What do you believe and why?

[hankroberts]

Interesting that you are willing to believe anything someone tells you, yet you accuse Christians of being unreasonable in their beliefs. There is not (to my knowledge) a single religious group which makes an official claim that their teachings and principles are historically verifiable and reliable. As to an individual making such a claim, I'd have to see the claim and then ask for justification.



Not any theologian I know, and I know a few, personally. And while some Christians may make that statement, it simply is not true biblically or historically. Faith (biblical faith) is indeed inherent to our Christianity; but the notion that believing something absent proper justification is known as Fideism, and has been identified as heresy for hundreds of years.



Where you get your information is not within my control. However, there are plenty of them out there. If you want some references on material that justifies the fundamental teachings of Christianity, I can provide several.

That being said, it also must be asked why an official claim to be historically verifiable matters at all? Unless your claims are actually historically verifiable it doesn't matter one bit.

Indeed, that is a true statement.

Not any theologian I know, and I know a few, personally. And while some Christians may make that statement, it simply is not true biblically or historically. Faith (biblical faith) is indeed inherent to our Christianity; but the notion that believing something absent proper justification is known as Fideism, and has been identified as heresy for hundreds of years.

Define "biblical faith". If you're working off the whole "evidence of things unseen" angle, then I must reject your definition. Faith even under that definition is not actual evidence, even if your book tries to redefine it as such.

I’ll be responding to someone else’s post with this information shortly. But basically, biblical faith is indistinct from the modern use of the term “trust” or “believe” or even “faith”: accepting something (or someone) as true (or trustworthy) on the basis of either experience or reputation.


Where you get your information is not within my control. However, there are plenty of them out there. If you want some references on material that justifies the fundamental teachings of Christianity, I can provide several.

I'd be surprised if you could raise an argument that I haven't seen yet, however feel free to explain your most persuasive argument backed with verifiable evidence....

Oh, I was merely pointing out that there are numerous sources out there, readily available. I can point you to a dozen without even trying hard. If you’d like to actually engage that discussion with me instead (whether the basic claims of Christianity are reliably justified) I’ll be happy to do that, but we’ll have to begin a different discussion.

 

[hankroberts]

Before you do, bear in mind that I will not respond to a gish gallop, particularly one comprised of scripture quotes from every book in the Bible. Over time, I've learned to value brevity in the posts I read and comment on. This isn't to be rude, but simply due to the fact that I don't have the time to dissect a post that is the equivalent of a master's thesis. That said, if you have written a master's thesis-worth on the matter, I congratulate the effort. But someone else will have to be the examiner.

Heh. I'm not sure I know what a 'gish gallop' is, but I don't think I'm interested.

If we are going to discuss faith as a Christian concept, then we're probably going to be looking at the Bible, my friend. That's sort of the way it works. However, you will find that biblical faith is not any different than any other (true) use of the term. But basically, biblical faith is indistinct from the modern use of the term “trust” or “believe” or even “faith”: accepting something (or someone) as true (or trustworthy) on the basis of either experience or reputation.

And as it happens, I have indeed written a Master's level thesis on the subject. But I've whittled that down for daily use to 5 or 6 pages...

Since someone else has also asked about the topic, would it be better to start a separate topic?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Heh. I'm not sure I know what a 'gish gallop' is, but I don't think I'm interested.

If we are going to discuss faith as a Christian concept, then we're probably going to be looking at the Bible, my friend.

I'm not interested in how your preferred theology defines 'faith', but how we define it generally; unless you can show that your own religion's definition of 'faith' is somehow better, more accurate or more apt than the common usage.

However, you will find that biblical faith is not any different than any other (true) use of the term. But basically, biblical faith is indistinct from the modern use of the term “trust” or “believe” or even “faith”: accepting something (or someone) as true (or trustworthy) on the basis of either experience or reputation.

Then I would say that you're equivocating on at least two senses of the word 'faith'. We can speak of 'faith' as trust, hope, or even just confidence, but that's not quite what we mean (or what I mean) when we talk about religious faith specifically.

And as it happens, I have indeed written a Master's level thesis on the subject. But I've whittled that down for daily use to 5 or 6 pages...

As I said earlier, I congratulate the effort. I'm even more impressed by the ability to condense that information succinctly into digestible conversation material. As an aside, that's why I think there's a lot of value in 3 minute thesis competitions.

Since someone else has also asked about the topic, would it be better to start a separate topic?

Personally, I think it would be best to just continue it here, but that's up to you.

 

[hankroberts]

I'm not interested in how your preferred theology defines 'faith', but how we define it generally; unless you can show that your own religion's definition of 'faith' is somehow better, more accurate or more apt than the common usage.

Then I would say that you're equivocating on at least two senses of the word 'faith'. We can speak of 'faith' as trust, hope, or even just confidence, but that's not quite what we mean (or what I mean) when we talk about religious faith specifically.

As I said earlier, I congratulate the effort. I'm even more impressed by the ability to condense that information succinctly into digestible conversation material. As an aside, that's why I think there's a lot of value in 3 minute thesis competitions.

Personally, I think it would be best to just continue it here, but that's up to you.

If we are going to discuss faith as a Christian concept, then we're probably going to be looking at the Bible, my friend.

I'm not interested in how your preferred theology defines 'faith',

And I don't think I made any reference to my 'preferred theology', did I? I did make reference to sound exegetical work, though.

But if we are going to discuss faith as Christians use the term, that would seem unavoidable. And if you're going to argue about "faith" in some meaning that is not the way Christians use the term, aren't we sort of wasting our time? I mean the whole point of the argument seems to be that Christians use their faith inappropriately, isn't it?

but how we define it generally

And as pointed out, the way the term is used biblically falls quite well into the common use of the term. But as a clarification, how do you use the term; what does "faith" mean to you?

unless you can show that your own religion's definition of 'faith' is somehow better, more accurate or more apt than the common usage.

Indeed. But if we are talking specifically about Christian Faith, "Faith" as Christians use the term, then I would say that we are absolutely appropriate to look at the biblical use.

If we’re talking about faith in a spiritual context, and specifically if we’re talking about the idea in the context of biblical faith, then two things become immediately obvious. The first is that it is the purest of arrogant temerity for someone who is neither a biblical believer nor a biblical scholar to tell someone who is a member of a faith community what ‘faith’ must mean, in the context of biblical religious use. This is why I always refer to biblical use when I discuss this issue: in some other context the term ‘faith’ may be used to describe something different; but if we’re going to talk about ‘biblical’ faith (or 'Christian' faith), then we know exactly how that term is used and what it refers to in the biblical record.

The second thing that is immediately obvious is that if we’re discussing religious faith –particularly Christian or biblical faith- then the biblical record and history of that word is a legitimate measure of correct use. Our standard for ‘proper use’ of the word ‘faith’ within a biblical, religious context is the way the term is used biblically. Indeed, within the context, this is not a good standard, or one possible standard: it is the only appropriate standard.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And I don't think I made any reference to my 'preferred theology', did I? I did make reference to sound exegetical work, though.

Exegetical work that isn't tied to theology?

But if we are going to discuss faith as Christians use the term, that would seem unavoidable. And if you're going to argue about "faith" in some meaning that is not the way Christians use the term, aren't we sort of wasting our time? I mean the whole point of the argument seems to be that Christians use their faith inappropriately, isn't it?

And as pointed out, the way the term is used biblically falls quite well into the common use of the term. But as a clarification, how do you use the term; what does "faith" mean to you?

I already answered this in a previous post.

Indeed. But if we are talking specifically about Christian Faith, "Faith" as Christians use the term, then I would say that we are absolutely appropriate to look at the biblical use.

If we’re talking about faith in a spiritual context, and specifically if we’re talking about the idea in the context of biblical faith, then two things become immediately obvious. The first is that it is the purest of arrogant temerity for someone who is neither a biblical believer nor a biblical scholar to tell someone who is a member of a faith community what ‘faith’ must mean, in the context of biblical religious use. This is why I always refer to biblical use when I discuss this issue:

I'm not telling you what faith must mean in the context of the Bible, but what 'faith' does mean generally. I don't think it's arrogant to point out that the Bible's definition need not align with the common usage. I think it's arrogant, by contrast, to pretend that biblical scholarship must have the definitive say on the meaning of words as they are used generally as opposed to biblically.

in some other context the term ‘faith’ may be used to describe something different; but if we’re going to talk about ‘biblical’ faith (or 'Christian' faith), then we know exactly how that term is used and what it refers to in the biblical record.

The second thing that is immediately obvious is that if we’re discussing religious faith –particularly Christian or biblical faith- then the biblical record and history of that word is a legitimate measure of correct use. Our standard for ‘proper use’ of the word ‘faith’ within a biblical, religious context is the way the term is used biblically. Indeed, within the context, this is not a good standard, or one possible standard: it is the only appropriate standard.

Sure, we can talk about it as the Bible defines it, if that's what you prefer, but I see no reason to consider the Bible the final authority on the definition of words.

 

[hankroberts]

Exegetical work that isn't tied to theology?



I already answered this in a previous post.



I'm not telling you what faith must mean in the context of the Bible, but what 'faith' does mean generally. I don't think it's arrogant to point out that the Bible's definition need not align with the common usage. I think it's arrogant, by contrast, to pretend that biblical scholarship must have the definitive say on the meaning of words as they are used generally as opposed to biblically.



Sure, we can talk about it as the Bible defines it, if that's what you prefer, but I see no reason to consider the Bible the final authority on the definition of words.

And I don't think I made any reference to my 'preferred theology', did I? I did make reference to sound exegetical work, though.

Exegetical work that isn't tied to theology?

Proper exegetical work isn't shaped by theology; rather it shapes theology. A Calvinist, a Baptist, a Hindu and an Atheist all using proper exegetical tools, and using them properly, will come to the same research result (usually).

what does "faith" mean to you?

I already answered this in a previous post.

But there you say "We are referring to 'faith' in the religious sense, which is a strong belief in something without evidence*, ...I would amend that to belief regardless of the evidence." And that, my friend, is completely foreign to the Christian use of the term.

That is Fideism, which has been identified by the Church as heresy for hundreds of years. That use of the term is completely at odds with both the doctrinal and the exegetical use of the term.

Indeed. But if we are talking specifically about Christian Faith, "Faith" as Christians use the term, then I would say that we are absolutely appropriate to look at the biblical use.

I'm not telling you what faith must mean in the context of the Bible, but what 'faith' does mean generally.

But your own statement was "We are referring to 'faith' in the religious sense, which is a strong belief in something without evidence*, not the common usage, which is simply a synonym for confidence, trust or hope. The many meanings of the word provide ample ground for equivocation, so let's be clear that we are talking about 'faith' in the religious sense."

I think it's arrogant, by contrast, to pretend that biblical scholarship must have the definitive say on the meaning of words as they are used generally as opposed to biblically.

And of course, if anyone were doing that, it would indeed be arrogant.

Sure, we can talk about it as the Bible defines it, if that's what you prefer, but I see no reason to consider the Bible the final authority on the definition of words.

Unless, of course, we're talking about the way the word is used in the Bible, or by Christians. Then, it is indeed the final authority.

 

[Davian]

Then both rationally and epistemically you would be wrong. Only if one engages circular reasoning is there a justification to presume that any claim of divine revelation is ispo facto imaginary.
Ah, so you have some actual evidence that divine revelation is always imaginary? I'd like to see that.



Sure: in http://www.christianforums.com/t7863783-26/#post67007457

Now either you have evidence, or you don’t. Which is it?

Otherwise, you appear to be presuming it is imaginary, based on your presupposition

You still have not shown where I made any such presupposition.

Analogy: Scientists claim to have solved the problems with "cold fusion". The problem? They, and those around the planet, are unable to reliably replicate their results. Tentative conclusion? It don't work. Evidence for this conclusion? Absence of evidence that it works.

This is the process I am applying to claims, whether they be for cold fusion, visits from extraterrestrial aliens, psychic predictions, faith healers, or other religious/pseudoscientific stuff.

I’ll rephrase my comment. You stated “If someone were to demonstrate that "divine revelation" was more than simply a product of the imagination, I will change my position accordingly.” On what basis do you presume that all claims of divine revelation are “simply a product of the imagination”?
The original statement was that divine revelation, like any other revelation, requires the same justification to properly warrant belief. Given that proper justification to believe, what is your justification for rejection?

That you find it justified to believe does not demonstrate that it comports with reality. I don't reject it, I just don't find it convincing. Belief is not a choice.

that such things are not real;

Precisely: circular reasoning.

which is circular reasoning.

Not at all. It places the burden of evidence on the religionist.

Well, heavens, I wouldn’t want to do that. Please explain your reasoning; how you got to the point of presuming that any claim of revelation is false in the absence of any warrant, without engaging circular reasoning.

You will need to show where I got to that point prior to me having to explain how I got there.

Um, Theory of Knowledge? Knowledge is "justified true belief"?


Actually, in today as well. At least several leading philosophers (Sudduth, Plantinga, J.P. Moreland, etc.) think so. (Now of course I'm referring to Propositional Knowledge: there are actually three kinds) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems to think it is, as well as Britannica. While some have challenged the view, they haven't offered a working alternative.

Not one that allows for gods, from what I understand.

There is a LOT of material on this subject out there...


You asked if you needed to justify those statements; and I responded by pointing out that any truth assertion must have grounding.

Indeed. It looks like you have some work to do.

Off topic. Be happy to engage that conversation, but it carries us far from our topic.


Cute, but inaccurate. I have no problem discussing whether/how the fundamental tenets of Christianity comport with reality. But it is a stretch from the topic of this thread. If you’d like to engage that conversation, I’d be happy to do so in a separate discussion.

Inaccurate? Did you know that if you say "gullible" very slow, it sounds like "oranges"?

 

[hankroberts]

You still have not shown where I made any such presupposition.

Analogy: Scientists claim to have solved the problems with "cold fusion". The problem? They, and those around the planet, are unable to reliably replicate their results. Tentative conclusion? It don't work. Evidence for this conclusion? Absence of evidence that it works.

This is the process I am applying to claims, whether they be for cold fusion, visits from extraterrestrial aliens, psychic predictions, faith healers, or other religious/pseudoscientific stuff.

That you find it justified to believe does not demonstrate that it comports with reality. I don't reject it, I just don't find it convincing. Belief is not a choice.


Not at all. It places the burden of evidence on the religionist.


You will need to show where I got to that point prior to me having to explain how I got there.


Not one that allows for gods, from what I understand.


Indeed. It looks like you have some work to do.


Inaccurate? Did you know that if you say "gullible" very slow, it sounds like "oranges"?

Ok, I'll try one more time.

You still have not shown where I made any such presupposition.

Sure: in http://www.christianforums.com/t7863.../#post67007457

Now either you have evidence, or you don’t. Which is it?

Otherwise, you appear to be presuming it is imaginary, based on your presupposition.

Analogy: Scientists claim to have solved the problems with "cold fusion". The problem? They, and those around the planet, are unable to reliably replicate their results. Tentative conclusion? It don't work. Evidence for this conclusion? Absence of evidence that it works.

And it is a false analogy, since it bears no relation to what we are discussing. Once again, the original point was that a claim of divine revelation is epistemically exactly the same as any other claim of revelation, requiring exactly the same (not more, not less) justification.

In your analogy you have clear counter evidence; and a properly justified reason to reject the claim.

This is the process I am applying to claims, whether they be for cold fusion, visits from extraterrestrial aliens, psychic predictions, faith healers, or other religious/pseudoscientific stuff.

Precisely: unwarranted presupposition that a claim of divine revelation does not have the same epistemic properties as any other claim to revelation.

Belief is not a choice.

Nonsense: certainly it is a choice. Except in the event of clear contradiction: that is, you cannot believe something you know is untrue.

that such things are not real;...
Precisely: circular reasoning...
which is circular reasoning.

Not at all. It places the burden of evidence on the religionist.

Except that the whole point of the original statement (go back and read it) demonstrates reasonable justification. So you're not asking for 'the burden of evidence'; you are requiring more that warranted justification. And the only reason to do that is the presumption that the (justified) claim is ipso facto false. Circular reasoning.

Um, Theory of Knowledge? Knowledge is "justified true belief"?...
Actually, in today as well. At least several leading philosophers (Sudduth, Plantinga, J.P. Moreland, etc.) think so. (Now of course I'm referring to Propositional Knowledge: there are actually three kinds) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems to think it is, as well as Britannica. While some have challenged the view, they haven't offered a working alternative.

Not one that allows for gods, from what I understand.

Is English not your first language? Go back and read the original statement.

Cute, but inaccurate. I have no problem discussing whether/how the fundamental tenets of Christianity comport with reality. But it is a stretch from the topic of this thread. If you’d like to engage that conversation, I’d be happy to do so in a separate discussion.

Inaccurate?

Yes, inaccurate.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But there you say "We are referring to 'faith' in the religious sense, which is a strong belief in something without evidence*, ...I would amend that to belief regardless of the evidence." And that, my friend, is completely foreign to the Christian use of the term.

That is Fideism, which has been identified by the Church as heresy for hundreds of years. That use of the term is completely at odds with both the doctrinal and the exegetical use of the term.

So what? Since when does your doctrinal or exegetical use of a term define its general usage?

But your own statement was "We are referring to 'faith' in the religious sense, which is a strong belief in something without evidence*, not the common usage, which is simply a synonym for confidence, trust or hope. The many meanings of the word provide ample ground for equivocation, so let's be clear that we are talking about 'faith' in the religious sense."

Exactly. What 'faith' is generally understood to mean in the religious sense.

Unless, of course, we're talking about the way the word is used in the Bible, or by Christians. Then, it is indeed the final authority.

The final authority for Christians perhaps.

 

[hankroberts]

So what? Since when does your doctrinal or exegetical use of a term define its general usage?

Exactly. What 'faith' is generally understood to mean in the religious sense.

The final authority for Christians perhaps.

So what? Since when does your doctrinal or exegetical use of a term define its general usage?

The point here is not that the exegetical use defines its general usage; the point is that the evidence contradicts your claim that it is "general usage" as a religious term.

Exactly. What 'faith' is generally understood to mean in the religious sense.

Except that you have no justification for that claim; the fact is that 'faith' is NOT generally understood to mean 'unwarranted belief' in the religious realm.

Unless, of course, we're talking about the way the word is used in the Bible, or by Christians. Then, it is indeed the final authority.

The final authority for Christians perhaps.

AND the final authority for anyone arguing what Christians believe.

Let me go ahead and start with the presentation on the topic, and see if that doesn't clear up some of this. This presentation is choppy since it is extracted from a longer, more detailed presentation. But I can add material on any point that is unclear.

 

[hankroberts]

As I’ve already been accused once of making this stuff up, or it merely being my personal opinion, I’ll note this, for the record. I won’t try to give any formal list of references and resources, but the following are some of the primary sources of the information included here, as well as some additional resources on the subject.
Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible
Vine’s Expository Dictionary
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, especially the Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
Kittel’s Theological Wordbook (Old Testament and New Testament)
Lohse’s The New Testament Environment
Everyday Life in Jesus’ Time
Edersheim’s Sketches of Jewish Social Life
Richardson’s Dictionary of Christian Theology
Robbins’ The Life and Ministry of our Lord
Notes from a dozen courses in the languages, in exegetical course work for various books (Old Testament and New Testament), and several years of Hebrew and Greek study with various passages.
In addition, one can refer currently to the following information online:
Apologetics, Truth and Humility Apologetics, Truth, and Humility
Confident Belief Confident Belief
Reason and Faith http://www.evidence.info/answers/reasonfaith.html
Do the Facts Matter? http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/bible/dothefa.htm
Faith and Wishing http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG0001.htm
How Do You Know Christianity Is True? Stand to Reason | How Do You Know Christianity Is True?

 

[hankroberts]

The assertion is repeatedly made that ‘Faith’ is ‘blindly believing something that one knows is not true’ or, alternatively, ‘believing something without evidence’. The first claim is easily and rightly dismissed. One simply is not capable of believing something one knows is not true. The second claim is a little more difficult to address, not because of any epistemic problem, but because of a semantic problem. We have to clarify what is meant by that phrase ‘believe without evidence’.

Now, proper knowledge is acceptance of and commitment to a true assertion, held for good reasons. How do we know a thing to be true; what are ‘proper reasons’ for believing; how do we acquire knowledge? There are four ways that we come to know truth: Intuition, Experience, Reason, and Revelation. Can a person accept and commit to a truth claim without evidence? Depends on what we mean by ‘evidence’: do we mean scientific proof, or overwhelming scientific confirmation, or do we mean ‘for good reasons’, as described above. The fact is that belief without ‘scientific proof’ is perfectly legitimate more often than not. And artificially requiring sense evidence as the only justification for belief is a logical fallacy.

So, if the skeptic claims that faith is believing without evidence; and if by that he means that we accept things as true without absolute scientific proof (or even overwhelming scientific confirmation), then the proper response is simply “So what: so do you, and everyone else.” The fact is that most of what we know to be true, we came to know without having direct scientific experience.

If the skeptic argues that faith is believing without good reason, then it seems he has his work cut out for him demonstrating this. Bigots, racists, homosexuals, and a fair portion of the clinically insane believe things that are not true (along with most of the rest of us), but they usually have good reasons for believing them. For the most part people simply do not seriously consider a claim without some good reason. Either it seems intuitively true; or it seems to be the product of sound reasoning; or it fits with their experience; or it comes from someone they accept as authoritative. While their belief may actually be false, the claim that their belief is not properly justified is simply incorrect. The problem with their wrong belief is not that they aren’t justified in holding it: the problem is that is isn’t true. So the skeptic is back to trying to prove that the belief is not true, rather than that it is not properly justified.

 

[hankroberts]

Historically, later in the Enlightenment Period, the notion of Fideism as ‘blind acceptance versus proper knowledge’ developed during debates about proper knowledge, and was professed by a few in the Church (where it still occasionally appears). However, the historical record is clear: this understanding of Fideism has always been identified by the Church as heresy, and contrary to the biblical record.

What does ‘faith’ mean? Words do not have inherent meaning, they have uses: they are symbols which point to some reality. What reality they point to is determined by the user, and (alternatively) by the hearer. This is one of the most common problems in human communication; that when one person uses a word he refers to one thing (in his own mind), yet when someone hears (or sees) that word it refers to something different (in his mind).

Dictionaries do not determine what meaning a word has (read the intro to any good dictionary and it will tell you this). What dictionaries do is simply record the ways that words are commonly used, they document the uses of the word in common practice and in historical practice. Many words are used differently by people, to refer to different things. Certain populations may use words in widely varying ways, and these uses may even contradict each other.

This is why a word may have several definitions: each describes a common use, or a specific use within a particular context (a technical term in a subject field, for instance). ‘Bit’ may legitimately have entirely different meanings (uses) to a horseman (part of a bridle), a computer person (small amount of data); a herpetologist (“I’ve been snake-bit&#8221, a cook (‘a bit of sage&#8217 or a carpenter (a drill bit). Now, which definition of ‘bit’ is the correct definition? Why, the one which is appropriate to the context, of course. Is it appropriate for a computer person to tell a horseman “You can’t use ‘bit’ to describe part of a bridle: that’s not what that word means”? No, it is not. If the horseman is discussing the subject of horses and tack, then it is a perfectly legitimate use of the word.

The argument is made that this notion of Faith as ‘believing the unbelievable’ (or some similar notion) is the favored common use. I would challenge that assertion on the basis of a lack of supporting evidence (it is not the primary definition in most reference works) and on the basis of a presence of contradictory evidence. The fact is that people use the term just as I propose is the biblical use, all the time. We commonly say we have faith in doctors and auto mechanics; in teachers and reference works; in our spouse or children; in our recollection of events or our skills in certain areas; in our automobiles or a particular tool/product. Are we claiming that we blindly believe in these things, without good reason? Is that really what we are trying to say? It is not: the very common (if not the most common) use of the term is just as I’ve described: committed trust or confidence on the basis of some good reasons.

But even if one could successfully argue that the most common use of the word ‘faith’ is ‘blind acceptance’, is it then a legitimate argument that the Christian is somehow using the term inappropriately, to describe ‘committed trust, based on good reason’? No, he would not. If the Christian can demonstrate that a significant portion of the population uses the term this way, or that it is exegetically accurate, then it is a legitimate definition.

 

[hankroberts]

Let’s look at the biblical record and see how the term is used there: not how someone else tells us we must use it, but how it is actually applied…let’s look at the reality described by the term, and see what it looks like. Then we may look at the assertion of ‘what faith means’ within the biblical context and determine whether the assertion is true; whether it conforms to the reality we find in the record.

The word biblical ‘faith’ is a translation from Hebrew or Greek. The biblical words that are translated ‘faith’ or ‘believe’ are noun and verb forms of the same words. The Hebrew word that is translated ‘faith’ is aman or awman, while the Greek is pistis or pisteuo. There are others, but mostly they are variants on these words. The English ‘Faith’ comes from the Latin ‘fides’, the root word from which we get ‘fidelity’ as well as ‘faith’. The Latin describes reliability, trustworthiness, and dependability, as well as the notion of ‘belief in’. The idea is trust in someone or something on the basis of their trustworthiness or reliability, their steadfast character. From the same root come ‘confidence, confide’ and ‘fealty’; and combined with the negative root ‘dis’ forms the term ‘defy’ (to be dis-faithful). So biblical faith is just this: confident trust in someone or something on the basis of experience or reputation. Now that sounds suspiciously like the way we use that word in the other areas of our life. This understanding is consistent with the definitions in the American Heritage Dictionary (2000), Webster’s Revised Unabridged (1998), WordNet (Princeton University, 1997) as well as the Easton Bible Dictionary, the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible and other standard scholarly works both secular and religious.

 

[hankroberts]

Now discussions of word use are rare in the biblical text: we don’t see someone say “When I say ‘faith’ this is what I mean…” What we do find is descriptions of events, examples of faith. The story of David and Goliath is a particularly clear example. As David arrived at the scene he was astounded to see Saul’s army afraid of Goliath. What is the basis of his astonishment? He is astonished that God’s army would be afraid of anything at all. He expresses his own faith (in God), and says that (because of this faith) he will face Goliath. Now, why does he say that he trusts (has faith in) God? He gives examples from his own experience of God protecting him, and says that on the basis of this historical evidence he has faith that God will also deliver Goliath in battle. No matter how you slice it, that is not ‘blind acceptance’, it is ‘confident trust based on historical evidence’.

In the New Testament, when the Centurion comes to Jesus to heal his slave, he is asked why he came to Jesus: he did not know Jesus personally, so the obvious question is ‘why trust (have faith in, believe in) me?’ What is his response? He responds that because of Jesus’ reputation and His observed works, He is obviously one with authority over this issue: his faith is based on historical evidence (reputation and witness testimony) and direct observation. He didn’t come to Jesus with the attitude “Gee, I think I’ll try blindly believing this guy can help, and see if it works”: he came saying “I’ve heard about your works, I’ve spoken to people who have been there, and I’ve observed what you’re doing now: this tells me I am justified in asking you to do the same for my slave.” And Jesus describes this as ‘great faith’.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The assertion is repeatedly made that ‘Faith’ is ‘blindly believing something that one knows is not true’ or, alternatively, ‘believing something without evidence’. The first claim is easily and rightly dismissed. One simply is not capable of believing something one knows is not true. The second claim is a little more difficult to address, not because of any epistemic problem, but because of a semantic problem. We have to clarify what is meant by that phrase ‘believe without evidence’.

Now, proper knowledge is acceptance of and commitment to a true assertion, held for good reasons.

Which is why faith is not required to assent to such an assertion.

How do we know a thing to be true; what are ‘proper reasons’ for believing; how do we acquire knowledge? There are four ways that we come to know truth: Intuition, Experience, Reason, and Revelation. Can a person accept and commit to a truth claim without evidence? Depends on what we mean by ‘evidence’: do we mean scientific proof, or overwhelming scientific confirmation, or do we mean ‘for good reasons’, as described above. The fact is that belief without ‘scientific proof’ is perfectly legitimate more often than not. And artificially requiring sense evidence as the only justification for belief is a logical fallacy.

So, if the skeptic claims that faith is believing without evidence; and if by that he means that we accept things as true without absolute scientific proof (or even overwhelming scientific confirmation), then the proper response is simply “So what: so do you, and everyone else.” The fact is that most of what we know to be true, we came to know without having direct scientific experience.

That isn't what the skeptic claims, so the point is moot.

If the skeptic argues that faith is believing without good reason, then it seems he has his work cut out for him demonstrating this. Bigots, racists, homosexuals, and a fair portion of the clinically insane believe things that are not true (along with most of the rest of us), but they usually have good reasons for believing them. For the most part people simply do not seriously consider a claim without some good reason. Either it seems intuitively true; or it seems to be the product of sound reasoning; or it fits with their experience; or it comes from someone they accept as authoritative. While their belief may actually be false, the claim that their belief is not properly justified is simply incorrect. The problem with their wrong belief is not that they aren’t justified in holding it: the problem is that is isn’t true. So the skeptic is back to trying to prove that the belief is not true, rather than that it is not properly justified.

The argument here has it in reverse. The issue is not whether the claim is true or not, but whether there is good reason to believe that it is true.

 

[hankroberts]

If we want to understand this issue of faith and what kind of decision people were being called to make in the New Testament then an excellent place to look is at the activity of those first evangelists. What was it that they did; what did they say; how did they go about this business of calling people to faith? Read Peter’s sermon at Pentecost: what does he say there? Does he call people to ‘blindly accept’ anything? No. What he does is give the historical facts surrounding the life of Jesus (facts that the people were readily familiar with), then tell them that on the basis of this evidence, they were to believe what Jesus said about who He was, and accept the offer made that day in His name.
Read Paul’s arguments for the faith: they are classics of proper rational argument. What does the New Testament say about Paul’s work at Thessalonica (Acts 17)? Paul “went in, as was his custom, and on three (consecutive) sabbath days (that is three weeks) argued with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying ‘This is the Messiah, Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you.’” (Those words ‘argued’, ‘explain’ and ‘prove’ are common everyday terms referring to persuasive debate, rational arguments. The term translated “argued” is the term used to describe providing evidence in a legal proceeding) And how did they respond? By ‘blindly accepting’ something Paul asked them to believe? “They welcomed the message eagerly, and examined the scriptures daily to see whether these things (said by Paul) were so.” They tested Paul’s claims against the evidence of scripture (Paul was preaching to Jews, and referring to fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament: they checked what he said against the evidence). Then, what does the very next verse say? Therefore (on the basis of the arguments made by Paul, and their verification that they were legitimate), many of them believed (pisteuo, ‘had faith&#8217.

These are simply a couple of examples: anyone familiar with the biblical record could go on and on with such examples. The biblical record is literally full of them, demonstrating that faith is always recognition and acceptance (and commitment) on the basis of good reasons. As Fisher Humphreys has said, the call to faith is not a call to make a leap in the dark: it is a call to make a leap out of darkness, into the clear light of reason and truth. The whole biblical record is a call to trust God, because He is trustworthy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Didn't I already make clear that I was not going to respond to a gish gallop?

Let’s look at the biblical record and see how the term is used there: not how someone else tells us we must use it, but how it is actually applied…let’s look at the reality described by the term, and see what it looks like. Then we may look at the assertion of ‘what faith means’ within the biblical context and determine whether the assertion is true; whether it conforms to the reality we find in the record.

The word biblical ‘faith’ is a translation from Hebrew or Greek. The biblical words that are translated ‘faith’ or ‘believe’ are noun and verb forms of the same words. The Hebrew word that is translated ‘faith’ is aman or awman, while the Greek is pistis or pisteuo. There are others, but mostly they are variants on these words. The English ‘Faith’ comes from the Latin ‘fides’, the root word from which we get ‘fidelity’ as well as ‘faith’. The Latin describes reliability, trustworthiness, and dependability, as well as the notion of ‘belief in’. The idea is trust in someone or something on the basis of their trustworthiness or reliability, their steadfast character. From the same root come ‘confidence, confide’ and ‘fealty’; and combined with the negative root ‘dis’ forms the term ‘defy’ (to be dis-faithful).

You do understand the etymology does not dictate use?

So biblical faith is just this: confident trust in someone or something on the basis of experience or reputation.

Reputation for what?

Now that sounds suspiciously like the way we use that word in the other areas of our life. This understanding is consistent with the definitions in the American Heritage Dictionary (2000), Webster’s Revised Unabridged (1998), WordNet (Princeton University, 1997) as well as the Easton Bible Dictionary, the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible and other standard scholarly works both secular and religious.

Of course it does, because there are multiple senses in which the word 'faith' is used - trust, hope, confidence, etc. As I made clear earlier in our exchange, we are focusing on the religious sense of the word specifically so as to avoid equivocating.

 

[yesyoushould]

What do you believe to be the source of the universe and why? If you respond that you do not know, please provide an intelligent reason as to why you do not know.

Thank you.

Hi. Thank you for your thread.
I believe all people are one in God.
None of this division bologna. Lol.
I believe God created all, the seen and unseen. And my proof is that He still loves me even today.

 

[madera23]

Hankroberts
what you need is to understand yourself before you try to clarify anything to anyone..
your , many words are coming from your imagination.
why don't you do some self reflecting brfore you clarify anything to others.