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).
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.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.
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]
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.John Wesley
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]
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.
So given that your faith is based squarely on good solid evidence, can you explain whyt previously you said:
ReplyDeleteGod's existence being thought a fact would be coercive. Just as gravity or cause and effect are obligatory; belief in God being obligatory would wipe out faith and cause resentment,
Exactly why would belief in God wipe out faith, Joe?
Pix
You really worked over time to avoid understanding that. Let's get an example of an obligatory belief. The idea that things fall down other than up. OK well to the center of mass really.
ReplyDeleteI can doubt that I can preach an idea that things flee the center of mass or fall up. Push comes to shove and I seek metrical proof. that theory is blown every simple time. I cannot believe things fall up because it's just always wrong.
Now there are various ideas that I could accept based upon the evidence or I reject them If I wanted to. For example bigfoot. It's a silly idea and I can reject it if I wish. But there is some evidence for it yet I can still reject it because it's mot conclusive. It requires a leap of faith, but it evidence.
Belief in God is not obligatory like belief in Gravity It can be accepted based upon the evidence or rejected based upon other reasons.
But that is just different in degree. There is a huge amount of evidence for gravity, and precious little for bigfoot. Where does God sit on that scale?
ReplyDeleteIs he like gravity, and the evidence is so overwhelming we have to believe he exists? No he is not.
Is he like bigfoot? "But there is some evidence for it yet I can still reject it because it's mot conclusive. It requires a leap of faith, but it evidence."
That "leap of faith" is believing something with little or no evidence - exactly the faith you are railing against.
What you describe here is believing something with a certainty that the evidence does not justify.
I do not think bigfoot exists, but I accept there is some evidence, so I cannot be certain. The (lack of) evidence is insufficient to convince me that bigfoot does not exist.
Is the evidence for God sufficient to say we can (for all practical purposes) be sure he exists? No. As you admit, "Belief in God is not obligatory like belief in Gravity". We can be certain gravity exists, we cannot be certain God exists. It takes a "leap of faith".
Pix
But that is just different in degree. There is a huge amount of evidence for gravity, and precious little for bigfoot. Where does God sit on that scale?
ReplyDeleteI was illustrating obligatory belief vs voluntary belief. Degree has nothing to do with it. If God healed all our hurts every time it would be analogous to gravity. The amount of evidence is not as important as the quality. There's no Patterson film for God but there was the man he became the testimony about him.
Is he like gravity, and the evidence is so overwhelming we have to believe he exists? No he is not.
That's my very point Pix! That's why belief in God is not obligatory epistemologically.
Is he like bigfoot? "But there is some evidence for it yet I can still reject it because it's mot conclusive. It requires a leap of faith, but it evidence."
That "leap of faith" is believing something with little or no evidence - exactly the faith you are railing against.
The amount of evidence is not important. A whole bunch of bad evidence is not as important as some good evidence. You are merely gainsaying the evidence. It's not forced upon you. You can reject it and you do regardless of the quality you don't want to believe so you don't.
What you describe here is believing something with a certainty that the evidence does not justify.
Bull shit, you will reject the evidence however good it may be. Case in point you obfuscated the original point because you can't face it.
I do not think bigfoot exists, but I accept there is some evidence, so I cannot be certain. The (lack of) evidence is insufficient to convince me that bigfoot does not exist.
Is the evidence for God sufficient to say we can (for all practical purposes) be sure he exists? No. As you admit, "Belief in God is not obligatory like belief in Gravity". We can be certain gravity exists, we cannot be certain God exists. It takes a "leap of faith".
The evidence for God is strong enough to be sure. I am sure. but the things that make me sure I can't make you experience. you must get it together with God on your own,It's an existential truth,It's phenomenological.
Joe: I was illustrating obligatory belief vs voluntary belief.
ReplyDeleteSo you are choosing to believe something is true even when you know it may well not be?
To me, that seems to be your "leap of faith" - having certainty in something when that certainty is not justified.
Joe: Degree has nothing to do with it. If God healed all our hurts every time it would be analogous to gravity. The amount of evidence is not as important as the quality. There's no Patterson film for God but there was the man he became the testimony about him.
You say degree has nothing to do with it, but then state that if the degree was greater then the situation would be different!
And to be clear, the degree is a function of both the quantity and the quality.
EITHER We have great evidence God exists; there is no reasonable doubt.
OR We do not have great evidence God exists; there is reasonable doubt.
You insist it is not former because the belief is voluntary, and yet also insist it is not the latter!
Joe: The amount of evidence is not important. A whole bunch of bad evidence is not as important as some good evidence. You are merely gainsaying the evidence. It's not forced upon you. You can reject it and you do regardless of the quality you don't want to believe so you don't.
Again, the degree of evidence would seem important.
Of course poor evidence scores less than good evidence, but we are looking at the overall situation of how much evidence there is and when doing that good evidence is going to count more. I was assuming that was obvious. The evidence for gravity is very good.
The evidence for God is pretty poor. Yes, we can look at the wonder of the universe, but it is by no means certain that that is due to God. Yes, we can look at the gospel accounts, but it is by no means certain they accurately report what happened.
We can choose to take the gospels as fact, but doing so is a "leap of faith"; it is putting your trust in something when there is little justification to do so. As you say, it is a choice.
Joe: Bull shit, you will reject the evidence however good it may be. Case in point you obfuscated the original point because you can't face it.
If you can provide evidence that the gospels are 100% true, present it. I think we both know you cannot. You take it on faith.
Joe: The evidence for God is strong enough to be sure. I am sure. but the things that make me sure I can't make you experience. you must get it together with God on your own,It's an existential truth,It's phenomenological.
But you already admitted that the evidence is not that good. If the evidence was convincing, it would be a obligatory belief. You are very clear that the evidence is not as good as that, and so is a voluntary belief.
Pix
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteJoe: I was illustrating obligatory belief vs voluntary belief.
So you are choosing to believe something is true even when you know it may well not be?
O is that how I defined it? what did I really say? why don't you read it again? Really the shoe is on the other foot. the process I described is one of truth which one can ignore by doubting it.
To me, that seems to be your "leap of faith" - having certainty in something when that certainty is not justified.
except that you are screwing with my argument,
Joe: Degree has nothing to do with it. If God healed all our hurts every time it would be analogous to gravity. The amount of evidence is not as important as the quality. There's no Patterson film for God but there was the man he became the testimony about him.
You say degree has nothing to do with it, but then state that if the degree was greater then the situation would be different!
healing all our hurts is as much frequency as degree. That does not speak to the quality of actual evidence. the stuff you pretend isn't there.
And to be clear, the degree is a function of both the quantity and the quality.
EITHER We have great evidence God exists; there is no reasonable doubt.
OR We do not have great evidence God exists; there is reasonable doubt.
You cant get better evidence than If you are there do x, x is done therefore he's there. In my own experience my brother is writhing around on the floor screaming, I said if you are there make him stop and he stopped. then. I had barely said to myself "what if it doesn't work?" and he was asleep. The only problem is you did not experience that. It convened me I can understand how it does not convince you. Yet I know it was true,
You insist it is not former because the belief is voluntary, and yet also insist it is not the latter!
ReplyDeleteJoe: The amount of evidence is not important. A whole bunch of bad evidence is not as important as some good evidence. You are merely gainsaying the evidence. It's not forced upon you. You can reject it and you do regardless of the quality you don't want to believe so you don't.
Again, the degree of evidence would seem important.
what do you mean by degree?
Of course poor evidence scores less than good evidence, but we are looking at the overall situation of how much evidence there is and when doing that good evidence is going to count more. I was assuming that was obvious. The evidence for gravity is very good.
It's constant there are no coulter examples. That's my point evidence for God however good is not contract and there are counter arguments such as POP POE.
The evidence for God is pretty poor. Yes, we can look at the wonder of the universe, but it is by no means certain that that is due to God. Yes, we can look at the gospel accounts, but it is by no means certain they accurately report what happened.
the evidence is excellent, you don't listen
We can choose to take the gospels as fact, but doing so is a "leap of faith"; it is putting your trust in something when there is little justification to do so. As you say, it is a choice.
Joe: Bull shit, you will reject the evidence however good it may be. Case in point you obfuscated the original point because you can't face it.
If you can provide evidence that the gospels are 100% true, present it. I think we both know you cannot. You take it on faith.
that is a phony issue, It doesn't matter if the Gospels are 100% true or not. they truth they do have you ignore because of some triviality that let's you off the hook. Phony standard gives you an excuse
Joe: The evidence for God is strong enough to be sure. I am sure. but the things that make me sure I can't make you experience. you must get it together with God on your own, It's an existential truth, It's phenomenological.
But you already admitted that the evidence is not that good.
No I did nit say that you are distorting my words to fit what you want,
If the evidence was convincing, it would be a obligatory belief. You are very clear that the evidence is not as good as that, and so is a voluntary belief.
Mu whole point was that good evidence need not be obligatory, you have no basis for your statement except that you manufacture a view I ever espoused, I would not believe in God ic I thought the evidence was not good. Good evidence is not necessary obligatory that was my point,
Joe: O is that how I defined it? what did I really say? why don't you read it again?
ReplyDeleteYou said "I was illustrating obligatory belief vs voluntary belief". What can "voluntary belief" mean if not believing it is true when there is not enough evidence to support that position?
Have I misunderstood? Maybe. But I do not see you clarifying.
Joe: Really the shoe is on the other foot. the process I described is one of truth which one can ignore by doubting it.
But that is just a different perspective. You think it is true, I do not.
The issue is whether you think the evidence is good enough to justify regarding it as fact.
Joe: healing all our hurts is as much frequency as degree. That does not speak to the quality of actual evidence. the stuff you pretend isn't there.
It is not there. It you remember back to the thread where this started, your point was that if God healed all our hurts, that would make belief obligatory.
Back then you were arguing God does not heal all our hurts because that would make belief obligatory, this time you seem to be arguing that actually he does heal all our hurts and I am just pretending he does not!
Joe: You cant get better evidence than If you are there do x, x is done therefore he's there. In my own experience my brother is writhing around on the floor screaming, I said if you are there make him stop and he stopped. then. I had barely said to myself "what if it doesn't work?" and he was asleep. The only problem is you did not experience that. It convened me I can understand how it does not convince you. Yet I know it was true,
Okay.
Joe: what do you mean by degree?
How much there is - weighted by good it is.
Joe: It's constant there are no coulter examples. That's my point evidence for God however good is not contract and there are counter arguments such as POP POE.
So is there reasonable doubt or not?
Joe: the evidence is excellent, you don't listen
How many non-Christians read your blog? I am paying far more attention than the vast majority of us.
Joe: that is a phony issue, It doesn't matter if the Gospels are 100% true or not. they truth they do have you ignore because of some triviality that let's you off the hook. Phony standard gives you an excuse
It matters if your evidence makes that assumption. Is the empty tomb evidence for Christianity? Many Christians claim it is. For example, Habermas considers it to be one of his minimal facts. But it is only a fact if you assume the gospels are true. I do not - I think the empty tomb was made up.
You are claiming there is very good evidence for Christianity, but if that supposed evidence is based on flawed assumptions, that is not true.
Joe: No I did nit say that you are distorting my words to fit what you want,
Then in what sense is belief voluntary?
Joe: Mu whole point was that good evidence need not be obligatory, you have no basis for your statement except that you manufacture a view I ever espoused, I would not believe in God ic I thought the evidence was not good. Good evidence is not necessary obligatory that was my point,
How do we distinguish between good evidence that makes belief obligatory and good evidence that merely makes it voluntary? Again, to me this seems an issue of degree. The better the evidence, the harder it is to ignore and the more obligatory the belief.
And that implies a voluntary belief has less evidence - not enough to justify calling it fact.
You are clearly distorting my meaning. I created a dichotomy between obligor and voluntary evidence. the issue was not bad evidence vs good.it was what the atheist can get away with denying, vs what cannot be denied. That which can be denied is not denied because it's bad but because it's not all pervasive..
ReplyDeleteHow do we distinguish between good evidence that makes belief obligatory and good evidence that merely makes it voluntary? Again, to me this seems an issue of degree. The better the evidence, the harder it is to ignore and the more obligatory the belief.
ReplyDeleteThe best God evidence is experiential. It's real easy to deny an experience you have not had. But for those who have had it it's very compelling,
Joe: You are clearly distorting my meaning. I created a dichotomy between obligor and voluntary evidence. the issue was not bad evidence vs good.it was what the atheist can get away with denying, vs what cannot be denied. That which can be denied is not denied because it's bad but because it's not all pervasive..
ReplyDeleteWhat is the actual difference, Joe? Not in terms of how atheists regard it - that makes it self-fulfilling. Atheists are people who ignore the evidence that atheists ignore. Tell me what makes the evidence different, if it is just as good for voluntary belief.
Joe: The best God evidence is experiential. It's real easy to deny an experience you have not had. But for those who have had it it's very compelling,
If I had that experience, would I have to agree that God exists?
Does belief in God depend on God choosing you to have this experience? In what sense is that voluntary?
Pix
Of course there's a reasonable doubt! In fact, that's kind of the point. And no, if you had Joe's experience, you would not have to agree that God exists. You could call it coincidence. You could find a number of reasons not to trust it. Faith is not certainty. They are kind of opposites, in fact. But that doesn't mean there isn't good evidence, if you choose to accept it. It's set up to be a choice. Again, that's kind of the point. Faith is really more about the heart than about the intellect. It's more like falling in love than like analyzing a set of facts.
ReplyDeleteHi Joe.
ReplyDeleteIT seems to me you are saying that having faith in something is evidence that there is something to have faith in.
That is kind of circularly assuming that no-one has faith in something they don't have evidence for. Why present faith as your evidence if you could just present your evidence?
Kristen: Of course there's a reasonable doubt! In fact, that's kind of the point. And no, if you had Joe's experience, you would not have to agree that God exists. You could call it coincidence. You could find a number of reasons not to trust it. Faith is not certainty. They are kind of opposites, in fact. But that doesn't mean there isn't good evidence, if you choose to accept it. It's set up to be a choice. Again, that's kind of the point. Faith is really more about the heart than about the intellect. It's more like falling in love than like analyzing a set of facts.
ReplyDeleteThat is pretty much how I see it. In that sense, it is voluntary because the evidence is not convincing, does not justify taking it as fact.
Pix
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteJoe: You are clearly distorting my meaning. I created a dichotomy between obligor and voluntary evidence. the issue was not bad evidence vs good.it was what the atheist can get away with denying, vs what cannot be denied. That which can be denied is not denied because it's bad but because it's not all pervasive..
What is the actual difference, Joe? Not in terms of how atheists regard it - that makes it self-fulfilling.
It's not self fulfilling
Atheists are people who ignore the evidence that atheists ignore. Tell me what makes the evidence different, if it is just as good for voluntary belief.
what i said was pretty clear you don't want to get it. the difference is deniability. Some truths are obvious and so,e require study,
Joe: The best God evidence is experiential. It's real easy to deny an experience you have not had. But for those who have had it it's very compelling,
If I had that experience, would I have to agree that God exists?
If you were honest.
Does belief in God depend on God choosing you to have this experience? In what sense is that voluntary?
That depends upon doctrinal assumptions but in my view God seeks everyone but we have free will.
Pix says: "That is pretty much how I see it. In that sense, it is voluntary because the evidence is not convincing, does not justify taking it as fact."
ReplyDeleteYes it does. People deny facts all the time. For example i think the warn Vietnam was a mistake, I think we should have helped Ho and supported the north. Knowing what I do about the history I would say bleeding obvious. But a lot of people didn't see it that way. Why? they made different assumptions.
Joe: what i said was pretty clear you don't want to get it. the difference is deniability. Some truths are obvious and so,e require study,
ReplyDeleteOkay, so there are obligatory claims that cannot be denied and voluntary claims that can be denies, even though the evidence is just certain?
And God wants his existence to be the latter because obligatory facts wipe out faith?
Is that right, Joe?
Pix
No it's not like said Let us make the evidence not obligatory. it just happens that the truth of God can denied because it's not given in sense data.
ReplyDeletePix said: "In that sense, it is voluntary because the evidence is not convincing, does not justify taking it as fact."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you realize that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high burden of proof; in law it applies only to criminal trials. In civil trials, the bar is "by a preponderance of evidence." I don't particularly mind someone saying the evidence is not convincing-- to them. What I mind is getting told that I am believing something without sufficient evidence, as if I were not rational enough to weigh fact, personal experience and logical argument, and find that there is a preponderance of the evidence for me. My personal experiences are not evidence for someone else, who didn't experience them. But that doesn't make them less than real.
All humans are most likely to be convinced by evidence for things they already want to believe in, and to not be convinced by contrary evidence. We are not the basically rational creatures we think we are. And that goes for atheists as well as religious people. To be able to consider evidence that might change our minds, we have to decide to be open to it. To be able to see some kinds of things, we have to open our eyes-- and hearts.
I like to use the analogy of agates on the beach. One person walks on the beach and sees no agates. Another walks on the same beach an hour later and finds four agates. Were the agates not actually there when the first person went walking? Sure they were. But they can only be found if you're actively looking for them.
you make a lot of great points Kristen. What get's me is he says no evidence. I posted this thing bursting with evidence (the one about religious experience up now). There is a lot to the experience argument. I wrote a whole book about it; Only one person has read that post. Was it Pix?
ReplyDeleteJoe: No it's not like said Let us make the evidence not obligatory. it just happens that the truth of God can denied because it's not given in sense data.
ReplyDeleteSo now it "just happens", but previously you gave the impression this was by design; God set it up this was because if he chose for it to be obligatory that would wipe out faith.
Joe: What get's me is he says no evidence.
I have never said that. What I have said is the evidence does not justify considering it to be fact.
Joe: Only one person has read that post. Was it Pix?
The statistics are probably based on people visiting that specific page. I can read the whole thing from your home page, so would not be counted. The software assumes you break up posts with just a couple of paragraphs on the home page to lure people in, with more "below the fold".
Pix
Kristen: I'm sure you realize that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high burden of proof; in law it applies only to criminal trials. In civil trials, the bar is "by a preponderance of evidence."
ReplyDeleteI know beyond reasonable doubt that I went to work earlier, that I own a car, that I am sat on a chair. There are plenty of things we know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do we know God exists beyond a reasonable doubt? Not in my view, no.
Okay, that is a high standard, but that is the nature of a fact. A fact is something we know to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Is the existence of God a fact? No.
Kristen: I don't particularly mind someone saying the evidence is not convincing-- to them. What I mind is getting told that I am believing something without sufficient evidence, as if I were not rational enough to weigh fact, personal experience and logical argument, and find that there is a preponderance of the evidence for me. My personal experiences are not evidence for someone else, who didn't experience them. But that doesn't make them less than real.
Plenty of Christians say just that to me.
Kristen: All humans are most likely to be convinced by evidence for things they already want to believe in, and to not be convinced by contrary evidence. We are not the basically rational creatures we think we are. And that goes for atheists as well as religious people. To be able to consider evidence that might change our minds, we have to decide to be open to it. To be able to see some kinds of things, we have to open our eyes-- and hearts.
Agreed.
Pix
Joe: No it's not like said Let us make the evidence not obligatory. it just happens that the truth of God can denied because it's not given in sense data.
ReplyDeleteSo now it "just happens", but previously you gave the impression this was by design; God set it up this was because if he chose for it to be obligatory that would wipe out faith.
I think what happens is being omniscient God knows everything so there's no difference in his planning and it just working out. It's all part of the plan because the all powerful one knows about it and didn't stop it so it's part of the plan. But God did not have to design things that way he could have just let it happen,
Joe: What get's me is he says no evidence.
I have never said that. What I have said is the evidence does not justify considering it to be fact.
We should explore your laage to seefr we aren't sqyingthe samething, so you are it's not obligatory? That doesn't mean it's not a disclosure of God's reality if one follows the clue.
Joe: Only one person has read that post. Was it Pix?
The statistics are probably based on people visiting that specific page. I can read the whole thing from your home page, so would not be counted. The software assumes you break up posts with just a couple of paragraphs on the home page to lure people in, with more "below the fold".
Maybe
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoe: I posted this thing bursting with evidence (the one about religious experience up now). There is a lot to the experience argument.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the "religious experience" argument carries as much weight as you think it does. Except to the person having the experience.
It has 200 studies backing it up? What other argument has that?
ReplyDeleteJoe: It has 200 studies backing it up?
ReplyDeleteNone of which indicate God exists, only that people have experience they consider to be mystical.
Pix
Pix said: "I know beyond reasonable doubt that I went to work earlier, that I own a car, that I am sat on a chair. There are plenty of things we know beyond a reasonable doubt.
ReplyDeleteDo we know God exists beyond a reasonable doubt? Not in my view, no.
Okay, that is a high standard, but that is the nature of a fact. A fact is something we know to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Is the existence of God a fact? No."
Do you only believe in facts that are established beyond a reasonable doubt? Suppose you were on a jury for a civil case. The plaintiff says the defendant is in breach of contract. The defendant says what he did was within the scope of the contract. Some of the facts seem to back up the plaintiff's side. Other facts seem to back up the defendant's side. As the jury, you must decide based on who has the most/best evidence. The attorneys are not required to, nor can they, establish beyond a reasonable doubt either that there was breach of contract, or that there wasn't. That's not the bar in a civil case. As a juror, are you able to agree to a verdict either way? Or must you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
Is it a fact that the defendant is in breach of contract? That's what you have to decide. It's not a cut-and-dried fact like "I'm sitting in this chair." It is capable of being disputed, but you must do the best you can.
Is it a fact that there's a God? Not a cut-and-dried fact like a chair, because God can't be seen or touched. It is capable of being disputed. But by saying "God does not exist, because God is not a fact like this chair," you have not ended the dispute.
As to your other comment about Christians saying you are not rational in concluding that you don't find enough evidence to support the existence of God-- they're just as wrong in claiming the dispute is ended, as an atheist is who claims that it's conclusive that God does not exist.
That's the nature of reality. Not everything in it is beyond dispute as to its reality or unreality. And we have to live in this world, not in one where everything is provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kristen: Do you only believe in facts that are established beyond a reasonable doubt?
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, I will only consider a claim to be fact if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not quite the same.
Kristen: Suppose you were on a jury for a civil case. The plaintiff says the defendant is in breach of contract. The defendant says what he did was within the scope of the contract. Some of the facts seem to back up the plaintiff's side. Other facts seem to back up the defendant's side. As the jury, you must decide based on who has the most/best evidence. The attorneys are not required to, nor can they, establish beyond a reasonable doubt either that there was breach of contract, or that there wasn't. That's not the bar in a civil case. As a juror, are you able to agree to a verdict either way? Or must you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
From my perspective, I would not take either side's claim as fact. I would, however, say that one side is more likely to be right, and decide in their favour.
It is an issue of certainty. There are plenty of things I am not sure about. May be there is a god; I cannot say it is a fact that there is no God because I accept there is reasonable doubt.
Kristen: That's the nature of reality. Not everything in it is beyond dispute as to its reality or unreality. And we have to live in this world, not in one where everything is provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
Absolutely! But further, we have to acknowledge that. If you think something is only probably true, do not consider it to be a fact, and do not present it to others as though it is a fact.
Pix
There are things that you yourself can be fully persuaded are true, and yet be unable to prove them to others. Suppose that you actually saw a bigfoot with your own eyes?
Delete