I am tired of hearing atheists say "faith is believing things without evidence." No definition of faith in Christianity says that.Let's Get this out of the way up front. Heb 11:1: faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the argument (argumentum) of things that are not apparent.Most translations say "evidence of things not seen."This does not say faith is belief without evidence it says faith itself is a kind of evidence because it points to the reality that caused one to have faith.
The most important dictionary in theology is the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. There are two kinds, one for theologians and one for ideas. Let's consult the latter.
faith (Gr. pistis, Lat. fides, “trust,” “belief”) In Christianity, belief, trust, and obedience to God as revealed in Jesus Christ. It is the means of salvation (Eph. 2:8–9) or eternal life (John 6:40). Faith affects all dimensions of one’s existence: intellect, emotions, and will. See also salvation.[1]
According to that definition there is nothing like a lack of evidence. There Is no hint that faith involves a lack of evidence. Consulting the same source for different uses of the term "faith:"
faith, explicit (Lat. fides explicita) Faith in that of which one has knowledge. Thus the term may be understood as referring to what one professes to believe because of what is known.[2]
Here faith is equated with knowledge. Since evidence involves knowledge and builds on knowledge it would seem that faith is actually dependent upon evidence rather than being without it.
faith, implicit (Lat. fides implicita) The Roman Catholic view that one believes as true “what the church believes,” even without certain knowledge. It was rejected by the Protestant Reformers as a true faith because the element of knowledge was lacking.[3]
The Catholic view seems closer to being without evidence, but not an exact fit. In any case that view was rejected by the reformers and is not really compatible with the Protestant view.The Protestant view rests upon knowledge, which again, would have to involve evidence at some point. Thus direct contradiction to the atheist bromide.
Then we turn to the protestant notion of "saving faith." That is faith that saves. Remember Paul tells us salvation is by Grace through faith:“For by grace you have been saved through faith” (Ephesians 2:8).[4]
faith, saving. The gift of God through the Holy Spirit whereby one accepts and believes the promises of the Gospel as the reception of salvation through the life and the work of Jesus Christ. One is incorporated into Christ, participates in his benefits, and is an heir of eternal life.
[4]
No indication is given that there is no preliminary basis for belief which might involve evidence.Before one can trust God one must believe that God is. None of these definitions preclude basing that initial belief upon evidence. It is after one accepts the conviction that God is real that faith might supersede evidence in matters such as trusting God for salvation.
Let's turn to some major figures in Christian theology to see if they define faith as belief without evidence:
St. Augustine
Faith, to Augustine, is a humble posture of seeking and confession, in which the individual confesses their sin and brokenness before God, and by his Grace, is cleansed. The individual surrenders to the God who is already present in the soul. This initial work begins the process of cleansing the soul so that it can see clearly. As the individual continues to seek God, the soul is continually cleansed as a gracious process, which slowly flakes away the filth of the Fall. Augustine believed that much could be known through Platonic meditation: eternal things and God’s presence could be apprehended, but God could be known only for a moment.[5]
Thomas Aquinas
Popular accounts of religion sometimes construe faith as a blind, uncritical acceptance of myopic doctrine. According to Richard Dawkins, “faith is a state of mind that leads people to believe something—it doesn’t matter what—in the total absence of supporting evidence...Such a view of faith might resonate with contemporary skeptics of religion. But as we shall see, this view is not remotely like the one Aquinas—or historic Christianity for that matter—endorses.
To begin with, Aquinas takes faith to be an intellectual virtue or habit, the object of which is God (ST IIaIIae 1.1; 4.2). There are other things that fall under the purview of faith, such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. But we do not affirm these specific doctrines unless they have some relation to God. According to Aquinas, these doctrines serve to explicate God’s nature and provide us with a richer understanding of the one in whom our perfect happiness consists (Ibid.).[6]
Here again knowledge, an intellectual thing, compatible with evidence. How could faith be based upon knowledge and be an intellectual act and yet without evidence? By intellectual he means one consciously assents to belief.
Marin Luther
... faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words.
Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace.[7]
John Wesley
With a deep conviction, Wesley repeatedly stresses the necessity of faith. ‘Saving faith is a sure trust and confidence which a man has in God, that by the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven, and he is reconciled to the favour of God.’1 It is also clear that Wesley sees faith as a gift of God, although he does not emphasize that very much.[8]
There is an initial coming to faith where one decides "I do believe in God." In that stage evidence is not a contradiction to belief. Most of the activity of faith involves personal trust in God's salvation and his providential care. In this regard evidece is irrelivant, unless we want to think of the content of personal experience of God as evidence.It is evidence of God's goodness. I think for the most part evidence is irrelevant to faith. Faith is not belief without evidence, it's the content of a relationship with God and is based upon the private experience of God's love.
Notes
[1] "Faith," The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms,SECOND EDITION, Revised and Expanded,Donald K. McKim ed.,Louiscille Kentucky:John Knox Press, 2014. https://www.mybibleteacher.net/uploads/1/2/4/6/124618875/the_westminster_dictionary_of_theological_terms_by_donald_k._mckim__z-lib.org_.epub.pdf
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Mark Hansard, "Faith and Reason, Part 2 Augustine," Intervaristy: Emerging Scholars Network, (August 18,2018) https://blog.emergingscholars.org/2018/08/faith-and-reason-part-2-augustine-summer-2018-series/
[6]Shawn Floyd,"Aquinas Philosoph8ical Theology,"Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy, https://iep.utm.edu/thomas-aquinas-political-theology/#SH3a
[7]An excerpt from "An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans," Luther's German Bible of 1522 by Martin Luther, 1483-1546.
Translated by Rev. Robert E. Smith from DR. MARTIN LUTHER'S VERMISCHTE DEUTSCHE SCHRIFTEN. Johann K. Irmischer, ed. Vol. 63 Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), pp.124-125. [EA 63:124-125] https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/martin-luthers-definition-faith
[8]J. W. Maris, "John Wesley's Concept of Faith," Christian Library taken from Lux Mundi 2010 https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/john-wesleys-concept-faith
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408765
Joseph Hinman's new book is God, Science and Ideology. Hinman argues that atheists and skeptics who use science as a barrier to belief in God are not basing doubt on science itself but upon an ideology that adherer's to science in certain instances. This ideology, "scientism," assumes that science is the only valid form of knowledge and rules out religious belief. Hinman argues that science is neutral with respect to belief in God … In this book Hinman with atheist positions on topics such as consciousness and the nature of knowledge, puts to rest to arguments of Lawrence M. Krauss, Victor J. Stenger, and Richard Dawkins, and delimits the areas for potential God arguments.
Monday, August 29, 2022
49 comments:
Or, there's what Mark Twain said (or something): "Faith is believing in what you know ain't so". Another misconception.
As JP Holding said once (it went something like this), Faith is belief in something based on past performance. For example, if you do something well at work, you are more likely to continue to do that particular job. That's what Christian faith is like.
I'm not sure what that Holding quote means, I like JPH, He is a friend, Faith is so much belief as it is commitment.
Faith is belief based on inadequate edivence.
This is why joe has to use "rational warrant" to justify it.
There is {i:some} evidence Jesus was resurrected, but it is not great; it is certainly not enough for anyone in our time to be certain it happened. To be certain takes faith.
Pix
That is unfair. It's not bad evidence but the epistemic difficulty.Suppose God wants to be god?? That means he doesn't just lead a trail of breadcrumbs into the sky but only reveals himself in certain circumstance. It seems then any evidence is good..
When we reduce the paradigm to justification rather than proof the evidence is fine.Even if you swqak it's still justified.
We've discussed the issue of proof before. There is precious little proof out there. What we do have is knowledge with varying degrees of justification. Evidence is justification. Science is based on objective evidence. Religious faith is based on something different, but you still call it justification. But whatever you base your faith on, calling that justification (or warrant) doesn't make it as strong as objective scientific evidence.
Science is not the ony way to establish truth, It fits a certain kind of truth but there's a lot it can't tell us about, Region is an existential matter which means it's for a personal phenomenology not objective proof. I know that's as strong as science but doesn't mean it's not a valid to decide truth.There is no way to scientifically prove the meaning of life.
Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
That is unfair. It's not bad evidence but the epistemic difficulty.Suppose God wants to be god?? That means he doesn't just lead a trail of breadcrumbs into the sky but only reveals himself in certain circumstance. It seems then any evidence is good..
When we reduce the paradigm to justification rather than proof the evidence is fine
You can always find justification when you want to believe something.
Joe: It's not bad evidence but the epistemic difficulty.
If it is hard to know the truth, that is not justification for claiming certainty.
Joe: When we reduce the paradigm to justification rather than proof the evidence is fine.
No it is not. The evidence we have does not justify certainty - or anything close.
To get more specific, Jesus may have been resurrected, but the evidence we have is not enough to justify claiming it is even probable.
Pix
Meaning is a product of the mind. If you think something has meaning, then it has meaning to you, but it may still be meaningless to someone else. The meaning of life is what we think it is. It's what we make it to be. I'm happy about that. I can make my life meaningful, in a way that matters to me, without having meaning imposed on me by someone or something else. I might not agree with that imposed meaning.
IM-skeptical, this idea of meaning may satisfy you, but it does not satisfy me in the least. I want meaning that is neither created/imagined by myself, nor imposed on me from someone else-- I want meaning that is intrinsic, that is part of the nature of the thing being contemplated. The sort of meaning that I seem to need, implies purpose, a reason why there is something rather than nothing at all. If a thing has an intrinsic purpose, then it has intrinsic meaning. But if meaning is only a product of the human mind, then it is imaginary-- just as you claim God is imaginary. There is no evidence for your "meaning," so why do you believe it exists?
A washing machine actually has more meaning than I do, because a conscious creator brought it into being to fulfill a purpose. But human beings arrived as an accident of mindless forces. What do our imagined meanings matter in a purposeless universe?
Kristen: IM-skeptical, this idea of meaning may satisfy you, but it does not satisfy me in the least. I want meaning that is neither created/imagined by myself, nor imposed on me from someone else-- I want meaning that is intrinsic, that is part of the nature of the thing being contemplated.
How does religion give you that? Is that not meaning imposed by God?
I think people have intrinsic worth. I think they have value because of who they are. And not because some god imparts value on them.
Kristen: A washing machine actually has more meaning than I do, because a conscious creator brought it into being to fulfill a purpose. But human beings arrived as an accident of mindless forces. What do our imagined meanings matter in a purposeless universe?
I think this actually illustrates the problem. Religion gives us purpose, but purpose analogous to your washing machine. The washing machine is a thing created to serve a purpose for its creator. People are reduced to things likewise created to serve someone else's purpose, without intrinsic value of their own.
Pix
>>"I want meaning that is intrinsic"
- This illustrates the poverty of religious thinking. You don't have the will to make your own way - to live as a free soul. You have to have it imposed on you, or you are lost. Without the guidance provided by religion (or more specifically, your religious handlers), you wouldn't know what to do or how to conduct yourself. Without receiving your orders, you would be aimless and sinful. I think that's pitiful. I don't understand why anyone with a working mind would want that.
>>"There is no evidence for your "meaning," so why do you believe it exists? "
- Your view of meaning is not the same as mine. Meaning is simply our understanding of things. Words have meaning if we understand what they signify. If something creates an image in your mind, it evokes a kind of understanding of what that thing is. That's meaning. In the sense that I'm speaking of, you can't have meaning without a mental image of some sort. And in that sense, there is no meaning in the absence of a mental image.
Pix, I believe humans were created for the purpose of receiving love from and returning love to their Creator and one another. A beautiful purpose that carries with it an absolute and unchangeable value and worth. On the other hand, atheism idea of meaning is that humans invented it If a group of humans decides another group has no value, most atheists will decry that viewpoint, but do they have any foundation from which to declare it invalid?
IM, there is a difference between imposed and intrinsic meaning. Are you saying a created thing, once it exists, has no meaning intrinsic to its very nature? What is your basis for such a claim?
The basis for my claim is that meaning is in our minds. If something has meaning, it means something to the mind that perceives that meaning. You are talking about purpose or intention. If something is created, its creator has a purpose in creating that thing. But if that's what you are calling meaning, it is still imposed by the creator, as Pix pointed out.
IM, my view is that meaning arises out of purpose and intention. It's not just a touchy-feely thing that humans have in their minds.
I think you have a "touchy-feely" notion of what meaning is.
For what it's worth, Kristen, it might be useful if you provided a definition of 'meaning' that would be consistent with your view.
From the first online dictionary that came up-- the Collins English Dictionary: "The end, purpose, or significance of something:
What is the meaning of life?
What is the meaning of this intrusion?"
OK. So I brought up 'meaning' in Collins dictionary (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/meaning), and the FIRST definition is : "The meaning of a word, expression, or gesture is the thing or idea that it refers to or represents and which can be explained using other words." That definition relates to symbols, but meaning can apply to more than symbols, in my view. At any rate, it is about how we interpret or understand something,
Your definition relates to ends or purpose. I certainly don't deny alternate definitions, but you shouldn't either. You have a teleological view. You believe there is a "final cause", per Aristotle or Aquinas. That's fine, if you buy into that philosophy. I don't. That's why I called it "touchy-feely". It's imaginary. There is no such thing as a final cause.
IM, extending your definition from words and symbols is problematic. What gives your assigned meanings precedence over anyone else 's? As I asked Pix, if one group of people decides that the lives of another group of people are meaningless and thus worthless, on what foundation or basis can you assert that they are wrong? Isn't it just your opinion vs. theirs?
Also, even regarding words, we still consider authorial intent (purpose) as a priority when establishing meaning. Purpose really is foundational to meaning, even with words.
I don't assign meanings. I don't assert them. Things have meaning to me, they may have different meanings to you. It certainly is a matter of opinion. I accept that we don't all share the same opinions or the same understanding of things. With regard to the meaning of life, I said that we make our own meaning. I believe that. I would never deny someone the freedom to make their own meaning. But if meaning has been made or assigned for you (as by God, for example), then you don't have that freedom.
IM, the fact that, instead of addressing my points, you have focused on a probable difference in what we mean by the word "assign," merely illustrates the problem. It works ok regarding words; we can discuss what we each intended that word to mean. It's much more of an issue when we're talking about human beings.
As for the meaning of life, I don't disagree that we should be free to decide what our own purpose for our lives is. But to call it a lack of freedom that we can't decide the meaning and purpose were created with is like complaining that we were given no choice whether to have 2 arms and 2 legs. Choice isn't a factor when we're talking about the very nature of a thing.
Nobody gets to decide the purpose for which they were created (if indeed there is a purpose). But they can still make their own meaning. And this is why I see equating meaning with purpose as problematic.
This, I think, is a false dichotomy. One does not negate the other. Of course we can and do feel and understand the significance of things, events and other people to ourselves. But your position says we can only have this, without allowing us any sense of deeper purpose.
I never said you can't have a sense of purpose. You can certainly strive for a goal of your choosing, or even dedicate your life to some cause. That's the decision free people can make for themselves. What I wouldn't want is to have the decision made for me. Your concept of having an "intrinsic" purpose leaves you no choice. It is imposed on you.
No, it isn't "imposed" on me-- it's part of my nature, like having arms and legs. And anyway-- wow, how truly horrible to have "imposed" on me, absolute and unchangeable value and intrinsic worth from being created with the purpose of being in the image of God, to move in the eternal flow of divine love!
I never said you can't have a sense of purpose. You can certainly strive for a goal of your choosing, or even dedicate your life to some cause. That's the decision free people can make for themselves. What I wouldn't want is to have the decision made for me. Your concept of having an "intrinsic" purpose leaves you no choice. It is imposed on you.
hey Skep you two having a good one I've been busy, Anyway I think you are maybe dealing with the wrong competent on purpose. It might help ifwe added "meaning" and purpose. Measning includes more that just a mission which purpose implies. My question is if there is no God there is no ultimate meaning only what ne deems for oneself. The universe is cold and uncaring. Is that not imposed?
Kristen,
You are made in the image of God, but you can't fathom God. And your "purpose" is to do what God wants you to do. If you don't, you spend all of eternity in anguish. That's divine love for you. I must say, I can't blame you for choosing exactly what God demands.
IM, you have known me long enough to know I'm not an evangelical, so please don't impute beliefs to me that have no part of my faith. God created me for the purpose of loving me, but God also made me free to love God, or not to. When I connect with who I truly am, the things I want and seek will be part of who I was created to be. There is no discrepancy, but even if I went against my deepest nature and chose harmful things, there is forgiveness and reconciliation in Christ-- not just between me and God, but between me and my truest self.
I don't think there's an eternal hell, and I believe in universal reconciliation with God, except for those who don't want it and choose oblivion instead
>>"if there is no God there is no ultimate meaning only what ne deems for oneself. The universe is cold and uncaring. Is that not imposed?"
The lack of ultimate meaning in a cold and uncaring universe is of no consequence. What matters is whether I can create it myself. Think of it as darkness. Sure, it's dark, but I can provide light. So is darkness imposed on me? No. I can dispel the darkness. And I can make a difference in the lives of others. It may not matter in the distant future, when we are all gone, but it matters when it counts - in the real lives that people actually have.
OK. You don't believe in hell, despite the fact that this is the traditional view that Christians have had from the beginning. Because if that was true, it implies that God is mean, and you can't accept that. So the fashionable thing these days is to say that it's not really a "lake of fire", as the New Testament describes it, but it's more a condition of anguish that you experience when God casts you out of his divine kingdom. That's not so bad, right? But it's still something that you really don't want, and you still don't have any real choice. Nobody chooses that unless they are mentally defective. OOPS - does that mean that God created them in the image of someone who doesn't measure up? Because surely, that's not the image of God.
IM, the doctrine of universal reconciliation is at least as old as the doctrine of hell, and there have always been Christians who subscribed to it. And I already said that no one gets cast out. I allow for the choice for oblivion, but I also find it hard to believe anyone would choose that. What I don't get is why I have to defend my right to hold my Christian beliefs as I see fit and as makes sense to me, to someone who insists that he imposes his ideas of meaning on no one else. I'm not the one telling you what atheists have to believe in order to be real atheists.
Fine. You believe what your conscience tells you, even if the bible says otherwise. That's real evidence that our humanity is in our DNA. It doesn't come from the bible.
IM, good grief! You talk just like a fundamentalist! "The Bible is clear, there's only one right way to read every passage, and that's my way." The passages about hell are not nearly as clear or straightforward as you think they are. And I do happen to know things about historical Christian doctrine. I'm not an ignoramus.
Also, whoever said our humanity is in the Bible? What do you mean by that?
Good grief. It's impossible to agree with you. I never said there's one way to read the bible. Any thinking believer must interpret it in a way that doesn't conflict with their views. But that often requires that you ignore certain parts of it, or be creative in the way you understand what it says. Let's be honest about this. You can't take the words of the bible literally. Therefore, it becomes an exercise in shaping it to fit what you want or need it to say.
And by the way, there are still plenty of people who insist that the bible is their source of morality, even if they reshape its words to fit what they already believe.
Sorry for what appears to have been a miscommunication, but look again at "You believe what your conscience tells you, even if the bible says otherwise." Not sure how else to take this apparent assertion that the Bible teaches definitely that hell is real, and I'm just choosing to ignore it. I don't take the Bible literally except where it makes sense to take it literally, but the passages on hell occur either in parables or in apocalyptic writing, so I read them as such. As far as morality is concerned, I find "do unto others as you would have done unto you," to be pretty all-sufficient, just as Jesus said it should be.
Hmm. So Jesus was speaking in parables when he spoke of the eternal fires of hell as punishment for sin (on several different occasions). But parables are supposed to convey a message. Evidently, you take that to mean "Don't worry - eternal doesn't last forever. All will be well when we reconcile."
I could link you to numerous scholarly articles that talk about things like the use of hyperlative and exaggeration in parables, or what the Greek word translated "hell" was referring to (it's a metaphor, actually)-- but I don't think you really care about this sort of thing, do you? If I were an atheist, I wouldn't.
Actually, Jesus called it Gehenna. And it wasn't a metaphor.
Gehenna was a garbage dump outside Jerusalem. Thus, a metaphor.
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/heaven-and-hell/what-is-the-meaning-of-gehenna-in-the-bible.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gehenna
Um, excuse me, but it seems that you make the same mistake most Christians do about atheists. Namely, you assume that we don't know anything about the religion we reject. The truth is that our knowledge of the religion is precisely why we reject it. We have read the bible, and seen that there is so much that just doesn't make sense. I understand that believers have ways of rationalizing all those things. But you can't deny that the bible says what it says. And if you read it in a straight-forward manner - without trying to make all those rationalizations, without bias - it doesn't paint a picture of a wonderful, loving God who only wants the best for all of his creation.
I wasn't assuming you didn't know anything about the religion. I was simply stating that I didn't think you'd be interested in reading the articles I might link to. That's not the same thing. For the rest, I acknowledge that my understanding of Gehenna as a garbage dump was based on misremembering something I had read: here's the link to one of this respected Greek biblical scholar's articles. https://margmowczko.com/paul-james-jesus-hell-gehenna/ She has two more on the same site.
In short, it's not necessary or required to believe in hell to be a Christian, and it's not just rationalization to disbelieve in it.
I do understand what you're saying about the Bible. It's a collection of ancient texts based even more ancient writings and oral traditions. It's difficult to read in places and very problematic in others. I changed how I understood the Bible when I left evangelicalism a number of years ago. I now find the use of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Reason, Experience and Tradition, to be a much more balanced way of practicing my faith.
Post a Comment