Again, sorry for the long delay: Inet provider problems persist.
That's alright.
Or, "without overwhelming confirmation". And it wasn't MY redefinition: that is exactly the argument frequently set forth; I'm merely acknowledging it and responding. Now if you did not make the argument, then of course the response doesn't apply to you, just as is the case with the earlier 'definition'.
Not only does it not apply to me, I question whether it applies to anyone. I don't know of anyone who equates "without evidence" to "without absolute scientific proof."
While that is true, it has nothing to do with our conversation. The point was (to refresh your memory) that biblically, and in Christian doctrine, as well as in common use, "faith" is trusting or believing on the basis of some good reason (either experience, or reputation).
To refresh your memory, we were discussing the religious sense of the word 'faith', not the other senses in which the word is used (e.g., trust, hope, confidence, etc).
But are you asking two different questions there, or are you doing exactly what I described earlier, and conflating two entirely different things (good reason, and sense evidence).
Apparently, he thought so. And that is neither unreasonable nor intellectually weak: we routinely have faith in people with nothing more than their reputation, sufficient to at least try their claims. But the point here is that he did not choose to have faith in Jesus "for no good reason". You may not like his decision, but it meets the criteria.
But we aren't talking about Jesus. We are talking about belief in Peter Popoff's purported healing powers, for which I asked the following questions:
Why would he claim to possess healing powers if that were not true? That there might be a reason to believe it. But is it a good reason? Is it evidence for his claim? Is it enough to justify a high degree of confidence in this man's reported healing powers?
Well of course you are free to reject any idea you please, but you haven't offered any argument against it.
I'm not convinced by your argument
for it. To me, it seems that you are conflating several meanings of 'faith'.
Well, you technically made a response; you simply avoided the point.
biblical faith is just this: confident trust in someone or something on the basis of experience or reputation.
Again, on the basis of what experience in particular, and reputation for what exactly? I'm interested in you elaborating on this further because I think it would help in teasing apart the relevant aspects of 'faith' that we're interested in.
You do remember that our discussion is about the general subject of Faith in the Christian/biblical context, right? As already stated, "Faith" is confident trust in someone or something on the basis of our experience or their reputation. The 'reputation' applies to the point on which we are trusting them, regardless of the subject.
Yes, you want to focus on the Bible in particular. So let's do that. What is the Bible reputable for, and on what experience is this confident trust based?
This is exactly the same thing as the faith I place in my mechanic, my doctor, my accountant, etc. There is absolutely no difference epistemically.
I think there is quite a difference between having 'faith' that a credentialed doctor will offer sound medical advice and having 'faith' that a supernatural entity created the first woman from the rib of a man. Your confidence in your doctor is based on merit and their track record, among other things. You also recognise that, being human, your doctor is fallible, and so your confidence in them isn't absolute. If your doctor told you that jumping off a cliff would cure your cold, your confidence in them might be lessened. Are the claims of the Bible believed on their merit and track record for accuracy? Is the confidence placed in those claims subject to change given new information, or is the confidence absolute, such that those claims could never be considered wrong?
Whatever that is. But I posted what amounts to about three pages of material on the subject, as you requested.
No, that's contrary to what I requested. I pleaded for brevity. I understand that it's difficult to condense a large body of work into easily digestible summary points, but it's essential for a productive conversation to take place here.
Now if you're not going to actually read the material, then we're both wasting our time. You decide.
As I said earlier, I'm not your thesis examiner. I'm not here to evaluate your scholarship, but to discuss the ideas that may have emerged from it.
