Faith: the evidence of things not seen

antiskeptic

This, from nozzferrahhtoo, warrants comment.

... my experience on this and other forums has taught me to stop trotting out the usual atheist nonsense motto of “Faith is belief without evidence”.

Very much depends on what definition of evidence you're applying. If you mean empirical, 5 sense detectable evidence then faith is indeed belief without evidence. There is no empirical evidence for God that points absolutely to the conclusion God.

-

Instead I have changed my motto to “Faith is the willingness to assume to be true, that which you are trying to show is true”, a form of confirmation bias if you will, practised by everyone from Christians to the people who think that the number 23 is behind every event that occurs on the planet. In other words they have a LOT of evidence, but it is all flawed because it is only applicable if you are assuming what you are proving is already true.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63868416#post63868416



The KJV describes faith in an illuminating way. Hebrews 11:1 tells us that:

"..faith is the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen"

The general biblical position is that men are born with one of their 'senses' inoperable - that sense being their God (or spiritual) sense. So whilst they can detect all sorts with their other 5 senses, the things of God aren't discernable to them. Not discernable until they are born again that is.

Once a person is reborn (or rebooted ) their God sense is switched on and they can, of course, detect the things of God. Thus the verse from the hymn "Amazing Grace" telling us that: "I once was (spiritually) blind but now I (spiritually) see". The God sense, once switched off, is now switched on.

Our verse above tells us the biblical view of faith sees faith as synonymous with evidence. It's not evidence that can be detected by 5 sense means (as indicated by "...not seen"). Rather it is detected primarily by the God sense which is switched on - on being reborn.

And so the belief is completely rational, following as it does, the same general basis for all rational belief, i.e: rational belief is belief based on evidence. Which is a far cry from..

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

“Faith is the willingness to assume to be true, that which you are trying to show is true”

Zombrex

But all that is cyclical.

There is no evidence for God until a person is born again, at which point their 6th sense is opened up and they can perceive God properly at which point they have a ton of evidence for God. So you can't say that faith is belief without evidence.

Ok, but then surely before you are born again there is no evidence at all for God, so how do you become born again without faith and how is this faith not to be considered believe without evidence.

It is like saying that I believe that behind a door is a chair because I've gone through the door and seen the chair, so this belief is not a belief based on no evidence. I have evidence, I've seen the chair.

But you believed the chair was behind the door before you went through the door. So it was belief based on no evidence.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

But all that is cyclical.

Let's see.

There is no evidence for God until a person is born again, at which point their 6th sense is opened up and they can perceive God properly at which point they have a ton of evidence for God.

Spot on. So far so linear...

So you can't say that faith is belief without evidence.

If evidence is restricted (by the objector) to whatever 5 sense empirical can supply then any belief based on faith must (by definition) be evidentialess. What I'm suggesting (or going on to suggest) is that the biblical view on faith doesn't restrict evidence to that detected by just the 5 senses.

Ok, but then surely before you are born again there is no evidence at all for God, so how do you become born again without faith and how is this faith not to be considered believe without evidence.

The sequence of events would go something like as follows.

- a person is convicted of what it is that God requires them to be convicted of in order that he apply salvation to them. In other words; the argument presented by God to the person doesn't require that the person believe in God. For example, the person convinced that they are rotten to the core will be convinced of that by evidence in the form of the history of their own rotten activity. God need not manifest at this point. But in arriving at that conclusion, the person has believed God's argument (for he is the one who brings the pressure of evidence to mind) - without yet believing in (the existance of) God.

- the criterion for salvation being met in the person (the person does just as Abraham did in order that he be saved: they believe God), God applies salvation to them.

- the person now saved permits a situation where God 'turns up' at their door. His turning up gives the person evidence of God's existance, clearly. And so they have faith..the evidence of things not (empirical-sense) seen.

We see that belief based on evidence applies to the situation leading to salvation and the situation post salvation. Salvation by faith thus.

Seoid

antiskeptic, you make it sound as though once you are a Christian it's as easy to sense God as it is to touch, taste, see, hear or feel anything that's right in front of you. But if that's true, how do so many genuine Christians get so many things so very wrong? I wish that were true!

Christian Trust is belief in God without empirical evidence (although you can have empirical indications and psycological, spiritual and other kinds of evidence not provable to others).

Biblical faith is the application of that belief.
(how many people in history have believed in the existence of God but not had faith?)

antiskeptic

Seoid wrote: »

antiskeptic, you make it sound as though once you are a Christian it's as easy to sense God as it is to touch, taste, see, hear or feel anything that's right in front of you. But if that's true, how do so many genuine Christians get so many things so very wrong? I wish that were true!

That potential opens up for a person (witness Paul who's learning to be content "in each and every situation" - including the jailcell from which he likely wrote that - stemmed only from his walking intimately with God).

But that lofty potential isn't always tapped into - and so most Christians will walk to the left of right of the middle of that narrow path (it's narrowness indicating ditches close to hand). Myself included. And although I'm nowhere as near as close as I'd like to be (or like to like to be) God certainly hasn't retreated anything like as far as to cause me to doubt.

Christian Trust is belief in God without empirical evidence (although you can have empirical indications and psycological, spiritual and other kinds of evidence not provable to others).

Indeed: faith - the evidence of things not seen. Which doesn't lessen the certainty a Christian has.

Biblical faith is the application of that belief.
(how many people in history have believed in the existence of God but not had faith?)

If someone believed in God as he is then they would be saved (believing in God as he is means a man believes he is destined to Hell for his sin. Which means a man believes-uber-belief that he is need of mercy. Such a man will inevitably turn to God will be saved).

Believing in God in any other way isn't believing in God. It's believing in a false god.

PDN

I would prefer to use the phrase 'evidence for God'. That indicates that we are not talking about absolute proof - but rather evidence that points towards a conclusion.

However, I think sometimes atheists get a bit hung up because they want to discuss God's existence or non-existence before anything else. That might be the right approach if you are trying to follow a path of logical deduction, but in most areas of life we tend to follow a more inductive process.

So, for example, many people first make contact with Christianity because they lack a sense of community, and they find that sense of community in a church setting - even though they initially don't care much about the beliefs of the Church.

Then they might observe that their new friends in the Church testify to their prayers being answered. This prompts them to try praying for themselves - and they find that it works!

The realisation that prayer works can then lead them to take the next step. They say, "I'm going to give this Jesus thing a go. What's the worst that can happen? If it's all make-believe then I might waste some of my time, but I'll soon realise so if that's the case." So they make a prayer of commitment to Christ, even though they haven't that much idea who Jesus is.

Then, seeing the benefit in their lives of having taken such a step, they begin to engage in discipleship. They learn more about this new-found faith, and start studying the Bible.

Now, it might drive nuts those who treat everything as if it were a laboratory experiment - but it is often only at this point that many people start to consider the actual question of God's existence. So they say, "OK, so given my experiences to date - do I think it more likely or not that God exists?"

Now, nothing in this process amounts to acting on proof. But neither has any blind faith operated. At each stage the new believer has looked at the evidence available, and then tested that evidence to the best of their ability.

Stage 1. The testimonies of other people who found a sense of community in church was the first piece of evidence - not evidence of God's existence, but evidence of the beneficial effect of belonging to such a community. Our seeker after truth tested this evidence in the best way possible, by visiting the church, and found that their experience validated the evidence.

Stage 2. The testimonies of answered prayer were evidence for the effectiveness of prayer. Our seeker after truth carried out their own experiment with prayer - and the results supported the evidence.

Stage 3. The lives of other people in the church were evidence for the claim that Jesus can improve your life. (This does not necessarily involve believing that Jesus is God, or even in the existence of God. It is simply necessary to believe that Jesus, whoever He might be, can, in some way, touch our lives. Again, their experiment validated the evidence.

Stage 4. Now our seeker after truth starts studying the bible and considering topics such as God's existence. At this point their own experiences so far become part of the evidence which they consider.

It is progressive, not cyclical. It is inductive, not deductive. It certainly does not constitute 100% logical proof of God's existence. However, our seeker after truth is weighing the evidence as best they can and, in their opinion, the evidence points more for God's existence than against. You might not agree with them - but it ain't blind faith.

Seoid

antiskeptic wrote: »

Believing in God in any other way isn't believing in God. It's believing in a false god.

I disagree with you there. To me, it is not enough to just believe that God exists - you have to actually want to follow God and do what's right. Of course this is the natural consequence for most people but it isn't always - you do have the option to reject God.
The bible often calls for people to repent and turn to God for salvation but most of the time they already knew God is there.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

For example, the person convinced that they are rotten to the core will be convinced of that by evidence in the form of the history of their own rotten activity. God need not manifest at this point. But in arriving at that conclusion, the person has believed God's argument (for he is the one who brings the pressure of evidence to mind) - without yet believing in (the existance of) God.

- the criterion for salvation being met in the person (the person does just as Abraham did in order that he be saved: they believe God), God applies salvation to them.

Yes but haven't you missed the most important step

You have gone from the person believing they are "rotten to the core" (which they may do completely independently to the Christian explanation for why they are this way) but not believing in God's existence or the Christian explanations for why they are the way they are, to the person believing in the existence of God, the existence of the offer of salvation and being prepared to accept that.

If at this stage the person, not yet believing in God let alone believing in the offer of salvation or accepting it, does not have access to their 6th sense, and thus the evidence for God's existence and truth, then on what basis do they make their conclusion that God exists, the Biblical explanation for they they are rotten to the core is accurate and that God has offered them a chance at salvation?

All of this must be done based on faith without evidence surely if the evidence itself for God only comes after salvation?

antiskeptic

Seoid wrote: »

I disagree with you there. To me, it is not enough to just believe that God exists - you have to actually want to follow God and do what's right. Of course this is the natural consequence for most people but it isn't always - you do have the option to reject God.
The bible often calls for people to repent and turn to God for salvation but most of the time they already knew God is there.

The belief that God is there (for instance, the belief that the Jews of Jesus' day had) isn't necessarily saving belief. It's just belief that God is there - in the first instance.

Take the belief of God-that-is-there as per the Jews of Jesus day for example. That belief involved a God before whom you established your righteousness by your deeds. Which isn't God as he is. So the belief of the Jews involved not the God who is there, which makes it a belief about a false god.

I'm not of the opinion that one has to work for their salvation so whilst agreeing that a saved person will a) believe in God as he is b) will want to follow God (as a result of God's holy spirit influencing them in that direction) I don't believe one has to want to follow God as a way of satisfying God's criterion for saving you.

Wanting to follow God is a consequence of salvation in other words. Not a cause.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Then they might observe that their new friends in the Church testify to their prayers being answered. This prompts them to try praying for themselves - and they find that it works!

Now, nothing in this process amounts to acting on proof. But neither has any blind faith operated.

How are you defining "blind faith"?

I think most people would say you have blind faith right there, the jump from something happened to something happened because of this explanation (in this case the Christian explanation that God listens to prayers and answers them)

The "blind" bit comes in over the question of how did the person test or determine that the explanation Christianity gives is what actually happened if at all?

Did they just assume that because the explanation correlates some what with what happened that this explanation fits?

The classic example I've used many times before for this is John Travolta claiming that his acting career took off after he tried Scientology, thus demonstrating to him that Scientology works.

I've seen no evidence that Travolta actually attempted to determine if it was Scientology itself that did anything, or that the explanation Scientology give is accurate. Yet Travolta regularly uses this example as justification for his faith in Scientology under the premise that he had demonstrated it works.

Accepting an explanation is true (particularly that you were given previous, though I'm leaving confirmation bias out of this for the minute) simply because of correlation is blind faith in my opinion. You have not determined the explanation is valid you have just accepted it because of the correlation.

Seoid

Antiskeptic, I'm with Wicknight on this one - I think you are missing an important step here and I'm not sure why you think that a false believe somehow equates to a false God. None of us have 100% correct belief in God as God is but that doesn't stop us from having faith in the right God, nor does it stop God from saving us.
When the Israelites were worshipping Pagan gods they were told to stop worshipping false gods but when they disobeyed God they were told to turn back to God. There is a big difference. Do you think Jews today are worshipping a false god because they don't have Jesus Christ? I don't.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but haven't you missed the most important step

I don't think so.

You have gone from the person believing they are "rotten to the core" (which they may do completely independently to the Christian explanation for why they are this way) but not believing in God's existence or the Christian explanations for why they are the way they are

It's not relevant what the person attributes their rottenness to. What's relevant is that they believe it. In doing so they will have believed God*.

.. to the person believing in the existence of God, the existence of the offer of salvation and being prepared to accept that.

My apologies for not pointing out that I don't believe in "accepting the offer of salvation" as the tipping point of salvation.

The criterion for salvation is, I suggest, believing God (whether an unbelieving in God 'Gentile' (eg: yourself) or a believing-in-a-misconstrued-God 'Jew' - such as many unsaved religious) . Once that is done (believing God), the mechanism of salvation is applied irrevocably to the person. That a person might be confronted with the modern practice of a prayer to pray or an altar call is neither here nor there - that's part of the subsequent exposure of the person to God. Their identifying of their rotteness in the Christian context is too something that is a subsequent to their being saved.

The tipping point was their believing God however**.


* note that that feeling oneself rotten isn't a sure sign that they've reaching the point of salvation. There is a end-of-the-line-hopelessness about the place a person need reach in order to arrive at the bottom of the barrel at which God may be found. God is the one who knows when that line has been crossed and the persons independent-of-God life has been shattered irrevocably.

** we're dealing with the case where someone like yourself doesn't believe in God. You'd be what the Bible calls a 'Gentile'. The other case involves the equally lost 'Jew' who believes in Gods' existance in a religious sense but has no personal, saved experience of God. The criterion for them is precisely the same: believe God (what God is arguing them to be). Their believing in God is neither here nor there - in that it confers no salvific advantage over the postiion of the 'Gentile'

Seoid

Wicknight wrote: »

Accepting an explanation is true (particularly that you were given previous, though I'm leaving confirmation bias out of this for the minute) simply because of correlation is blind faith in my opinion. You have not determined the explanation is valid you have just accepted it because of the correlation.

Science is based on correlations, however. Physics is built on the assumption that one thing affects another.

It's tricky to decide at what stage something goes from coincidence to evidence and how much is required to lead to faith and it's such a personal thing I can see why athiests claim it's all blind faith and believers say they have proof - it's always a personal proof.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

How are you defining "blind faith"?

I think most people would say you have blind faith right there, the jump from something happened to something happened because of this explanation (in this case the Christian explanation that God listens to prayers and answers them)

I don't think 'most people' would say that at all. In fact I think that characterisation of it being blind faith would be mainly limited to the minority group (atheism) to which you belong.

The 'jump', at this stage, is not to that of accepting the Christian explanation that God listens to prayers and answers them. Rather the 'step' is to the position that prayer makes a discernable difference to their lives.

At this stage it's simply a case of saying, "Well, I tried that prayer stuff, and it appears to have worked. But I'm not quite sure how or why."

The fact is that, outside of mathematics, all of our decisions and beliefs are based on probabilities rather than certainties. We take 'steps' when we consider the evidence for one position is greater than another position. That in turn leads us to another step based on what we consider to be probable based on the evidence.

A leap of faith - or something approaching blind faith - would be when we choose to believe something against the probabilities suggested by the evidence.

Look at it this way. Imagine someone said to me, "If you drink a glass of orange juice before you go to sleep, then it stops you getting a hangover. It's the vitamin C that does it." I might, if I've downed a couple of bottles of Merlot, give the old orange juice trick a try. That's not blind faith, it is experimentation.

Let's say that more experimentation over a period of time demonstrates to me that, more often than not, the orange juice trick actually works (don't try this at home, kids!). Again, I have not reached that conclusion by blind faith, nor is it 100% proof, but rather by assessing the evidence from my experimentation I have reached a belief based on probabilities.

Now, that will not automatically lead me to accept the theory that vitamin C helps hangovers. It might be more an issue of rehydration. But it may well lead me to carry out more experimentation with vitamin C tablets and, depending on the results, I will form a belief based on probabilities.

People may indeed come to false beliefs by this process. The history of science is littered with false theories caused by individuals weighing up the probabilities wrongly. But to portray it as 'blind faith' is at best, inaccurate and unfair.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PDN

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which is all rather missing the point.

Nowhere here are we arguing whether Christian beliefs are right or wrong. We are discussing whether such beliefs can be accurately described as "blind faith".

So I suggest that any atheists that want to contribute to the discussion put their FSMs, Scientologies, and Heaven's Gates back into the bag of dried grass and we can discuss the topic.

My point is that Christian beliefs are generally reached by the weighing up of probabilities both for and against certain propositions. You might disagree with the conclusiions we reach, and you may consider them untrue, but that does not make them 'blind faith'.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

However, our seeker after truth is weighing the evidence as best they can and, in their opinion, the evidence points more for God's existence than against. You might not agree with them - but it ain't blind faith.

PDN, you have made an excellent summary of how people can be drawn to religion. However, throughout your post, you acknowledge that none of this is evidence for the existence of god. And yet in the final sentence, you go on to assert this..? How do you leap from "This community serves me well/I enjoy being part of a group/this is supporting my life" to "I believe in god"?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

PDN, you have made an excellent summary of how people can be drawn to religion. However, throughout your post, you acknowledge that none of this is evidence for the existence of god. And yet in the final sentence, you go on to assert this..? How do you leap from "This community serves me well/I enjoy being part of a group/this is supporting my life" to "I believe in god"?

Again, I think you're rather missing the point by seeing God's existence as the primary issue. It might be for atheists, but it isn't for Christians.

Each decision and belief is reached as a separate step. But they are cumulative. Together they stack the probabilities for later decisions and beliefs.

So, for example, consider our truth seeker. They have reached the following incremental beliefs by a series of small steps based on their experimentation and/or assessment of the evidence.

1. That belonging to a church community is beneficial.
2. That they prefer being in the company of these church people more than with other people.
3. That when they pray they see a significant number of prayers answered when compared to similar situations where they didn't pray.
4. That asking Jesus to come into their life (even without fully understanding what that might mean or who He might be) appears to have improved their life.
5. That reading the Bible describes a worldview that makes sense to them, and which explains, in their opinion, certain features of their life and past events better than any other explanation anyone has offered them.
6. That when they began applying biblical teachings and principles to other parts of their lives (for example, in the area of their marriage) they saw an improvement in those areas.

Now they might be confronted by someone who is arguing either for or against the existence of God. At this point all of beliefs 1 to 6 come into play. They are part of the evidence that must be weighed, and as usually happens with evidence, we look at them cumulatively, not in isolation.

Think of a trial where a suspect is confronted by one piece of evidence that suggests their guilt, but may be explained away as a freak coincidence. We might feel inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt - after all, we have all seen mad coincidences at one time or another. But what if the suspect is confronted by 3 pieces of such evcidence? Or 10? Or 100? Or 1000?

At some point, and it differs with each of us, we reach the tipping point (apologies to Malcolm Gladwell). Our assessment of the balance of probabilities causes us to believe the suspect guilty.

Now, let's get back to our truth seeker. Each step of 1 to 6 can be plausibly explained away by an atheist (with varying degrees of success). But their cumulative weight causes our seeker after truth to compare the following two propositions.

a) The community of people, although very nice, are actually just deluded products of a meme. And the prayers they experienced being answered were just a set of amazing coincidences or a psychological phenomenon. And that the improvement in their life following their decision to receive Jesus was just psychological. And that the Bible, while explaining so many things satisfactorily, and even though its teaching appeared to change situations for the better, is actually based on a fundamental mistake. That's without even bringing into the equation the difficulty many people have with the idea that the universe, the Grand Canyon, Mount Everest, the human race, music, art, literature etc. all developed from purely natural processes without any Creator or Designer.

b) The community of people are nicer to be with because they have discovered something that is true (it might not be logical - but most of us want the good guys to be right and the nasty people to be wrong). Their prayers were answered because of something other than coincidence of psychology. Asking Jesus into their life produced an improvement because Jesus actually can change lives. The Bible appears to make sense, and its teaching improves their life, because it has a handle on some great truths. Therefore it is quite likely that other claims in the Bible will prove to be equally true. This fits with a world and a universe that was created and designed so that Mozart, Picasso and Dostoevsky are more than just biological accidents.

Now, you might not agree with them for choosing (b) over (a) - but I think you would be very unfair to call their choice 'blind faith'. They have weighed the probabilities of the evidence they see for and against God, and they have drawn a conclusion.

Disclaimer:
It shouldn't be necessary to say this, but past experience in this forum leads me to make the following clarification to avoid an excess of muppetry and pretended outrage.

I have not claimed that believers are always nicer people than unbelievers - that is simply some people's experience. Our seeker after truth might meet believers who are petty gossiping backbiters, or a clergyman who is a paedophile. That will influence whether they choose to go on to step two or not.

Similarly, they may have encountered atheists who are compassionate and friendly. That would influence them much more than if their only experience of atheism is listening to someone like Christopher Hitchens smugly mocking his opponents.

We might not like it. But the way we evaluate evidence is often influenced by whether the person presenting that evidence is likeable or not.

Mr. Presentable

PDN wrote: »

I would prefer to use the phrase 'evidence for God'. That indicates that we are not talking about absolute proof - but rather evidence that points towards a conclusion.

However, I think sometimes atheists get a bit hung up because they want to discuss God's existence or non-existence before anything else. That might be the right approach if you are trying to follow a path of logical deduction, but in most areas of life we tend to follow a more inductive process.

So, for example, many people first make contact with Christianity because they lack a sense of community, and they find that sense of community in a church setting - even though they initially don't care much about the beliefs of the Church.

Then they might observe that their new friends in the Church testify to their prayers being answered. This prompts them to try praying for themselves - and they find that it works!

The realisation that prayer works can then lead them to take the next step. They say, "I'm going to give this Jesus thing a go. What's the worst that can happen? If it's all make-believe then I might waste some of my time, but I'll soon realise so if that's the case." So they make a prayer of commitment to Christ, even though they haven't that much idea who Jesus is.

Then, seeing the benefit in their lives of having taken such a step, they begin to engage in discipleship. They learn more about this new-found faith, and start studying the Bible.

.

OK, I've joined a community out of curiosity, prayed with them, and in isolation. My life is still sh7t or worse. Evidentially the conclusion is that there is no god.

What I am saying is, your projection assumes positivity, which may well not happen, and therein it fails to persuade.

PDN

nipplenuts wrote: »

OK, I've joined a community out of curiosity, prayed with them, and in isolation. My life is still sh7t or worse. Evidentially the conclusion is that there is no god.

What I am saying is, your projection assumes positivity, which may well not happen, and therein it fails to persuade.

My projection is not intended to persuade. It is intended to demonstrate how people reach conclusions.

I didn't actually think that would be a hard concept to grasp - it seems fairly straightfoward. Is it because people have become so conditioned to arguing the same points in the same two-dimensional ways that they can't get out of the rut and read what I'm actually posting?

There are certainly those who try to take similar steps and find that their experimentation and evidence leads them, upon weighing the probabilities, to a very different conclusion. While I might disagree with their conclusion, I don't misrepresent them by accusing them of doing so by blind faith in atheism.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Again, I think you're rather missing the point by seeing God's existence as the primary issue. It might be for atheists, but it isn't for Christians.

Now, let's get back to our truth seeker. Each step of 1 to 6 can be plausibly explained away by an atheist (with varying degrees of success). But their cumulative weight causes our seeker after truth to compare the following two propositions.

a) The community of people, although very nice, are actually just deluded products of a meme. And the prayers they experienced being answered were just a set of amazing coincidences or a psychological phenomenon. And that the improvement in their life following their decision to receive Jesus was just psychological. And that the Bible, while explaining so many things satisfactorily, and even though its teaching appeared to change situations for the better, is actually based on a fundamental mistake. That's without even bringing into the equation the difficulty many people have with the idea that the universe, the Grand Canyon, Mount Everest, the human race, music, art, literature etc. all developed from purely natural processes without any Creator or Designer.

b) The community of people are nicer to be with because they have discovered something that is true (it might not be logical - but most of us want the good guys to be right and the nasty people to be wrong). Their prayers were answered because of something other than coincidence of psychology. Asking Jesus into their life produced an improvement because Jesus actually can change lives. The Bible appears to make sense, and its teaching improves their life, because it has a handle on some great truths. Therefore it is quite likely that other claims in the Bible will prove to be equally true. This fits with a world and a universe that was created and designed so that Mozart, Picasso and Dostoevsky are more than just biological accidents.

Now, you might not agree with them for choosing (b) over (a) - but I think you would be very unfair to call their choice 'blind faith'. They have weighed the probabilities of the evidence they see for and against God, and they have drawn a conclusion.

I get the point because you are explaining it very well. My confusion comes at the choice you outline, a or b. To choose b, when a is well-studied, well-documented function of the human psyche, is indeed illogical. Consequently, those who choose b are doing so against any logical considerations. This is the leap.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

I get the point because you are explaining it very well. My confusion comes at the choice you outline, a or b. To choose b, when a is well-studied, well-documented function of the human psyche, is indeed illogical. Consequently, those who choose b are doing so against any logical considerations. This is the leap.

Not so, and I'm really surprised you can't see it.

You are disagreeing with them about the strength and validity of some of the evidence that they are weighing. That is your right to do so (even though I think you are being selective and biased, but that's another topic entirely), but that does not mean they are taking a leap of faith.

Our courtroom illustration might help you see this more clearly. One of the eye-witnesses appears to be a well-respected professor who is a member of the community who has no vested interest in the case and has no reason to lie. However, in reality, and unbeknown to the jury, the guy in the witness box is really the professor's evil twin. The evil twin has bumped off the professor and is impersonating him because he committed the crime himself and wants someone else to take the rap.

The jury might reach a wrong decision on the basis of this tainted evidence. But it would be nonsense to say that they took a leap of faith. They still reached a conclusion by weighing the evidence available to them

You might feel you are in a better-informed position because you think you know more about psychology than our truth seeker. However, our truth seeker might actually be in a better position because they have seen miraculous answers to prayer that you have not. You can argue until the cows come home about who is better informed, and whose conclusion is more likely to be correct. But you should both be prepared to acknowledge that the other has reached a conclusion by weighing the probabilities based on the evidence available to them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not relevant what the person attributes their rottenness to. What's relevant is that they believe it. In doing so they will have believed God*.

Er no not really.

If for example they attribute their rottenness to Buddha's concept of suffering being a symptom of longing for material goods that has nothing to do with the Christian explanation. So how have they "believed God", let alone accepted he exists and accepted his offer of salvation?

antiskeptic wrote: »

My apologies for not pointing out that I don't believe in "accepting the offer of salvation" as the tipping point of salvation.

The criterion for salvation is, I suggest, believing God (whether an unbelieving in God 'Gentile' (eg: yourself) or a believing-in-a-misconstrued-God 'Jew' - such as many unsaved religious) . Once that is done (believing God), the mechanism of salvation is applied irrevocably to the person.

And how does someone who doesn't believe God exists "believe God"?

Say I think, for what ever reason, that I'm rotten to the core, but I don't think God exists, I don't think my rotteness has anything to do with the Christian explanation, nor do I believe in heaven hell or salvation.

You seem to be saying that I am saved and will get this 6th sense to know God exists. How does that work?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Their identifying of their rotteness in the Christian context is too something that is a subsequent to their being saved.

But that is the whole point, why would they identify their rottenness in the Christian context if they don't at this point actually believe Christianity?

It is like saying if you admit you have mental health problems you are automatically a Scientologist because Scientology explains why you have mental health problems.

This ignores that you may think you have mental health problems for other reasons that have nothing to do with Scientology. Simply because Scientology explains your mental problems doesn't mean you will accept that explanation. You will need to some how at some point believe and accept the Scientologist explanation for your mental health problems. At which point you believe in Scientology in that you accept the explanation they give for what is wrong with you.

At some point a person has to go from believing there is something rotten about them or humanity to believing that there is something rotten about them or humanity and the Christian explanation for this is correct and true, God exists, the Fall happened, Satan, Adam Eve etc etc

It is only then that they "believe God" as you put it.

That is the step you missed out. You jumped from someone not believing the Christian explanation to someone believing the Christian explanation.

The question then is how does someone go from A to B without reason or evidence, since you seem to be saying the reason and evidence comes after the point of salvation.

PDN

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Facepalm! (where's that emoticon for banging your head off a wall when you need it?) We are not discussing whether anyone is right or wrong. We are discussing whether they reach their beliefs ( be they right or wrong) by weighing evidence or by blind faith.

I think our understanding of Greek history and religious attitudes differ - but we'll leave that particular little rabbit trail aside for now.

If they came to that position by weighing up the available evidence then, yes, they were wrong. But that would not equate to blind faith. It would be a wrong decision based on faulty evidence, or doing a poor job of weighing the evidence.

Zombrex

Seoid wrote: »

Science is based on correlations, however. Physics is built on the assumption that one thing affects another.

Not really. Science is based on modelling interactions, and seeing if the predictions of these models match observed phenomena.

I've no problem if any theists wants to do this, but none of them do.

Seoid wrote: »

It's tricky to decide at what stage something goes from coincidence to evidence

I think that is the point. Humans are very bad at determining that something was or wasn't a coincidence. Believers tend to ignore this fact and seem happy to assume that their assessment is accurate. This to me is blind faith.

It is like a Catholic saying they have faith that purgetory is real because the Pope told them it is. I think most people, theists and atheists would say that is blind faith, faith based purely on trusting what you are told.

The same works though if it is in fact you telling yourself something.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I don't think 'most people' would say that at all. In fact I think that characterisation of it being blind faith would be mainly limited to the minority group (atheism) to which you belong.

Ok, well how would you define "blind faith"?

PDN wrote: »

The 'jump', at this stage, is not to that of accepting the Christian explanation that God listens to prayers and answers them. Rather the 'step' is to the position that prayer makes a discernable difference to their lives.

At this stage it's simply a case of saying, "Well, I tried that prayer stuff, and it appears to have worked. But I'm not quite sure how or why."

And if they left it at that it would be fine, but they don't. They go I'm not quite sure how or why it worked but lets say it is because God exists and answers prayers. That's good enough for me.

PDN wrote: »

The fact is that, outside of mathematics, all of our decisions and beliefs are based on probabilities rather than certainties. We take 'steps' when we consider the evidence for one position is greater than another position. That in turn leads us to another step based on what we consider to be probable based on the evidence.

A leap of faith - or something approaching blind faith - would be when we choose to believe something against the probabilities suggested by the evidence.

Yes but that is the point. How many Christians have assessed the probability that the God answers prayers explanation is an accurately explaining for the phenomena? Have you a test to do that? I would be very interested to see it

I've never seen anyone on this forum ever give a rational explanation for how they did that.

Your little analogy of testing orange juice is quite flawed but it is still miles ahead of how any Christian has ever explained to me how they test God.

Can you explain to me the tests you carried out to demonstrate to yourself that the most likely explanation for what happens with prayer is that God exists and answers them?

This is before we get into the whole God works in mysterious ways phenomena, which is basically like waking up and finding that the orange juice did nothing but still deciding the orange juice works

The whole point is that you guys all believe this stuff despite the fact that you know you cannot assess it properly. That is blind faith, picking an explanation based on criteria other than that you can show it is accurate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PDN

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And what, in the name of the FSM, has any of that got to do with blind faith?

Being wrong in one's beliefs ≠ Blind Faith

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

And what, in the name of the FSM, has any of that got to do with blind faith?

Being wrong in one's beliefs ≠ Blind Faith

I don't think that this was his point, his point (if I'm following) is that these personal assessments obviously aren't good or accurate at determining if your god exists, yet people continue to accept the "results" from them.

Hence blind faith.

Again what exactly do you think blind faith is PDN?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think that this was his point, his point (if I'm following) is that these personal assessments obviously aren't good or accurate at determining if your god exists, yet people continue to accept the "results" from them.

Hence blind faith.

Again what exactly do you think blind faith is PDN?

Blind faith would be choosing to believe a proposition where no evidence exists for it, or where the person exercising the faith can see that it probably isn't true.

For example, you could choose to believe that next year you are going to get married to Jessica Alba. You have no evidence to support such a belief. Indeed, given your track record with average-looking women we could say that you know that the probabilities are stacked against you getting past first base with anyone as hot as Ms Alba. Therefore your belief is blind faith.

However, imagine that you are going out with Kitty McGuire, and she has already accepted your proposal, and you've bought the ring, and you've even been out to her da's caravan to ask his permission to marry his daughter. Heck, you've even found a hotel that will take the booking for the reception. Now, you can't be 100% sure that Kitty won't dump you between now and then, but your belief that you will marry her next year is based on evidence rather than on blind faith.

Donegalfella might interject here to argue that other guys have thought they were getting married to a buxom young wench such as Kitty, only to have their hopes dashed. That demonstrates that such beliefs may be wrong at times. But that does not mean that your hopes of wedded bliss and a honeymoon in Athlone are 'blind faith'.