Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 3)

[Uber Genius]

A Manual for Creating Atheist Propaganda - First look at Peter Boghossian's book, "A Manual for Creating Atheists."

"A Manual for Creating Atheists offers the first-ever guide not for talking people into faith--but for talking them out of it. Peter Boghossian draws on the tools he has developed and used for more than twenty years as a philosopher and educator to teach how to engage the faithful in conversations that will help them value reason and rationality, cast doubt on their religious beliefs, mistrust their faith, abandon superstition and irrationality, and ultimately embrace reason."

We will examine what passes for, "reason," and, "rationality," and if Peter's approach passes muster, or just is another new atheist philosophically vapid work filled with rhetorical tricks. Unfortunately I didn't get to far before the "tricks," kicked in.

Peter sets the table with the following paragraph:

"Faith is not a virtue. It is absolutely not a virtue. It is an unreliable epistemology and part of the problem is that people think that holding a belief tenaciously, being a person of faith, makes you a good person. Being a person of faith does not make you a good person. It just means that you have a process of thinking about the world that is less likely to lead you to the truth. Once we make that shift from faith as a morality to faith as an epistemology, I think the house of cards will crumble and everything that is built upon the house – religion, everything – will fall with it."

So firstly, we must ask, "Has the good professor accurately represented how theists represent the definition of the term, "Faith?"

When the Apostle Peter new of his death at the hands of Nero he wrote,

"15And I will make every effort to ensure that after my departure, you will be able to recall these things at all times.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Peter 1:15-16)

We have that eyewitness record today. Does Begosian want to eliminate witnesses testimony in cases of law? What about in gathering historical facts? And yet he paints religious faith in a way n knowledgeable Christian apologist would. In a way completely different then how it is presented in scripture.

Faith is not an epistemological category. It is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Faith is trusting in that which you have reason to believe is true. These beliefs are formed due to eyewitness testimony, fulfilled prophecy, a priori (conceptual) arguments and a posteriori (experiential) arguments.

In the way I trust he evidence for the beginning of the universe is best explained by the hot Big Bang inflationary model of cosmogony due to over 40 different lines of evidence so too I find the evidence for theism to be even more sound due to my rich experience of God as a person. In both cases I trust the evidence and my beliefs, being justified, become knowledge that I trust.

Here Begosian is off to a bad start.

Why redefine faith as fideism? True, there have been those types (some argue Soren Kierkegaard is one, I'm not that convinced) but a quick read of the Gospels, Acts, or the Epistles and one see evidence marshalled in defense of Truth claims.

1 Peter 3:15 (Pun intended) says,

"always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;"

Oops.

"Reasons"

"Defense"

So a simple investigation into Christian Faith would have eliminated his straw man version a a way of pretending to know something.

In fact the scriptures pay no attention whatsoever to whether one believe in God or not.

As James says, "The demons believe in God and shutter." But the demons spoken about in scripture don't have faith."

The root meaning of the Greek pistis, ‘faith’, is ‘trust’

Again Begosian goes out of his way to create a straw man theism. This is nothing but a cheap rhetorical trick, and being a professor of philosophy he knows it. But he has faith that most of the population, will be as ignorant of the facts above as his freshmen students at Portland are. And on that point, I must agree with his assumptions as I continually run into "philosophy majors," who haven't the slightest idea about, ontology, the difference between doxastic claims and epistemic ones , logical fallacies or that philosophy is predicated on proper definitions and distinctions rather than the "lack" there of (A.K.A equivocation and conflation).

Those who have read Begosian's book, please point out the good points as I grew tired of his antics before I finished the first ten pages, being a Christian for a good portion of my life and not recognizing his definitions of same. In fact Begosian has created a straw man factory.

But if someone has sme valid arguments from him I am genuinely interested.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A Manual for Creating Atheist Propaganda - First look at Peter Begosian's book, "A Manual for Creating Atheists."

"A Manual for Creating Atheists offers the first-ever guide not for talking people into faith--but for talking them out of it. Peter Boghossian draws on the tools he has developed and used for more than twenty years as a philosopher and educator to teach how to engage the faithful in conversations that will help them value reason and rationality, cast doubt on their religious beliefs, mistrust their faith, abandon superstition and irrationality, and ultimately embrace reason."

We will examine what passes for, "reason," and, "rationality," and if Peter's approach passes muster, or just is another new atheist philosophically vapid work filled with rhetorical tricks. Unfortunately I didn't get to far before the "tricks," kicked in.

Peter sets the table with the following paragraph:

"Faith is not a virtue. It is absolutely not a virtue. It is an unreliable epistemology and part of the problem is that people think that holding a belief tenaciously, being a person of faith, makes you a good person. Being a person of faith does not make you a good person. It just means that you have a process of thinking about the world that is less likely to lead you to the truth. Once we make that shift from faith as a morality to faith as an epistemology, I think the house of cards will crumble and everything that is built upon the house – religion, everything – will fall with it."

So firstly, we must ask, "Has the good professor accurately represented how theists represent the definition of the term, "Faith?"

When the Apostle Peter new of his death at the hands of Nero he wrote,

"15And I will make every effort to ensure that after my departure, you will be able to recall these things at all times.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Peter 1:15-16)

We have that eyewitness record today. Does Begosian want to eliminate witnesses testimony in cases of law? What about in gathering historical facts? And yet he paints religious faith in a way n knowledgeable Christian apologist would. In a way completely different then how it is presented in scripture.

Faith is not an epistemological category. It is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Faith is trusting in that which you have reason to believe is true. These beliefs are formed due to eyewitness testimony, fulfilled prophecy, a priori (conceptual) arguments and a posteriori (experiential) arguments.

In the way I trust he evidence for the beginning of the universe is best explained by the hot Big Bang inflationary model of cosmogony due to over 40 different lines of evidence so too I find the evidence for theism to be even more sound due to my rich experience of God as a person. In both cases I trust the evidence and my beliefs, being justified, become knowledge that I trust.

Here Begosian is off to a bad start.

Why redefine faith as fideism? True, there have been those types (some argue Soren Kierkegaard is one, I'm not that convinced) but a quick read of the Gospels, Acts, or the Epistles and one see evidence marshalled in defense of Truth claims.

1 Peter 3:15 (Pun intended) says,

"always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;"

Oops.

"Reasons"

"Defense"

So a simple investigation into Christian Faith would have eliminated his straw man version a a way of pretending to know something.

In fact the scriptures pay no attention whatsoever to whether one believe in God or not.

As James says, "The demons believe in God and shutter." But the demons spoken about in scripture don't have faith."

The root meaning of the Greek pistis, ‘faith’, is ‘trust’

Again Begosian goes out of his way to create a straw man theism. This is nothing but a cheap rhetorical trick, and being a professor of philosophy he knows it. But he has faith that most of the population, will be as ignorant of the facts above as his freshmen students at Portland are. And on that point, I must agree with his assumptions as I continually run into "philosophy majors," who haven't the slightest idea about, ontology, the difference between doxastic claims and epistemic ones , logical fallacies or that philosophy is predicated on proper definitions and distinctions rather than the "lack" there of (A.K.A equivocation and conflation).

Those who have read Begosian's book, please point out the good points as I grew tired of his antics before I finished the first ten pages, being a Christian for a good portion of my life and not recognizing his definitions of same. In fact Begosian has created a straw man factory.

But if someone has sme valid arguments from him I am genuinely interested.

Hey, alright. I have this book........ but, I'm afraid that after reading it and scrutinizing it, there was very little left of it for which I can say, "Here...here are some valid arguments."

 

[KCfromNC]

Lots of talk about what faith is, but no mention of "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Seems like an epistemology to me. But then again, having multiple conflicting fuzzy definitions leads right into the author's point.

Anyway, the quote in question from the book wasn't talking about what faith is but rather how poorly it works in practice. You'd think a response to such a claim would include lots of empirical data showing how well faith does leading to true beliefs about reality.

Or maybe we just have to take it on faith that faith works?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lots of talk about what faith is, but no mention of "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Seems like an epistemology to me. But then again, having multiple conflicting fuzzy definitions leads right into the author's point.

Anyway, the quote in question from the book wasn't talking about what faith is but rather how poorly it works in practice. You'd think a response to such a claim would include lots of empirical data showing how well faith does leading to true beliefs about reality.

Or maybe we just have to take it on faith that faith works?

Faith doesn't "work"......because faith isn't an epistemology. Faith is a response to the God who CHOOSES to reveal or conceal.

So, while Boghossian may be correct that, from a merely human point of view strapped by Foundationalist assumptions, an attempt to appropriate 'faith' as an epistemology in and of itself is indeed a failure, he still doesn't take into account the various additional Epistemological Indices present in the Bible. Probably because he didn't read books like the following:

or

or

...among many other books and/or journal articles.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Moral Orel]

MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose

Threads started by Christians should contain an argument why Christian beliefs are true and correct. All thread topics must contain an identifiable argument against or for the Christian faith.​

People bend the rules from time to time. No one cares much. Five threads, in what, a week? Make an argument already... sheesh!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose

Threads started by Christians should contain an argument why Christian beliefs are true and correct. All thread topics must contain an identifiable argument against or for the Christian faith.​

People bend the rules from time to time. No one cares much. Five threads, in what, a week? Make an argument already... sheesh!

Where does Uber lack an argument?

The argument is, as I understand Uber, that Boghossian does not take into account X, hence we find such and such deficiencies in his evaluations about the nature of faith. Therefore, we don't have to kow-tow to his deficiency of evaluation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A Manual for Creating Atheist Propaganda - First look at Peter Begosian's book, "A Manual for Creating Atheists."

"A Manual for Creating Atheists offers the first-ever guide not for talking people into faith--but for talking them out of it. Peter Boghossian draws on the tools he has developed and used for more than twenty years as a philosopher and educator to teach how to engage the faithful in conversations that will help them value reason and rationality, cast doubt on their religious beliefs, mistrust their faith, abandon superstition and irrationality, and ultimately embrace reason."

We will examine what passes for, "reason," and, "rationality," and if Peter's approach passes muster, or just is another new atheist philosophically vapid work filled with rhetorical tricks. Unfortunately I didn't get to far before the "tricks," kicked in.

Peter sets the table with the following paragraph:

"Faith is not a virtue. It is absolutely not a virtue. It is an unreliable epistemology and part of the problem is that people think that holding a belief tenaciously, being a person of faith, makes you a good person. Being a person of faith does not make you a good person. It just means that you have a process of thinking about the world that is less likely to lead you to the truth. Once we make that shift from faith as a morality to faith as an epistemology, I think the house of cards will crumble and everything that is built upon the house – religion, everything – will fall with it."

So firstly, we must ask, "Has the good professor accurately represented how theists represent the definition of the term, "Faith?"

When the Apostle Peter new of his death at the hands of Nero he wrote,

"15And I will make every effort to ensure that after my departure, you will be able to recall these things at all times.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Peter 1:15-16)

We have that eyewitness record today. Does Begosian want to eliminate witnesses testimony in cases of law? What about in gathering historical facts? And yet he paints religious faith in a way n knowledgeable Christian apologist would. In a way completely different then how it is presented in scripture.

Faith is not an epistemological category. It is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Faith is trusting in that which you have reason to believe is true. These beliefs are formed due to eyewitness testimony, fulfilled prophecy, a priori (conceptual) arguments and a posteriori (experiential) arguments.

In the way I trust he evidence for the beginning of the universe is best explained by the hot Big Bang inflationary model of cosmogony due to over 40 different lines of evidence so too I find the evidence for theism to be even more sound due to my rich experience of God as a person. In both cases I trust the evidence and my beliefs, being justified, become knowledge that I trust.

Here Begosian is off to a bad start.

Why redefine faith as fideism? True, there have been those types (some argue Soren Kierkegaard is one, I'm not that convinced) but a quick read of the Gospels, Acts, or the Epistles and one see evidence marshalled in defense of Truth claims.

1 Peter 3:15 (Pun intended) says,

"always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;"

Oops.

"Reasons"

"Defense"

So a simple investigation into Christian Faith would have eliminated his straw man version a a way of pretending to know something.

In fact the scriptures pay no attention whatsoever to whether one believe in God or not.

As James says, "The demons believe in God and shutter." But the demons spoken about in scripture don't have faith."

The root meaning of the Greek pistis, ‘faith’, is ‘trust’

Again Begosian goes out of his way to create a straw man theism. This is nothing but a cheap rhetorical trick, and being a professor of philosophy he knows it. But he has faith that most of the population, will be as ignorant of the facts above as his freshmen students at Portland are. And on that point, I must agree with his assumptions as I continually run into "philosophy majors," who haven't the slightest idea about, ontology, the difference between doxastic claims and epistemic ones , logical fallacies or that philosophy is predicated on proper definitions and distinctions rather than the "lack" there of (A.K.A equivocation and conflation).

Those who have read Begosian's book, please point out the good points as I grew tired of his antics before I finished the first ten pages, being a Christian for a good portion of my life and not recognizing his definitions of same. In fact Begosian has created a straw man factory.

But if someone has sme valid arguments from him I am genuinely interested.

Actually, "faith" is somewhat fideistic, but in the Pascalian vain, not so much the Kierkegaardian vain. Some level of rationality on the part of the individual is needed to identify Jesus; the acceptance of Jesus, on the other hand, is a composite of assent by the individual to God, after having been 'drawn in' by God.

We don't just believe because we wake up on Thursday, figure out the problem all on our own steam, and achieve "Eureka," coming to fully to realize Jesus is the Lord! But for some reason, this is how many evangelicals treat 'faith.'

 

[KCfromNC]

Faith doesn't "work"......because faith isn't an epistemology.

I don't know - the Bible quote I mentioned talks about it being a source or method for generating evidence for claims. Maybe not everyone takes that seriously but that's the hard part about discussing an OP which doesn't tell us what he's actually talking about.

So, while Boghossian may be correct that, from a merely human point of view

Until demonstrated otherwise, this is all any human has. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know - the Bible quote I mentioned talks about it being a source or method for generating evidence for claims. Maybe not everyone takes that seriously but that's the hard part about discussing an OP which doesn't tell us what he's actually talking about.

Until demonstrated otherwise, this is all any human has. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.

To an extent you're right. But, the reason you're right is because....biblical theology tells us that the epistemic dynamics involved are more complex, as well as partially transcendent in nature, and therefore not completely in the domain of human logic. So....what does this mean? It means many times Christians are wasting their time with apologetics if there is indeed a 'God component' that is a part of Christian faith that is outside of human effort and or thought.

The quote you made from Hebrews has to be understood within the contextual framework in which it is given; and if we really analyze it, it ISN'T telling us how 'faith' works, rather it's telling what faith is by what it does in relation to its focal point, which is a transcendent God. In other words, we have to read the ENTIRE book of Hebrews to understand what Hebrews 11:1 means.

 

[KCfromNC]

To an extent your right. But, the reason you're right is because....biblical theology tells us that the epistemic dynamics involved are more complex, as well as partially transcendent in nature, and therefore not completely in the domain of human logic. So....what does this mean? It means many times Christians are wasting their time with apologetics if there is indeed a 'God component' that is a part of Christian faith that is outside of human effort and or thought.

At least you can understand how this looks to someone who doesn't already believe in it. Sure, it can be fun to argue for what you think your god is telling you. But to someone who doesn't believe, it just looks like a rationalization for believing what you would have anyway. No harm in it, as long as you don't expect people who don't already share your views to agree with you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

At least you can understand how this looks to someone who doesn't already believe in it. Sure, it can be fun to argue for what you think your god is telling you. But to someone who doesn't believe, it just looks like a rationalization for believing what you would have anyway. No harm in it, as long as you don't expect people who don't already share your views to agree with you.

...oh, don't worry about that. I don't expect many Christian apologists to agree with me, let alone atheists. And believe me, I do know how it looks; it looks about the same as it did in Paul's time as he spoke at the Areopagus and as is reflected in some of what he wrote in the first few chapters of 1 Corinthians.

The point being, Christians probably place too much value on the effort to convince non-believers about the cogency of Jesus as Messiah; however, this isn't to say that Christians should give up. Another point being that Christians often place too much moral blame upon the individual (even upon an atheist) for not finding it in themselves to 'believe.'

As for me, apologetics is for 'defending' and/or explicating the nature of the faith, rather than advancing the Kingdom of God against pure unbelief. Although there is some rational component to the Christian faith, I also think Christians who think Christianity can be 'proved' are wasting their precious time, and a further implication of this is that a forum section like this one may not be serving its purpose as well as hoped because........Christian faith and its dissemination aren't really built upon a (purely) Foundationalist platform.....

 

[com7fy8]

In fact the scriptures pay no attention whatsoever to whether one believe in God or not.

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:5)

So, according to this scripture, Uber, I would say the Bible does talk about whether we believe in God. But we need to believe with the interest "to please Him" and to "diligently seek Him."

To seek Him would mean to seek Him for Himself, and so He Himself is the reward for seeking Him And God's word says God wants us to so seek Him; so I find that this is very desirable, a very good reason to have faith. Because God is so more and better than all else.

The root meaning of the Greek pistis, ‘faith’, is ‘trust’

And faith is "the evidence of things not seen," we have in Hebrews 11:1. What is real evidence > actual experiencing of something, not just going by say-so. If God has us in actual union with Him, here is where we have evidence that He is and how He rewards us for seeking Him for Himself >

"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

In actual union with us, He proves Himself to us. And so we have our evidence . . . not only reasoning and say-so by standards which we imperfect humans can make up. We can have trust and faith in our own standards which we dictate, in which case we make our own selves dictators and we are merely trusting in ourselves, instead of trusting and depending on how God proves Himself to us, by faith. He proves Himself to us so we trust Him, in

"faith working through love" > in Galatians 5:6.

Therefore, I would not just seek reason which imperfect humans would guide you to seek, but seek God for Himself to prove Himself to us.

 

[Moral Orel]

Where does Uber lack an argument?

The argument is, as I understand Uber, that Boghossian does not take into account X, hence we find such and such deficiencies in his evaluations about the nature of faith. Therefore, we don't have to kow-tow to his deficiency of evaluation.

I'm not seeing an argument that conforms to my quoted portion of the SoP in any of his five new threads. Do you see an argument that states why Christian beliefs are true and correct? That is the sort of argument Christians "should" make. How about an argument against or for the Christian faith in the topic? This is the sort of argument that all topics "must" have. Feel free to use any of his threads, not just this one. Are atheists the only ones who have to read the SoP before posting in this section?

All this thread is, is another bash on a specific atheist and his specific viewpoint. It's akin to anecdotal evidence. "Look at all the times I can take a snippet from an atheist and make him look bad. Therefore all atheist arguments are bad". Is his argument any better than that? He could at least post a well accepted atheist argument, accurately recreate it without instilling straw man qualities in it, and then bash that.

He's probably got me on his ignore list because I believe he decided I was a SINO a long time ago, so the OP isn't even reading this, by the way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not seeing an argument that conforms to my quoted portion of the SoP in any of his five new threads. Do you see an argument that states why Christian beliefs are true and correct? That is the sort of argument Christians "should" make. How about an argument against or for the Christian faith in the topic? This is the sort of argument that all topics "must" have. Feel free to use any of his threads, not just this one. Are atheists the only ones who have to read the SoP before posting in this section?

Yes, I can see your point. And it is for this reason that I advocate more for a Christian Philosophy type section (which they've never had here) that is open for the full evaluation of the interaction between belief and non-belief. Christian Apologetics, as it is too often tightly defined, ends up being a straight-jacket on full exploration of ideas and evaluations and, thus, a half-baked philosophical tour centering on whether the Bible is cogent or not.

All this thread is, is another bash on a specific atheist and his specific viewpoint. It's akin to anecdotal evidence. "Look at all the times I can take a snippet from an atheist and make him look bad. Therefore all atheist arguments are bad". Is his argument any better than that? He could at least post a well accepted atheist argument, accurately recreate it without instilling straw man qualities in it, and then bash that.

Well.........the problem is that the Bible would advocate for Uber's critique, but CF has too narrowly defined the function of the specific forum. So, in a way, you're right.

He's probably got me on his ignore list because I believe he decided I was a SINO a long time ago, so the OP isn't even reading this, by the way.

Yes, some Christians here are a bit touchy; I on the other hand never ignore anyone.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Uber Genius]

Hey, alright. I have this book........ but, I'm afraid that after reading it and scrutinizing it, there was very little left of it for which I can say, "Here...here are some valid arguments."

I'm not through with it yet, but a Philosophy professor who is trying to misrepresent the core topic as historical understood violates the first principle of scholarship.

 

[Uber Genius]

Faith doesn't "work"......because faith isn't an epistemology. Faith is a response to the God who CHOOSES to reveal or conceal.

So, while Boghossian may be correct that, from a merely human point of view strapped by Foundationalist assumptions, an attempt to appropriate 'faith' as an epistemology in and of itself is indeed a failure, he still doesn't take into account the various additional Epistemological Indices present in the Bible. Probably because he didn't read books like the following:

or

or

...among many other books and/or journal articles.

2PhiloVoid

Actually it is worse than you indicate, as any read of almost any Christian outside of Anselm or fideists, or an uneducated read of James 2 will find "faith" being trust, as in I have faith my mother would never harm me.

So Boghossian goes out of his way to equivocate as other atheist philosophers have complained.

 

[Uber Genius]

So, according to this scripture, Uber, I would say the Bible does talk about whether we believe in God. But we need to believe with the interest "to please Him" and to "diligently seek Him."

Hmm, I'm was referring to Beghossian's misdefinition of faith as believing something without warrant. Confusing it as a knowledge category.

Surely the whole interaction between God and man since Abraham has been about God giving us evidence that enables belief. But this is far from Beghossian's point.

 

[Uber Genius]

Therefore, I would not just seek reason which imperfect humans would guide you to seek, but seek God for Himself to prove Himself to us.

I don't recall giving an epistemology at all. So I'm not sure what you are attempting to criticize but some straw man.

But I think it is a valid question as to the various models of how properly functioning rationality justifies belief in God and how those beliefs produce trust, and of coarse who is the progenitor of desire to investigate these claims.

But God has given us our facualties and the examples we see in Acts and the epistles are of Peter and Paul using evidence and arguments and rationality as well as works of power (a posteriori) evidence as well.

So I do think that it is rational to reject theism. So although the arguments I have been calling out are not, I have pointed to good atheist scholars who do use good arguments and marshal evidence in the way of undercutting defeaters for many premises. The argument from gratuitous evil or suffering seems to be the closest to a knockdown argument.

But what is rational at one time may not later be rational. Think about Saul and Paul. The difference was one Emmaus road experience. That led him to engage his rationality again with a new set of data, namely what it is like to be blinded for three days and have a face-to-face conversation with the risen Jesus. Now that some "new data."

 

[com7fy8]

@Uber Genius Yes, I have brought in a definition which you were not talking about. I did this, in order to offer that our attention with belief can keep our attention too far away from "faith working through love" (in Galatians 5:6). I mean this as a side comment

In my case, I have not found that ones arguing intellectually have been able to make themselves clear enough so I could discuss with them. And ones find me to be elsewhere, not worth the bother to try to communicate with me. Also, I suspect that each person is going more with one's own character and prejudices, including whomever ones have bonded with as teachers before they got started.

Also, it seems to me that I am not expert enough to be sure about who is really reliable as an authority, about various things. So, how am I supposed to be able to know who is really correct and who isn't? I suspect I would need to assume who to trust, being wishful, really.

And so, who can be truly objective, since none of us is perfect in how we use our faculties??

So, I offer it can be wise to first seek God for Himself and discover how He proves Himself to us. Or else, we could argue for Him and not even appreciate how He is whom we are arguing for

 

[Uber Genius]

Anyway, the quote in question from the book wasn't talking about what faith is but rather how poorly it works in practice.

You'd think a response to such a claim would include lots of empirical data showing how well faith does leading to true beliefs about reality.

Or maybe we just have to take it on faith that faith works?

So you are unfamiliar with the book and misrepresent its primary premise. Inauspiciously beginning.

You also seemed to just dodge the evidence I provided such as James chapter 2 where demons have more knowledge of God than any human and yet do not have faith.

This fact would be incoherent if faith were a way of knowing something.

Further your confidence in eisogeting scriptures that have the English word faith is common, yet has little to no chance of getting to what the original author wanted his audience to understand 2000 years ago in a second temple Jewish or pagan culture.

So instead of recognizing the equivocation your claim is defending Beghossian's thesis. Saying yeah me too.

So just to make things simpler for you just tell me why the demons who know God and Jesus (as recorded in the Gospels,) better than any human including Jesus own disciples, and yet they are not said to have faith?

Secondly, why do fellow atheist philosophers pan Beghossians book as equivocating faith?