some people have to try to render their belief immune to criticism by characterizing it as a matter of "pure faith" (in opposition to reasons and evidence), but I think that this is a misunderstanding that, so to speak "sells the farm in order to save it." If there were no evidences and reasons, then how would one ever know what to "have faith" in? No object (or Subject) could be preferred to another, when it comes to faith, unless one already had good reasons to prefer it. Thus faith and reasons are coordinated forces, not opposed ones.
Too many times the opponents of religion will point to the extremists and fanatics, and then try to paint all those who are believers with the same brush.
Yes, I agree. I have found that all the detractors of Christianity often only want to get the first opportunity to dismiss Christianity entirely. They don't want an intelligent inquiry, but rather only as much inquiry as necessary for them to allow them to stave off conviction personally, or to preen themselves in the presence of their Atheist peers. They only want to "preach to the choir," as the idiom goes. And if that assessment seems strong, consider how easily, how unthinkingly and how irrationally the Atheist set began to agree with the original poster of this thread: as if his line of argument weren't transparently bad, as I showed earlier.
I continually marvel at their lack of sincerity: they love to talk as if they know Christianity, but all they really know is self-congratulation. But that is, of course, what philosophy is about for them: not the search for truth, but the chance to demonstrate one's own ingenuity. Denied that chance, they instantly lapse into obscenities and insults.
Unfortunately, Fideism hands Atheism what it's looking for: a cheap "win," a win without serious engagement, a win without a search for truth, a win without risk. Fideism hands an excuse to Atheism. It says, "We don't have to be rational, because you couldn't get it anyway." And the Atheists respond: "Thanks -- we said all along you people are lunatics."
The problem, of course, is that Fideists have no reason to be on a philosophy forum: after all, why be here, if your reasoning will inevitably fall on deaf ears, and if, in any case, reasons are not valuable?
So I think Fideism cannot be equated with Christianity. There are just far, far too many thinking, reasoning, evidence-seeking Christians around. Rather, I would suggest that, if not "fanatics" (to use your term), Fideists are the "extremists" of which you speak, who make the job of the Atheists far, far too easy.
It's nice that we're now back on the topic of the strand. Thanks for putting us there. We can now talk intelligently about "Christianity" and its "terms" of "evidence."
That is, unless doing so is somehow "proselytizing."
