"Blind faith" versus "choosing to believe"

[Joshua260]

Per the forum guidelines, I'd like to stay on topic with this thread and not get distracted into a theological debate.

I have a simple question:
1. Many atheists claim that Christians have a "blind faith" (meaning that they believe something with zero evidence to support their belief).
2. Many atheists also claim that one cannot choose to believe something. Rather, they say that people only come to believe something through the evaluation of persuasive evidence.

Isn't it contradictory for a single atheist to simultaneously profess that both claims stated above are true?

 

[Davian]

Per the forum guidelines, I'd like to stay on topic with this thread and not get distracted into a theological debate.

I have a simple question:
1. Many atheists claim that Christians have a "blind faith" (meaning that they believe something with zero evidence to support their belief).
2. Many atheists also claim that one cannot choose to believe something. Rather, they say that people only come to believe something through the evaluation of persuasive evidence.

Isn't it contradictory for a single atheist to simultaneously profess that both claims stated above are true?

If such an atheist existed, that might be an issue. Are you implying that if an atheist is wrong about something, that it counts towards you being right?

I believe that Christians have a lot of evidence for their beliefs. Terrible, unfalsifiable, untestable evidence, and weak of fallacious arguments. But, they have lots.

Do you dispute that belief is not a choice?

 

[Architeuthus]

1. Many atheists claim that Christians have a "blind faith" (meaning that they believe something with zero evidence to support their belief).
2. Many atheists also claim that one cannot choose to believe something. Rather, they say that people only come to believe something through the evaluation of persuasive evidence.

Both comments are frequently made by atheists on this forum. And yes, they are contradictory.

In fact, of course, Christian faith is based on evidence, as other threads have pointed out.

 

[quatona]

Per the forum guidelines, I'd like to stay on topic with this thread and not get distracted into a theological debate.

I have a simple question:
1. Many atheists claim that Christians have a "blind faith" (meaning that they believe something with zero evidence to support their belief).
2. Many atheists also claim that one cannot choose to believe something. Rather, they say that people only come to believe something through the evaluation of persuasive evidence.

Isn't it contradictory for a single atheist to simultaneously profess that both claims stated above are true?

Hypothetically speaking, yes.
However, I have strong doubts that you can find me five (or let´s say: three) atheists who say exactly what you said they say (particularly the second parts of 1 and 2, which create the contradiction).

 

[JGG]

Per the forum guidelines, I'd like to stay on topic with this thread and not get distracted into a theological debate.

I have a simple question:
1. Many atheists claim that Christians have a "blind faith" (meaning that they believe something with zero evidence to support their belief).

I would consider blind faith to be when someone believes in something without really being aware of what it is, or be able to explain why they believe it.

2. Many atheists also claim that one cannot choose to believe something. Rather, they say that people only come to believe something through the evaluation of persuasive evidence.

No. People can come to believe things even (and especially) without the evaluation of persuasive evidence. When I say people don't choose what they believe, what I mean is we come to believe things based on our environment and experience.

When someone sends money to that fake Saudi Prince (and people have), is it because they have evaluated persuasive evidence, or because they act on the emotional response, and the want or need for money?

Isn't it contradictory for a single atheist to simultaneously profess that both claims stated above are true?

Sure, with your explanations of what atheists supposedly say. No contradictions with what they actually say.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Per the forum guidelines, I'd like to stay on topic with this thread and not get distracted into a theological debate.

I have a simple question: Isn't it contradictory for a single atheist to simultaneously profess that both claims stated above are true?

Many people actually do say both but you're taking them outta context and lemme show ya how. (Surprise we can use that phrase too)

1. Many atheists claim that Christians have a "blind faith" (meaning that they believe something with zero evidence to support their belief).

When this is said we're referring to objective evidence. Theists certainly have "evidence," (subjective evidence) but it's nothing that can't be brushed aside. If I have the same type of "evidence" of a death cult being the one true religion I can easily throw my hat in the ring with the common Christian "evidence" with just as much of a shot of being considered true. (Both are dismissable)

You need hard, objective evidences. And that's what this claim is saying.

2. Many atheists also claim that one cannot choose to believe something.

This is accurate, unless you can prove to me you can up and believe 2+2=5. It's correct. What you believe generally falls under what you can assess as believable. You wouldn't find 2+2=5 believable because you have a basic understanding of arithmetic and just counting in general.

Rather, they say that people only come to believe something through the evaluation of persuasive evidence.

Plot Twist: This is also correct. In the face of a subject that can have no true objective answer to solve it definitely like say one's favorite type of music or band. One can believe a certain artist sounds good because it appeals to their personal tastes. And the next person can believe otherwise. Which is generally where the whole this person believes this religion and the other believes another religion situation comes up. Both religions most likely appeal to what they find believable (because really what is commonly known about supernatural?) and their personal taste. But they're two separate religions and both can't be considered "right" because there's really no right answer to that type of situation.

And when this is said it just so happens that theists fall under one or both of these definitions a majority of the time.

So yea I see no contradictions here. I can say both of these statements because I know what I mean.

 

[HitchSlap]

Per the forum guidelines, I'd like to stay on topic with this thread and not get distracted into a theological debate.

I have a simple question:
1. Many atheists claim that Christians have a "blind faith" (meaning that they believe something with zero evidence to support their belief).
2. Many atheists also claim that one cannot choose to believe something. Rather, they say that people only come to believe something through the evaluation of persuasive evidence.

Isn't it contradictory for a single atheist to simultaneously profess that both claims stated above are true?

1. I don't know about many atheists, but I claim Christians have "blind faith" - meaning that they believe something without sufficient evidence to support their belief.
2. I agree that you cannot "choose" to believe something. One may "choose" to profess a certain creed or belief, but that may be at odds with their inherent belief. Belief, at its core, is based on your personal evaluation of all data that you have considered.

 

[Joshua260]

Sure, with your explanations of what atheists supposedly say. No contradictions with what they actually say.

I've personally heard both responses, so someone didn't get the memo.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Faith is belief without evidence.

 

[Architeuthus]

Faith is belief without evidence.

Well, no. If that were true, the New Testament would not put so much emphasis on the evidence for the Resurrection.

On the other thread, I quoted these definitions (one Protestant, one Catholic):

"The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith. But this faith is not a blind faith, but a faith that is based on evidence, and the evidence is found primarily in Scripture as the inspired Word of God, and secondarily in God's revelation in nature." -- Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology

"Faith: The objective, revealed truth believed in (fides quae) or the subjective, personal commitment to God (fides qua). Made possible through the help of the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:14; 2 Cor 3:16–18), faith is a free, reasonable, and total response through which we confess the truth about the divine self-disclosure definitively made in Christ (Jn 20:31; Rom 10:9), obediently commit ourselves (Rom 1:5; 16:26), and entrust our future to God (Rom 6:8; Heb 11:1)." -- A Concise Dictionary of Theology, Paulist Press.

 

[ananda]

Faith is belief without evidence.

This is true.

Trust, however, is belief based on evidence and prior experience.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, no. If that were true, the New Testament would not put so much emphasis on the evidence for the Resurrection.

On the other thread, I quoted these definitions (one Protestant, one Catholic):

"The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith. But this faith is not a blind faith, but a faith that is based on evidence, and the evidence is found primarily in Scripture as the inspired Word of God, and secondarily in God's revelation in nature." -- Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology

"Faith: The objective, revealed truth believed in (fides quae) or the subjective, personal commitment to God (fides qua). Made possible through the help of the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:14; 2 Cor 3:16–18), faith is a free, reasonable, and total response through which we confess the truth about the divine self-disclosure definitively made in Christ (Jn 20:31; Rom 10:9), obediently commit ourselves (Rom 1:5; 16:26), and entrust our future to God (Rom 6:8; Heb 11:1)." -- A Concise Dictionary of Theology, Paulist Press.

The problem is that Hebrews 11 does not define faith this way.

 

[Architeuthus]

I claim Christians have "blind faith" - meaning that they believe something without sufficient evidence to support their belief

That's a strange use of the term "blind faith." Where did you get it from? It would also apply to many scientific theories (say, the Big Bang), where there is good evidence to support the theory, but insufficient evidence to make it 100% certain.

It's also different from the use of "blind faith" in the OP.

 

[Architeuthus]

The problem is that Hebrew 11 does not define faith this way.

Well, yes it does, actually. So Hebrews 11:3 says "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command," while Romans 1:20 says this is based on evidence: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

 

[Joshua260]

...Theists certainly have "evidence,"

I agree, we do have evidence. Some atheists refuse to admit that much.

(subjective evidence) but it's nothing that can't be brushed aside. If I have the same type of "evidence" of a death cult being the one true religion I can easily throw my hat in the ring with the common Christian "evidence" with just as much of a shot of being considered true. (Both are dismissable)

You need hard, objective evidences. And that's what this claim is saying.

Why would you treat all of the multiple attestation testimonies that support the Resurrection any different than any other historical documents (which are also subjective evidences)? This looks like a priori bias against Christianity.

 

[Joshua260]

1. I don't know about many atheists, but I claim Christians have "blind faith" - meaning that they believe something without sufficient evidence to support their belief.

Thanks for admitting that we have evidence, although you believe it to be insufficient. Isn't that a subjective analysis?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, yes it does, actually. So Hebrews 11:3 says "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command," while Romans 1:20 says this is based on evidence: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

What is understood is God's eternal power and divine nature, not the creation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Per the forum guidelines, I'd like to stay on topic with this thread and not get distracted into a theological debate.

I have a simple question:
1. Many atheists claim that Christians have a "blind faith" (meaning that they believe something with zero evidence to support their belief).
2. Many atheists also claim that one cannot choose to believe something. Rather, they say that people only come to believe something through the evaluation of persuasive evidence.

Isn't it contradictory for a single atheist to simultaneously profess that both claims stated above are true?

Well, I can't speak for other atheists on this matter...but when I refer to someone's faith as "blind"...what I'm generally saying is that they have no evidence to support their beliefs. I'm certain they have reasons to believe what they do...it's just that those reasons don't include evidence.

When it comes to evidence, there's usually some amount of disagreement as well. If asked for evidence, a lot of the christians I've spoken with will produce a list of things that they consider evidence, but isn't. It's kind of funny you'd make this thread because I recently discussed this with another poster on another thread.

He was asked for evidence to support his faith, it was a list of things that cannot be objectively considered evidence. When someone made the point that the same things (or even very similar things) could just as easily be called evidence for other religions, he asked for an example. I provided him with one and asked him what the difference is...I'm still waiting on a reply, and I hope I get one since I'm genuinely curious about what he thinks.

I don't mean to get sidetracked, but this is what I mean when I refer to blind faith. I mean faith without valid evidence/reason. Would you like an example?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I agree, we do have evidence. Some atheists refuse to admit that much.

Fair enough to call it evidence at the least

Why would you treat all of the multiple attestation testimonies that support the Resurrection any different than any other historical documents (which are also subjective evidences)? This looks like a priori bias against Christianity.

Because it would give validation to every single other mythological story and based on resurrection and myth in general. If I believe Jesus rose from the dead then I very much can believe Bumba the Africa god of vomit, threw up the Earth one day after getting sick. I can believe Dionysus rose from the dead. I can believe Ra and the Sun Disk. I can't grant Christianity special pleading just because it's one of the few bronze age religions that survived. It gets no special privilege. Which is why I consider none of these myths real. They were all written by authors (who were credited unlike the bible) and told in a similar manner and they have just as much "evidence" proving them true as each other.

Does this make sense? I am only keeping myself honest here. I don't have a bias. To consider Christianity over every other religion would be a bias.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree, we do have evidence. Some atheists refuse to admit that much.


Why would you treat all of the multiple attestation testimonies that support the Resurrection any different than any other historical documents (which are also subjective evidences)? This looks like a priori bias against Christianity.

Didn't you express a desire in the OP not to get into a theological debate?

How many testimonials are you referring to? 2-3?