Wednesday, July 06, 2016

Faith is Not Belief Without Proof

Photobucket



Originally Posted by aussiedave View Post
Faith is a belief and does not require any intellectual basis. An "intellectual belief" is still a belief.
Neither have any facts to substantiate them.

One finds atheists saying things like this all the time. Atheists tend to define faith as "belief of soemthing without any evidence or a valid reason." for support they sometimes turn to Webster's on-line Dicitonary

Definition of FAITH

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditionaldoctrines of a religion (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially: a system of religious beliefs faith>

Of course it usually doesn't dawn on them that this is three different definitions and not a collective one. The third one can't be taken as indicative of all religious faith. There's another reason not to let them use Wesbter's, not at all. That's because it's only indicative of popular use and not theological teaching. Because they don't use a technological dictionary atheists make a straw man argument. They are not dealing with the way the teaching authority of Christian theology uses the term "faith." They are only reflecting the general conception, or misconception of faith, apart from Christian teaching. The whole idea of their argument is that Christian teaching accepts faith as belief with no evidence, when in reality there is no such dictum in any Christian teaching.

The theological authoritative dictionary for Christian Theology is calledWestminster's Dictionary of Christian Theology (ed Alan Richardson and John Bowden SCM pres ltd 1983) (on Amazon). That is to the theology what theOxford Unabridged Dictionary is to the English language. It's whatBlack's Law Dictionary is to the Lawyer. Really all Chrsitians should own a copy. There are two volumes one is about theologians the other about doctrines. I will concern myself today only with the latter.



The Westminster dictionary of Christian Theology
 has a long article on faithstarting on page 207. Believers often use the term faith as a short hand term for those living according to apostolic teaching (207). The Dictionary points out that the only actual Biblical definition of faith is found in Hebrews 11.1 (evidence of things not seen) and that it "does not encapsulate all that the Bible says on the subject."(ibid). Westminster translates Hebrews 11.1 as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." This changes certain nuances but reinforces other. I have always liked to point that that faith is a kind of evidence in its own right. That's becuase something has to prompt faith. It's insane to assert that faith is ever held for no reaosn at all. Of cousre the atheist wants to assert that the reason is stupid but that's his burden of proof. What is the stimulus that prompts the response of faith?

Westminster's Dictionary understands faith in many contexts and constructs a complex picture of the term.Faith "...is an obedient confident trust in the reality love of God known through his acts, and awaiting their future consummation." (ibid). The dictionary brings out a variety of nuances from scripture. In OT faith is comparatively rare. When it is used it indicates faithfulness or loyalty rather than passive reliance. Yet dependence upon God and not human powers is important for Issiah (7:9, 30:15). Faith is concieved as Obedient action. (Dud 6:1) Faith as trust is also echoed in the psalms. In the NT belief and trust in Jesus' salvation is referred to as faith.(Mark 2:5, 5:34). Unbelief is hardness of heart, so the opposite of faith, unbelief, involves a refusal of the heart. Again making faith more a matter of some deep relationship than just a passive acceptance of an affirmation. (Mark 6:1).

There's no particular reason to understand this notion of faithfulness as bestowed for no reason. There is no statement about "faithfulness with no proof for no reason." Indeed the whole concept of faith in being about a condition of the heart is removed a step from this idea of accepting an intellectual proposition for no reason. In the Johonine epistles we see doctrinally oriented faith in a credal formula. In that community faith took on doctrinal proportions. Christ came in the flesh, Jesus is he son of God, (20:31, 1 J. 5:1). There is no indication that this is a matter of belief for no reason. NO reason is given but it's obvious the reason is bound up with the faith of the community as a community. One sees the community itself as the witness. The community as a whole testifies "we saw this, we heard this."

In Pauline Theology faith is utter reliance upon God's grace. The person of faith is the one who knows that grace cannot be obtained by works, that justification is only through union with Christ and reliance upon God's grace rather than works or by the law. Faith is not merely assent to an intellectual proposition but a relationship of trust culminating in the acceptance of God's Grace. Grace through faith means reliance upon God's ability to make us holy, nothing of our own effort.

The article points out several tensions that emerge from the centrality of faith to Christian doctrine. This is the kind of subtle theological idea that makes theology interesting and maddening to atheist who can't think subtly. Tension is mistaken for contradiction by skeptics but it's not contradiction. It's a good thing in theology to have tension. As one of my professors at Perkins (school of ethology SMU) put it "if you have no tension on your kite string your kite is not in the air."

One such tension is between weather faith is the response of trust in God or the acceptance of doctrinal propositions.The issues clearly transcend the notion of faith as rule keeping or merely an acceptance of intellectual propositions.

The article winds up with a discussion of Kierkegaard's notion of the leap of faith. This mind tend to make one think that faith means the irrational acceptance of of a proposition with no evidence.SK says faith is irrational and that it's achieved by an irrational leap. Yet one must note that the leap itself is an epistemological ploy, it's an attempt to get over the final chasm which can't be bridged by evidence or logic. The road up to the final gap can be paved with argument and reason. One can make a find philosophical diving board to prepare for the leap. The point at which one makes the leap can be narrowed. The leap is always there. Even in the world view there are epistemic blind alleys from which there are no returns. So in the final analysis there is no basis to the atheist straw man definition of faith as "believing things without evidence."

5 comments:

Eric Sotnak said...

One problem with relying on dictionaries (including specialized disciplinary ones) is that such dictionaries need to pay attention to how words are, in fact, actually used. It is only fair to complain about atheist uses of "faith" if it turns out that such uses depart from common uses of the term by theists.

But in fact the term is used in all sorts of different ways. When apologists claim that atheists reject God on faith, how are they using the term? When a students says "I need to drop your Philosophy of Religion class because it's causing me to question my faith" how is the term being used? When someone responds to scientific evidence against a global flood by saying Well, I have faith in the Bible" how is the term being used?

On the other hand, though, I agree that it is unfair of atheists to assume that these kinds of uses of the term exhaust the field and that such assumptions sometimes form the basis of straw man arguments.

Joe Hinman said...

One problem with relying on dictionaries (including specialized disciplinary ones) is that such dictionaries need to pay attention to how words are, in fact, actually used. It is only fair to complain about atheist uses of "faith" if it turns out that such uses depart from common uses of the term by theists.


yea they do,I know that,I studied Greek I read the NT in Greek I know how words can differ from dictionary. Dictionaries only guides lines

But in fact the term is used in all sorts of different ways.

yes that;s what i said atheists use it only one way,


When apologists claim that atheists reject God on faith, how are they using the term? When a students says "I need to drop your Philosophy of Religion class because it's causing me to question my faith" how is the term being used? When someone responds to scientific evidence against a global flood by saying Well, I have faith in the Bible" how is the term being used?

any example you use is disproof of atheist rhetoric because the standard phrase is that faith is belief without reason, It;s broad rushy it;s universal almost all of these it straightway,

On the other hand, though, I agree that it is unfair of atheists to assume that these kinds of uses of the term exhaust the field and that such assumptions sometimes form the basis of straw man arguments.


by and lege ateists only use it one way as a pejorative.

Mike Gerow said...

Great pic!

Joe Hinman said...

glad you like it. that gir loois exactly like one of my neices when she was 4

im-skeptical said...

One problem with relying on dictionaries (including specialized disciplinary ones) is that such dictionaries need to pay attention to how words are, in fact, actually used.

Um, that's what dictionaries do. That's how they arrive at the various definitions.


I have made comments on this here.