Faith - A divine attribute...

Sangre

Is anyone else here absolutely bamboozled by how various religions have somehow turned 'faith' into an admirable quality? By faith I mean belief without reasonable, material grounds or evidence for that belief. Its seems having faith is something to aspire to and is a virtue of the noble and pious. Why?

'How do you know you're going to heaven?'
'I have faith...'
'Wow, you're so religious and good!'

What?

Why would a God(s) create us with intelligence, reason, imaginiation and logic and then require and reward something which can be the antithesis of these? Its one of the things that really got me questioning christianity (and then faith in general) as a child.

“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn. 20:29)

Why are these to people worthy of praise rather than Thomas who would not believe without proof? Blessed are those who correctly guess the right messiah without proof?

“Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe”. (Jn. 20:25).

Last time I checked it was quite sensible to require substantive proof (where available) before committing to a particular belief (religious or not). Should we be punished for having a critical mind and not putting our reasoning to the test?

Basically a God is asking us to 'have faith' in him, without proof. Yet will condemn to hell without this faith. Oh yeah, and don't accidently place faith in any of the other, incorrect religions. How do we know they're wrong? Well...you have to have faith.

Making faith virtuous is the biggest scam theism has ever pulled.

Dades

Sangre wrote:

Is anyone else here absolutely bamboozled by how various religions have somehow turned 'faith' into an admirable quality?

Those who proclaim to have "faith" (in theory) follow a moral code that they believe makes them better people.

Those without faith, don't follow a set moral code and so are quite possibly axe-murderers and baby eaters.

Okay, so it's not that simple. Or is it?

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Those who proclaim to have "faith" (in theory) follow a moral code that they believe makes them better people.

Those without faith, don't follow a set moral code and so are quite possibly axe-murderers and baby eaters.

Okay, so it's not that simple. Or is it?

Hmm. Do you:

1. currently own an axe? Has it recently needed cleaning?

2. have any baby parts in your fridge?


Actually, we have a choice. We can

(a) follow the same set of arbitrary restrictions as Christians - in which case we're evidence of the obviousness of Christian morality

(b) not follow the same set of arbitrary restrictions as Christians - in which case we're sinners, and evidence of the immorality of atheists

or,

(c) follow a different set of arbitrary restrictions - in which case ecumenicalism obliges them to say nice things about us, while secretly thinking the same as above

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Preaching to the choir.

Sangre

I guess so. Making ignorance something to be proud of was a great marketing ploy.

Dades

Maybe faith is only an admirable quality to fellow believers, in the same way the proclamation of one's atheism/agnosticism is applauded by non-believers...

Sangre

To clarify I don't mean 'faith' in the 'I believe in XXX' but in the 'I don't know the answer, but I've faith' way.

You might hear someone say 'he has great faith' in an admiring way, as in he believes very strongly despite our current climate of skepticism and science.. Might even be said of someone of a different religion. I fail to see how this should be applauded.

Zillah

Sangre wrote:

“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn. 20:29)

Why are these to people worthy of praise rather than Thomas who would not believe without proof? Blessed are those who correctly guess the right messiah without proof?

Blessed are those who obey. Thats pretty much it.

PDN

Sangre wrote:

“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn. 20:29)

Why are these to people worthy of praise rather than Thomas who would not believe without proof? Blessed are those who correctly guess the right messiah without proof?

“Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe”. (Jn. 20:25).

Last time I checked it was quite sensible to require substantive proof (where available) before committing to a particular belief (religious or not). Should we be punished for having a critical mind and not putting our reasoning to the test?.

This is a misrepresentation the biblical account of Thomas and his doubting. Let's put Christ's words in context, even if it spoils the age old game of taking Scripture out of context and then mocking it.

Thomas was not being asked to have faith in Christ's resurrection on the basis of zero evidence. He had spent three years with Jesus and had seen numerous miracles, including Jesus raising the dead. He had heard Jesus, on numerous occasions, predict that he was to be handed over to the Romans, executed, and would be raised from the dead. The first two had already occurred exactly as predicted, therefore Thomas should on the basis of all his previous experience of Christ have had the faith to believe that Jesus would also be raised from the dead.

Tar.Aldarion

Does it not give you doubts that somebody that witnessed all of that doubted Jesus? If he had actually done all that why would Thomas doubt him so much?

PDN

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Does it not give you doubts that somebody that witnessed all of that doubted Jesus? If he had actually done all that why would Thomas doubt him so much?

No, I have worked with people long enough to know that people do the stupidest things for the stupidest reasons. If Thomas had his little doubting fit, for whatever reason, then I don't see why that should affect my faith.

indough

Just as little to be said for cynicalness as faith IMO. Don't really understand how people continue to relate passages of the new testament to the theme of obedience either. I was under the understanding that Jesus' teachings were quite undermining of both the Jewish and Roman authorities of the time, can you be both a radical and preach obedience?

BrianCalgary

indough wrote:

Just as little to be said for cynicalness as faith IMO. Don't really understand how people continue to relate passages of the new testament to the theme of obedience either. I was under the understanding that Jesus' teachings were quite undermining of both the Jewish and Roman authorities of the time, can you be both a radical and preach obedience?

Yes.

indough

You don't find that a bit contradictory?

BrianCalgary

To get back to the OP.

The question is: what is it that I have faith in?
1) The resurrection; no faith needed - it happened, it was reported and written about and never denied by anyone of the time.

2) The Bible; no faith needed, it is the word of God, His communication with us; the owners manual for a healthy human life.

My faith has happened in turning my life over to Jesus, to trust in Him not only for eternal life, but for a life here that is worthy in that my fellow man benefits by my mere presence.

When you skydive; your faith is in the one who packed the chute.
On bungie jumping; in the manufacturer of the equipment.

I opine that faith is where you trust your life.

BrianCalgary

indough wrote:

You don't find that a bit contradictory?

No, one can live a life within a system and bring the message of Christ to an individual.

The message of Christ may be radical for the culture you are in, yet you live in obedience to the authorities.

PDN

indough wrote:

You don't find that a bit contradictory?

'Radical' means 'extreme' or 'favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions'. There is no logical contradiction between being radical and obedient. In fact, those who have most often effected such fundamental or revolutionary changes have tended to be those who were highly obedient to some organisation or set of values.

indough

But Christ couldn't spread his message without disobeying the authorities, that's why he was crucified by the Jews and Romans. I think you misunderstood my original post by the way.

MoominPapa

BrianCalgary wrote:

1) The resurrection; no faith needed - it happened, it was reported and written about and never denied by anyone of the time.

No it wasn't it was written about years after the supposed event.

BrianCalgary wrote:

2) The Bible; no faith needed, it is the word of God, His communication with us; the owners manual for a healthy human life.

Which version of the bible?

BrianCalgary wrote:

When you skydive; your faith is in the one who packed the chute.
On bungie jumping; in the manufacturer of the equipment.
I opine that faith is where you trust your life.

Faith and trust are not the same thing, faith is wishful thinking, trust is based on a reasonable expectation that certain standards will be adhered to, if I didn't trust the person who packed my chute I wouldn't get on the plane, if I was already on a plane that was falling out of the sky and someone I didn't trust handed me the last chute I would have to put my faith in him that he packed it correctly

Zillah

BrianCalgary wrote:

The question is: what is it that I have faith in?
1) The resurrection; no faith needed - it happened, it was reported and written about and never denied by anyone of the time.

2) The Bible; no faith needed, it is the word of God, His communication with us; the owners manual for a healthy human life.

Staggering. Just staggering...

indough wrote:

But Christ couldn't spread his message without disobeying the authorities, that's why he was crucified by the Jews and Romans. I think you misunderstood my original post by the way.

Were you responding to me? My post about obedience was a reference to the hierarchical nature of religion. There are the prophets/leaders/priests who write the holy books/receive the visions and there are those who obey them. The reason that faith is considered a virtue is that those with faith are far more likely to be obedient than those with a degree of scepticism.

You gotta think of it in terms of meme theory. A religious doctrine that puts uncritical thinking on a pedestal has a massive advantage over the one that doesn't. Couple that with a caustic intolerance for other religious doctrines and you've got a memetic juggernaut ready to plunge Europe into the Dark Ages...literally.

indough

Zillah wrote:

Were you responding to me? My post about obedience was a reference to the hierarchical nature of religion. There are the prophets/leaders/priests who write the holy books/receive the visions and there are those who obey them. The reason that faith is considered a virtue is that those with faith are far more likely to be obedient than those with a degree of scepticism.

You gotta think of it in terms of meme theory. A religious doctrine that puts uncritical thinking on a pedestal has a massive advantage over the one that doesn't. Couple that with a caustic intolerance for other religious doctrines and you've got a memetic juggernaut ready to plunge Europe into the Dark Ages...literally.

Yes, sorry there was a bit of misunderstanding there. I understand your view that religion is often used in order to encourage obedience, but I think the particular example of the story of Thomas as was used is not a good example of this. In my own opinion I think that perhaps Jesus was showing his more human side, not liking the fact that he was doubted by a friend, as well as someone who had seen everything (miracles etc) that he had (supposedly) done.

Zombrex

Sangre wrote:

Is anyone else here absolutely bamboozled by how various religions have somehow turned 'faith' into an admirable quality?

I think a lot of it has to do with the concept of hope

You will often here theists proclaim that religion is worth it even if it isn't true because it gives hope to those who require it. And people who believe in this hope, who have faith, and doing the best they can.

Now a lot of people here would probably argue that false hope is not a particularly good thing to aspire to promote. But I suppose that is the difference between atheists and theists, the difference between rationality and faith.

The biggest PR problem atheism, or humanism, or rationalism has is that it doesn't give easy or comforting answers. They may be the correct answers, they may be the true answers, but they are often aren't the comforting ones.

Religion on the other hand has the market cornered on comforting answers. And people like this. You will often here people with theistic leanings, simple say "I cannot accept that" when confronted with something like evolution or the big bang. They don't want this these things to be true because they are not comforting answers. And people around this person will hold this non-acceptance as something that is actually good, admire the fact that this person won't let go of his desire to find a comforting answer, because they themselves want there to be a comforting answer.

People like being comforting, being told that things are going to be ok. It is only natural that society would view those who promote these easy answers with admirable qualities, because they also want what they are doing to be true. If they dismissed those who hold out this irrational hope it would be admitting to themselves that in fact the actual answer isn't comforting.

So someone says "I know God will cure my cancer" people around that person go "Isn't it wonderful that this person has so much faith", because the people around them want this belief to be true. They might not believe it as much as the person themselves, but at the same time they don't want to fully admit to themselves that no actually God isn't going to do anything, and the girl is on her own. So they hold the girl up as having admirable qualities, having faith which is good and should be protected.

Of course this backfires a bit when someone says "I know God will drive the infidels from our land".

Then people tend to be less supportive of this faith, despite the fact that it is pretty much exactly the same as the faith of the girl hoping to be cured of cancer.

Zillah

Of course, theres also the argument that religion is a load of hogwash, and hence without faith it would crumble to pieces, so they do of course have to promote it as a virtue.


Its a bit like promoting good hygeine at a quarantined facility...

Sangre

PDN wrote:

Thomas was not being asked to have faith in Christ's resurrection on the basis of zero evidence. He had spent three years with Jesus and had seen numerous miracles, including Jesus raising the dead. He had heard Jesus, on numerous occasions, predict that he was to be handed over to the Romans, executed, and would be raised from the dead. The first two had already occurred exactly as predicted, therefore Thomas should on the basis of all his previous experience of Christ have had the faith to believe that Jesus would also be raised from the dead.

So what is the point in the story? Was Thomas wrong to doubt that someone he saw crucified, stabbed and buried had returned from the dead? Was he wrong to require total proof of the claims about Jesus's resurrection? Is that a bad quality? Again, what is wrong with having a healthy level of skepticism?

He isn't even necessarily doubting Jesus but the claims of his followers. How does he not know they are overcome with grief or hysteria?

Why did God give us capacity for reason and logic if he didn't want us to fully exercise it? How else are we to avoid false prophets or the devil PDN?

This is a misrepresentation the biblical account of Thomas and his doubting. Let's put Christ's words in context, even if it spoils the age old game of taking Scripture out of context and then mocking it.

Well until God comes down from the heavens and quotes to us, word by word, the exact interprations of the Bible you can shut up with claims of your misinterpretation. Or maybe you can show me a petition where every christian agrees to the same interpretation of the Bible. I'm sure nobody ever disagrees on it, they're all misinterpreting.

I'm not misinterpreting, I have a interpretation different to yours.

briancalgary wrote:

When you skydive; your faith is in the one who packed the chute.
On bungie jumping; in the manufacturer of the equipment.

I opine that faith is where you trust your life.

And I opine that this isn't an admirable quality to place faith where it isn't warranted. Would I be wise to place faith in a parachute packed by a man who was on bail for the murder of 12 people for filling their parachutes with porridge? No, that was be stupid. In the same way faith based on nothing is stupid. But why is it a good thing the context of religion (any of them).

zillah wrote:

Of course, theres also the argument that religion is a load of hogwash, and hence without faith it would crumble to pieces, so they do of course have to promote it as a virtue.

Well, thats what I'd conclude. Why question is how they suceed in making it a virtue?

indough

Bit harsh telling people to shut up don't you think?

Scofflaw

My own take would be that it is partly a feature of the communal nature of religion, and partly a result of the belief that without religion there is no morality.

Someone who says "I have strong faith" is saying, in a communal sense "I will not rock the boat, offend the Gods, and cause them to set a pestilence on us". In a personal sense, he's saying "I will not kill you and rape your children, because I strongly believe that God will punish me".

Further, someone who is 'beloved of the Gods' will be expected to be fortunate - and what better way to make the Gods smile on you than to love them, and bend your will to theirs?

Someone who says they have faith, in other words, is saying "I will obey the laws of both Gods and men, bring no disaster, and commit no crime - also, I have the protection of the Gods".

Aristotle's comment:

Aristotle, in Politics wrote:

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.

covers both points.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

I have faith that the scientific method will will eventually provide answers to the question of where the universe came from. Where does that leave me standing?

Is the fact that my belief system requires that I wait an indefinite period of time for the answer to the ultimate question evidence that my belief system is flawed? For that matter, I have a lot of trouble seeing how it's any different, in principle, from many ridicule-worthy religious beliefs?

Zillah

Sangre wrote:

Well, thats what I'd conclude. Why question is how they suceed in making it a virtue?

By dominating Europe, and later the United States, both culturally and morally? A terrible legacy that only now we're begining to shake off?

Its the same answer as to why the modern West still has strong currents of homophobia, a fear of the "occult", exorcists and a strong religious influence in politics: They essentially ruled the Western world for a very long time.


And again bear in mind, as both you and I prove, they haven't convinced everyone.

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I have faith that the scientific method will will eventually provide answers to the question of where the universe came from. Where does that leave me standing?

Well, you could say that such a statement of faith shows us that you are a good member of the "reality-based community", unlikely to suddenly come at us with acupuncture needles or flavoured water. We can trust you to go to the chemist and get our prescription for us when we're sick, rather than returning with a handful of magical Ayurvedic beans...

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Is the fact that my belief system requires that I wait an indefinite period of time for the answer to the ultimate question evidence that my belief system is flawed? For that matter, I have a lot of trouble seeing how it's any different, in principle, from many ridicule-worthy religious beliefs?

Do you have any evidence that science has provided answers of this kind before? Would you say that science has a good 'track record' in respect of answering questions about the universe? If so, then you're only using the kind of 'faith' that allows you to walk onto one end of the bridge in the expectation of being able to walk off the other.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Is the fact that my belief system requires that I wait an indefinite period of time for the answer to the ultimate question evidence that my belief system is flawed? For that matter, I have a lot of trouble seeing how it's any different, in principle, from many ridicule-worthy religious beliefs?

Its not any different at all. Believing that science has proven itself to be the best method for solving the riddles of the universe, and that it is likely to continue this trend, is not faith.

Believing that it will answer all questions is indeed a faith based belief and no more valid than the assumption of Mary.

PDN

Sangre wrote:

So what is the point in the story? Was Thomas wrong to doubt that someone he saw crucified, stabbed and buried had returned from the dead? Was he wrong to require total proof of the claims about Jesus's resurrection? Is that a bad quality? Again, what is wrong with having a healthy level of skepticism?

He isn't even necessarily doubting Jesus but the claims of his followers. How does he not know they are overcome with grief or hysteria?

Yes, Thomas was wrong to doubt the words of Jesus who had explicitly stated that he would rise from the dead and had, in Thomas' presence, already demonstrated his supernatural powers.

Why did God give us capacity for reason and logic if he didn't want us to fully exercise it? How else are we to avoid false prophets or the devil PDN?

Given that Thomas had already seen so many miracles, spent 3 years in the presence of Jesus listening to his teaching, knew that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah etc. - it is entirely consistent with the use of reason and logic for Thomas to have believed Christ when he said he would rise from the dead after 3 days.

I entirely endorse using reason and logic to guard against false teaching or demonic influences. That is why I am using reason and logic to address your OP.

Well until God comes down from the heavens and quotes to us, word by word, the exact interprations of the Bible you can shut up with claims of your misinterpretation. Or maybe you can show me a petition where every christian agrees to the same interpretation of the Bible. I'm sure nobody ever disagrees on it, they're all misinterpreting.

I'm not misinterpreting, I have a interpretation different to yours.

Your rudeness does little to alleviate the weakness of your argument. All interpretations are not equally valid, because certain interpretations lend themselves to reason and logic. My interpretation takes into account Thomas' previous experience of Jesus and concludes that he had grounds for faith. Your interpretation fails to take such previous experience into account and therefore, on grounds of reason and logic, I reject it as a misinterpretation. I am perfectly entitled to state it as being so. I frequently find other posters on these boards think I am wrong on certain points and are not slow to tell me that I am wrong (in their opinion, of course). I find that the reasonable and logical thing to do is to engage in debate with them, to give reasons and support for my view and to request reasons or support from them for their view. This is IMHO much more reasonable and logical than telling them to shut up.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

All interpretations are not equally valid, because certain interpretations lend themselves to reason and logic.

Well, I think we can agree on that.

amused,
Scofflaw

Dades

Zillah wrote:

no more valid than the assumption of Mary.

What assumptions did she make?

And yeah, Sangre, don't be telling people posting in your own thread to shut up.
Let's not have the discussion turn out like that one in the "Enemies of Reason" thread.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

What assumptions did she make?

That the bloke in her bedroom was the Archangel Gabriel?

The Atheist wrote:

And yeah, Sangre, don't be telling people posting in your own thread to shut up.
Let's not have the discussion turn out like that one in the "Enemies of Reason" thread.

Sorry.

contritely,
Scofflaw

Zillah

PDN wrote:

Your rudeness does little to alleviate the weakness of your argument. All interpretations are not equally valid, because certain interpretations lend themselves to reason and logic. My interpretation takes into account Thomas' previous experience of Jesus and concludes that he had grounds for faith.

"Grounds for faith"...sounds like something of an oxymoron. How is faith any different at all from regular belief if it needs grounds? I believe the news will be on TV on RTE tonight at 9 like it always is, but I don't have faith that it will. How would you distinguish faith from any other form of belief?

Also, do you think the following scenario is plausible, if not preferable: The authors of the Bible wildly embellished or invented the supernatural powers of Jesus of Nazareth, but portrayed the reaction of Thomas with greater accuracy; hence his reaction was quite logical given that he had not had magic powers demonstrated to him. Bear in mind, I'm not asking if this is what you believe, whether you like the scenario, or if it is the most likely, merely whether you think it is plausible.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Sorry.

What are you sorry about? That you stayed in that thread as long as you did?

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

What assumptions did she make?

That one can fly physically into Heaven by going up?

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

What are you sorry about? That you stayed in that thread as long as you did?

More my public display of disaffection, really...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Zillah wrote:

That one can fly physically into Heaven by going up?

Okay, I know I started it... but let's all move on!

"Faith - A divine attribute" - a discussion worth staying on-topic for (unusual, I know).

PDN

Zillah wrote:

"Grounds for faith"...sounds like something of an oxymoron. How is faith any different at all from regular belief if it needs grounds? I believe the news will be on TV on RTE tonight at 9 like it always is, but I don't have faith that it will. How would you distinguish faith from any other form of belief?

I would say that faith (certainly in its religious sense) is not groundless, but neither is it the kind of belief that is based on pure logic leading to an inevitable and inescapable conclusion (as in a mathematical equation).

Perhaps it would help if I gave an example of Christian faith in action? That way we can discuss an actual act of faith as understood and practiced by Christians rather than an atheist's distorted parody of faith (I would use the term 'straw man' but it's been a bit overused around here of late).

A few months ago I found myself in a situation where my monthly outgoings were going to exceed my income. This, according to the Micawber Principle, results in misery. I needed an extra 922 euro from somewhere in the next week or else I was going to see cheques and direct debits bouncing all over the place (not a good testimony for a Christian pastor - people are much more likely to say, "You of all people should demonstrate financial integrity" than if you are a plumber or a lab technician).

Now, I knew I could partly alleviate the problem by one simple measure. As with many evangelical Christians I practice tithing. I give 10% of my gross salary into the offering basket at church (well, these days it's often done via internet banking or standing orders, but you get the idea). My wife and I have followed this practice religiously (no pun intended) for 21 years. We believe that the Bible teaches that God will financially bless us if we continue in this practice of tithing. That is an act of faith. Now, if I decided, just for once, to withhold, or even delay, my tithe then I would be half way to meeting the deficit. It wouldn't solve the problem totally, but it would be a partial solution.

My wife and I decided, by faith, to pay our tithe as usual and to trust God to fulfill his end of the deal. We didn't tell anyone else about our situation. We just prayed. However, it got to the weekend and the expected blessing had still not arrived. We needed 922 euro to put in the bank before start of business on Monday or else I was in big trouble.

That Sunday we had a guest preacher in our church. I'd never met this guy (an American) but he had preached the previous year when I had been away in Africa and everyone had enjoyed his ministry. I was amazed when, half way through his sermon, this guy announced that God had spoken to him back home in the US and instructed him to get everyone to give in a special offering to bless the senior pastor (me). However, this 'word from God' had actually come to him a full year earlier, but he had refrained from acting upon it last year because, contrary to his expectations, I had not been present the previous time he had preached. Now he wanted to be obedient. He also stressed that he had never done anything like this before in any church where he had preached.

I was blown away. If what he was saying was correct then God had known a full year beforehand that I needed a financial blessing, and had made preparations to meet that need (I don't know why that should amaze a guy who believes in an omniscient God, but it did). So the church gave in a special collection for me (having already given in the regular weekly offering earlier in the service). I found it pretty embarrassing, but it was needed! The offering came to exactly 1025 euro. So I took off the 10% tithe to go straight back to God (yes, always round it up to the nearest euro) and was left with 922 euro!

Now, people can, and probably will, criticise this on several levels. But the practical outcome was that our faith was rewarded by the blessing we expected (although from a totally unexpected source).

My wife and I had no logical, scientific, or mathematical guarantee that our faith would be rewarded. We have also seen many faithful Christians in other countries who suffer great hardship and poverty due to persecution or discrimination. So we know that Christians have no automatic exemption from financial disaster. In still giving our tithe that month we probably violated several economic principles. So was our faith blind or groundless? No!

1. Our faith was supported by our past experiences. Our entire married life has been a succession of God blessing us wonderfully and proving the truth of his promises.
2. Our faith was also supported by the experiences of others. We have heard other Christians testify how they continued to tithe under pressure and how God provided in unusual or unexpected ways.
3. Our faith was supported by our understanding of tithing as a biblical principle. We have discovered that obeying other biblical principles and teachings (following sensible hermeneutical principles to ensure we are interpreting the Bible correctly rather than indulging in wishful thinking) has benefited us greatly. Therefore we had added confidence that the Bible would also prove beneficial in this area.

This has been a rather long and rambling post, but I hope it helps explain why Christians talk of faith as being supported and having 'grounds'. Faith is not blind, but neither it is a mathematical certainty.

Incidentally, it is not just Christians, or even theists, who see faith as a virtue. Some great scientific discoveries were the product of an individual's faith flying in the face of skeptics (I'm thinking of the likes of Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers). Likewise, great sportsmen and women often have a faith in their ability that would not, in the early years, appear to be justified. I think most people realise that, without such faith, the world be a duller, less creative, and more depressing place.

Myksyk

PDN wrote:

Incidentally, it is not just Christians, or even theists, who see faith as a virtue. Some great scientific discoveries were the product of an individual's faith flying in the face of skeptics (I'm thinking of the likes of Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers). Likewise, great sportsmen and women often have a faith in their ability that would not, in the early years, appear to be justified. I think most people realise that, without such faith, the world be a duller, less creative, and more depressing place.

This is a tiresome conflation of 'religious faith' and 'confidence'. As one has nothing to do with the other the point is vacuous.

PDN

Myksyk wrote:

This is a tiresome conflation of 'religious faith' and 'confidence'. As one has nothing to do with the other the point is vacuous.

Well, I was addressing the concept of 'faith' as defined by the OP who said "Last time I checked it was quite sensible to require substantive proof (where available) before committing to a particular belief (religious or not)."

I'm sorry for addressing the OP rather than magically guessing what is going on in your head.

Myksyk

PDN wrote:

Well, I was addressing the concept of 'faith' as defined by the OP who said "Last time I checked it was quite sensible to require substantive proof (where available) before committing to a particular belief (religious or not)."

I'm sorry for addressing the OP rather than magically guessing what is going on in your head.

No, you were conflating 'belief in one's ability' (confidence) and 'committment to a belief without proof' (unsupported conviction). As one has nothing to do with the other and since the OP was only talking about the latter, your point remains vacuous.

PDN

PDN wrote:

All interpretations are not equally valid, because certain interpretations lend themselves to reason and logic.

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, I think we can agree on that.

amused,
Scofflaw

No, I am quite serious. Sangre appears to be arguing that, since there is no one agreed interpretation endorsed in triplicate by God, then I am wrong to call his interpretation a 'misrepresentation'. This carries the implication that all interpretations are equally valid which, taken to its logical conclusion, leads us into a morass of postmodernistic relativistic goo.

For example, you could start a thread arguing that John 3:16 commands Christians to rape and cannibalise the children of non-believers. Then when a Christian (quite reasonably) points out that John 3:16 says no such thing, you could reply by saying, "Well I interpret it that way. How dare you argue that your interpretation is better than mine? Shut up."

In that case this board would become meaningless with everbody, like Humpty Dumpty deciding that "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." Then there's no point in debating anything.

Surely it is much more reasonable, and logical, to apply hermeneutical principles and to try to determine the correct interpretation of any text, be it a passage of Scripture or just one of Scofflaw's more gnomic posts?

PDN

Myksyk wrote:

No, you were conflating 'belief in one's ability' (confidence) and 'committment to a belief without proof' (unsupported conviction). As one has nothing to do with the other and since the OP was only talking about the latter, your point remains vacuous.

Confidence can be in someone else's ability, not just your own. You can have faith in your spouse, in a political movement, or, indeed, in God.

Also I have already addressed the OP's definition of faith (unsupported conviction) earlier in the thread. It is a parody. True faith has grounds, or support.

So I am conflating nothing and leave the vacuousness to others.

Myksyk

Sidestep all you wish. Saying that the 'faith' of Christians or theists is the same thing as the confidence demonstrated by creative, pioneering scientists or young athletes is vacuous.

Sangre

PDN wrote:

No, I am quite serious. Sangre appears to be arguing that, since there is no one agreed interpretation endorsed in triplicate by God, then I am wrong to call his interpretation a 'misrepresentation'. This carries the implication that all interpretations are equally valid which, taken to its logical conclusion, leads us into a morass of postmodernistic relativistic goo.

I was actually telling you not to accuse me of misinterpreting with the purpose of mocking religion. My rudeness was a result of something I found quite obnoxious.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

No, I am quite serious. Sangre appears to be arguing that, since there is no one agreed interpretation endorsed in triplicate by God, then I am wrong to call his interpretation a 'misrepresentation'. This carries the implication that all interpretations are equally valid which, taken to its logical conclusion, leads us into a morass of postmodernistic relativistic goo.

For example, you could start a thread arguing that John 3:16 commands Christians to rape and cannibalise the children of non-believers. Then when a Christian (quite reasonably) points out that John 3:16 says no such thing, you could reply by saying, "Well I interpret it that way. How dare you argue that your interpretation is better than mine? Shut up."

In that case this board would become meaningless with everbody, like Humpty Dumpty deciding that "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." Then there's no point in debating anything.

Surely it is much more reasonable, and logical, to apply hermeneutical principles and to try to determine the correct interpretation of any text, be it a passage of Scripture or just one of Scofflaw's more gnomic posts?

I wouldn't deny it for an instant! There are of course "interpretations" of any text that are nothing of the kind, and can be supported only by serious contortions. I was referring, though, to the question of whether reason and logic lend themselves to interpreting the the text as being the word of God, or not.

Of course, for the same passage there will still remain several interpretations of roughly equal validity. Hermeneutics supplies no more certainty than does any other science, alas (somewhat less than most sciences, by virtue of being a little more subjective).

In any case, I believe you support the idea that one is at liberty to pick and choose what sciences one accepts?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre

Tbh someone who has studied law at undergrad and postgrad level I'd never purposely say that all interpretations for anything are equally valid.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

This has been a rather long and rambling post, but I hope it helps explain why Christians talk of faith as being supported and having 'grounds'. Faith is not blind, but neither it is a mathematical certainty.

Curiously, this is not unlike "trusting to one's luck", or indeed gambling, come to that. From the point of view of rational analysis, what stands out is the usual cohort of statistical and teleological confusions. I'd have to ask, under those circumstances:

Why could the money not have been provided earlier? Do you feel it was necessary for God to yank your chain a little by waiting until the last minute?

Had the money problem arisen from extraordinary expenditures, or would it have been a foreseeable shortfall?

Has God provided every time you have had a shortfall, or is this an example of 'survivorship bias', where we count the 'lucky' after the fact? Do you think God provides in every case where this happens (rhetorical!)?

What other expenses could you have cut instead of your tithe?

My interpretation here would be that you were lucky on this occasion, but God's beneficence appears to share with ordinary pagan luck the characteristic that it is unwise to rely on it if you don't have to - and nearly all of us have turned to luck where nothing else has offered, and sometimes it has worked. As a result of various human mental quirks, we remember these occasions rather better than the ones where it didn't work.

The coincidence in amount is spooky, but, realistically, it's only one in a thousand, given the amounts.

The major difference here is really that you choose to attribute to an external agency what is equally attributable to the no less arcane workings of humanity and chance - and if that makes you feel blessed, I could hardly wish to win my case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

PDN wrote:

Perhaps it would help if I gave an example of Christian faith in action?

Perhaps it would help if I gave an example of blind fortune in action?



Less than a week ago I was cycling home from my part time job. It began to rain almost as soon as I left work, and this caused me great upset as in my bag was a brand new laptop, and the bag was in no way resistant to water. I stopped under some cover to ponder my situation.

I was in a bind. The cover I was under was not very good and both myself and my laptop were slowly getting wet. If I cycled home the laptop would almost certainly suffer damage from the water. Then again, were I to remain at my current location it would be ruined eventually anyway. I wanted to simply get a taxi home, to save both myself and the laptop from a soaking, but the road was very quiet and I would have to walk for at least ten minutes to find a busier road to get a taxi, which would again, expose my laptop to a great deal of water.

And then, unlikely of all unlikelies, I spot, sitting on the path, no more than ten feet from me, a discarded umbrella. No living soul nearby to claim ownership, it was simply sitting there, waiting to be picked up. Elated at my good fortune, I locked my bike to a nearby railing, grabbed the umbrella and walked to a main road and promptly got a taxi.

Without that umbrella my laptop would have almost certainly been soaked thoroughly. I made no prayers, begged no entity to help, I was in fact quite dejected and hopeless, and despite all of that, blind, utterly improbable luck landed an umbrella right in front of me. To add a delicious degree of symmetry to the situation, I'll point out that my laptop was worth slightly more than 922 euro.

Your story has less to do with faith as it has to do with good fortune. Human beings occasionally experience equally unlikely events of both wonderful and terrible fortune. Your decision to interpret such events in a religious context is predictable, but hardly convincing.