"Blind faith" versus "choosing to believe"

[juvenissun]

How many Earth-type extrasolar planets have you visited? Don't exaggerate, now.

It does not matter. We repeated the effort. And we know what we know. That is enough to serve as an evidence.
This attitude not only applies to this issue, but to any issue about knowledge.
(This is the last one on this point. An evidence is not a proof. You get it or not, I won't repeat it any more)

 

[GrimKingGrim]

It does not matter. We repeated the effort. And we know what we know. That is enough to serve as an evidence.
This attitude not only applies to this issue, but to any issue about knowledge.
(This is the last one on this point. An evidence is not a proof. You get it or not, I won't repeat it any more)

When you say repeated, what do you mean? How many planets have we extensively searched?

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua,

No, both of these claims are compatible with the usual atheistic perspective (i.e. the assumption that EVIDENTIALISM is the only legitimate epistemological model for evaluating and understanding the world in which we live). So, for them, unless some kind of exacting Correspondence between idea and incoming data is evident in regard to Christian faith, there is no cognitive substance to the concept of Christian belief.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

That's a great point 2PV!!

However, as I'm sure you know, we have plenty of evidence surrounding the Resurrection. We have multiple attestations not only from several books in the NT (they were gathered separately and gathered into the bible around 200 AD), but also from other sources (Islam and Jewish) as well as even from secular sources such as various Roman documents. Collectively, they testify that 1. Jesus was crucified 2. the apostles were willing to die for their claim that they had seen the risen Christ, 3. the conversion of Paul, 4. the conversion of James the skeptic, and 5. the empty tomb. We also have the archeological evidence that provides a substantive landscape in which the gospel story is played out, and the whole story fits right in with the framework which was provided by the OT. So we have plenty of evidence that would otherwise be accepted much more readily if the subject wasn't concerning a miracle, which atheists rule out as a possibility from the outset.

 

[Davian]

It does not matter. We repeated the effort. And we know what we know. That is enough to serve as an evidence.
This attitude not only applies to this issue, but to any issue about knowledge.
(This is the last one on this point. An evidence is not a proof. You get it or not, I won't repeat it any more)

You have repeated the effort? You have been to other planets multiple times? Why is this not news?

 

[Davian]

Joshua,

No, both of these claims are compatible with the usual atheistic perspective (i.e. the assumption that EVIDENTIALISM is the only legitimate epistemological model for evaluating and understanding the world in which we live). So, for them, unless some kind of exacting Correspondence between idea and incoming data is evident in regard to Christian faith, there is no cognitive substance to the concept of Christian belief.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

You say that like it is a bad thing.

 

[Davian]

That's a great point 2PV!!

However, as I'm sure you know, we have plenty of evidence surrounding the Resurrection.

What do you mean by "plenty"?

We have multiple attestations not only from several books in the NT (they were gathered separately and gathered into the bible around 200 AD), but also from other sources (Islam and Jewish) as well as even from secular sources such as various Roman documents. Collectively, they testify that 1. Jesus was crucified 2. the apostles were willing to die for their claim that they had seen the risen Christ, 3. the conversion of Paul, 4. the conversion of James the skeptic, and 5. the empty tomb.

That's it?

We also have the archeological evidence that provides a substantive landscape in which the gospel story is played out,

So do the Spider-man comics. New York exists.

and the whole story fits right in with the framework which was provided by the OT.

Of course, if they were written that way.

So we have plenty of evidence that would otherwise be accepted much more readily if the subject wasn't concerning a miracle, which atheists rule out as a possibility from the outset.

Could you provide an example of a "miracle" that could not be explained as a hoax, illusion, trick, deception, exaggeration, or a complete fabrication?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a great point 2PV!!

However, as I'm sure you know, we have plenty of evidence surrounding the Resurrection. We have multiple attestations not only from several books in the NT (they were gathered separately and gathered into the bible around 200 AD), but also from other sources (Islam and Jewish) as well as even from secular sources such as various Roman documents. Collectively, they testify that 1. Jesus was crucified 2. the apostles were willing to die for their claim that they had seen the risen Christ, 3. the conversion of Paul, 4. the conversion of James the skeptic, and 5. the empty tomb. We also have the archeological evidence that provides a substantive landscape in which the gospel story is played out, and the whole story fits right in with the framework which was provided by the OT. So we have plenty of evidence that would otherwise be accepted much more readily if the subject wasn't concerning a miracle, which atheists rule out as a possibility from the outset.

Joshua,

From the standpoint you've given, you're points are generally cogent. BUT, our faith isn't culled, or made, from a purely demonstrable Correspondence between ideas and data. Rather, our faith is more along the line of Coherence, which is something that many atheists reject out of hand. Do you see what I'm saying? Atheists are looking for evidence presented within the framework of Evidentialism and Foundationalism. Christians don't. If we do, then we are sliding into Lessing's Ditch. So, while I agree with you that we as Christians do have evidence of a kind, it is not the type that Positivistic/Evidentialist/Foundationalist minded atheists will typically accept. So, the claims they make (i.e. the two you presented in the OP) are consistent--from the atheistic point of view. [Although, we don't have to accept their frame of epistemological reference.]

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You say that like it is a bad thing.

 

[JGG]

Chapter 1 and chapter 2.
God creates human on the (unique) earth.

I still don't see it. Where does it say that God did not create humans anywhere else?

Chapter and verse please.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Joshua,

From the standpoint you've given, you're points are generally cogent. BUT, our faith isn't culled, or made, from a purely demonstrable Correspondence between ideas and data. Rather, our faith is more along the line of Coherence, which is something that many atheists reject out of hand. Do you see what I'm saying? Atheists are looking for evidence presented within the framework of Evidentialism and Foundationalism. Christians don't. If we do, then we are sliding into Lessing's Ditch. So, while I agree with you that we as Christians do have evidence of a kind, it is not the type that Positivistic/Evidentialist/Foundationalist minded atheists will typically accept. So, the claims they make (i.e. the two you presented in the OP) are consistent--from the atheistic point of view. [Although, we don't have to accept their frame of epistemological reference.]

2PhiloVoid

You seem to make it a point of pride that you cannot satisfy an atheist's request for evidence of your claims.

 

[Ken-1122]

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?

No. It would only be contradictory if Christians required evidence to believe something.

Ken

 

[paulm50]

And we know what we know. That is enough to serve as an evidence.

And tomorrow we will know more, we will have more evidence. That's undeniable. The brain is accumulating knowledge from birth to old age.

And some will still deny the truth. Relying on the knowledge of Bronze Age men who were relying on stories from the Stone Age for an explanation of why we are here. Claiming we were created by a god, and refusing to use the tool that makes us better than the other species, our brains and ability to think.

And while claiming the bible is the word of god, not adhering to the rules, eating pork or shell fish or mixing meat and dairy, talking in church, wearing clothes of different fabric. And many more.

Then in the same breath claiming Jesus came to Earth to preach a new religion, or a return to the basic Judaism, denying the power of a corrupted church. Then saying their church can't be corruptible.

That's the strangest thing I find about blind faith. How blinkered it is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's a great point 2PV!!

However, as I'm sure you know, we have plenty of evidence surrounding the Resurrection. We have multiple attestations not only from several books in the NT (they were gathered separately and gathered into the bible around 200 AD), but also from other sources (Islam and Jewish) as well as even from secular sources such as various Roman documents. Collectively, they testify that 1. Jesus was crucified 2. the apostles were willing to die for their claim that they had seen the risen Christ, 3. the conversion of Paul, 4. the conversion of James the skeptic, and 5. the empty tomb. We also have the archeological evidence that provides a substantive landscape in which the gospel story is played out, and the whole story fits right in with the framework which was provided by the OT. So we have plenty of evidence that would otherwise be accepted much more readily if the subject wasn't concerning a miracle, which atheists rule out as a possibility from the outset.

I've looked into the "evidence" for Jesus's existence...not just his resurrection...and I've never heard of any of the things you just mentioned. No legitimate historians refer to non-contemporary accounts of the resurrection as "evidence". Info

That's a great point 2PV!!

However, as I'm sure you know, we have plenty of evidence surrounding the Resurrection. We have multiple attestations not only from several books in the NT (they were gathered separately and gathered into the bible around 200 AD), but also from other sources (Islam and Jewish) as well as even from secular sources such as various Roman documents. Collectively, they testify that 1. Jesus was crucified 2. the apostles were willing to die for their claim that they had seen the risen Christ, 3. the conversion of Paul, 4. the conversion of James the skeptic, and 5. the empty tomb. We also have the archeological evidence that provides a substantive landscape in which the gospel story is played out, and the whole story fits right in with the framework which was provided by the OT. So we have plenty of evidence that would otherwise be accepted much more readily if the subject wasn't concerning a miracle, which atheists rule out as a possibility from the outset.

I think you're mistaken about what historians consider to be "evidence" of a historical event.

For example, if someone is writing about an event he didn't witness, nor did anyone else who was alive at the time of writing, it's not considered evidence unless he's transcribing the words of someone who did witness the event and such a source is credible.

 

[stevevw]

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?

In some ways it is the opposite of a person coming to believe something through evaluation and persuasive evidence. There are studies that show we are all born as believers and continue this when we are young. It is a persuasion to rid ourselves of this belief that we end up losing that child like belief in the supernatural. But even as adults there is a natural part of us that believes. Its only the noise of this world with its skeptical arguments that we end up crowding out this belief.

The bible says we all know of God and His creative powers in our hearts. What we see is guided by some other invisible power that we cant see. Just like with matter and quantum physics. But some will push this aside or rationalize it away with explanations of logic. Yet there are many things that cant be explained but still some try to put some sort of explanation on it. Even if there is no explanation they wont entertain the thought and any explanation will do in the meantime. But explanations in themselves are not necessarily the truth and answer. They have no power and are only ideas that have not been tested.

Now that we are looking into the quantum world and the vast universe we are seeing things that defy our explanations and reality. Even scientists are now coming up with far fetched explanations to try and explain what we are seeing. So in some ways even scientists are acknowledging that there are things that we cannot explain with our logic so we have to look outside the realms of our reality to understand whats going on. Except instead of using God they will use things like multiverses where other dimension occur, hologram worlds and things like the mysterious dark matter. So in this sense why is it so hard to entertain the idea that there may be a God or a supernatural agent or thing at work somewhere. Or there are other dimensions that operate beyond our reality. This makes believing in something outside the norm a little more acceptable.

 

[paulm50]

In some ways it is the opposite of a person coming to believe something through evaluation and persuasive evidence. There are studies that show we are all born as believers and continue this when we are young. It is a persuasion to rid ourselves of this belief that we end up losing that child like belief in the supernatural. But even as adults there is a natural part of us that believes. Its only the noise of this world with its skeptical arguments that we end up crowding out this belief.

What studies?

 

[juvenissun]

I still don't see it. Where does it say that God did not create humans anywhere else?

Chapter and verse please.

Still, Chapter 1 and 2. It is not written in a scientific format. So you do not understand it that way. If you insist, Gen 1:16 would be the most appropriate.

It would be difficult to understand the theology of human Creation if it took place over multiple planets.

Scientifically, we are talking about "evidence" here, not proof. If you still don't see it, then you can not see evidence. You can not see God anyway, even the word is literally printed there many times.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In some ways it is the opposite of a person coming to believe something through evaluation and persuasive evidence. There are studies that show we are all born as believers and continue this when we are young. It is a persuasion to rid ourselves of this belief that we end up losing that child like belief in the supernatural. But even as adults there is a natural part of us that believes. Its only the noise of this world with its skeptical arguments that we end up crowding out this belief.

The bible says we all know of God and His creative powers in our hearts. What we see is guided by some other invisible power that we cant see. Just like with matter and quantum physics. But some will push this aside or rationalize it away with explanations of logic.

Yeah, pesky logic, always getting in the way of irrationality.

Yet there are many things that cant be explained but still some try to put some sort of explanation on it. Even if there is no explanation they wont entertain the thought and any explanation will do in the meantime.

Like a supernatural one?

But explanations in themselves are not necessarily the truth and answer. They have no power and are only ideas that have not been tested.

What on earth are you talking about?

Now that we are looking into the quantum world and the vast universe we are seeing things that defy our explanations and reality. Even scientists are now coming up with far fetched explanations to try and explain what we are seeing. So in some ways even scientists are acknowledging that there are things that we cannot explain with our logic so we have to look outside the realms of our reality to understand whats going on. Except instead of using God they will use things like multiverses where other dimension occur, hologram worlds and things like the mysterious dark matter. So in this sense why is it so hard to entertain the idea that there may be a God or a supernatural agent or thing at work somewhere.

It's not hard to entertain the idea. But where's the evidence that we should believe it really exists?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Than you should specify your question.
I have answered that in another reply. The Bible says that human is only created on the earth, not anywhere else.

And? That is evidence for Christianity because?

 

[juvenissun]

And tomorrow we will know more, we will have more evidence. That's undeniable. The brain is accumulating knowledge from birth to old age.

And some will still deny the truth. Relying on the knowledge of Bronze Age men who were relying on stories from the Stone Age for an explanation of why we are here. Claiming we were created by a god, and refusing to use the tool that makes us better than the other species, our brains and ability to think.

And while claiming the bible is the word of god, not adhering to the rules, eating pork or shell fish or mixing meat and dairy, talking in church, wearing clothes of different fabric. And many more.

Then in the same breath claiming Jesus came to Earth to preach a new religion, or a return to the basic Judaism, denying the power of a corrupted church. Then saying their church can't be corruptible.

That's the strangest thing I find about blind faith. How blinkered it is.

Yes, it is a wishful thinking and is deniable.

The Creation account was written a few thousand years before now. "Evidences" keep popping up over these few thousand years and what's said in Gen. 1 and 2 still stand firm (scientifically). This fact is also a very good "evidence" of the truth.

 

[juvenissun]

And? That is evidence for Christianity because?

Because no other religion even hinted this basic Christian idea. And this idea is scientifically reasonable.