What do you believe and why?

[hankroberts]

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.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7863783-30/#post67034089
Actually, no, my 'many words' come from several years of careful study and exegetical work on the subject, indicated by the list of resources at the beginning and by the fact that this presentation (about 3 typed pages) is an abbreviation of a Master's level paper nearly ten times that length which goes into considerably more detail.

I understand the subject just fine.

 

[hankroberts]

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

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

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.

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.[/I]

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

Really? No one here has claimed that Christian Faith is believing without evidence?

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.

No, the argument is precisely that your claim is false; that the assertion of belief without good reason is demonstrably incorrect. Practically, epistemically, it is virtually impossible to believe something without having some reason to do so. Try it: you cannot.

Example: your assertion that "'faith' in the religious sense, which is a strong belief in something without evidence*, ...I would amend that to belief regardless of the evidence." When I challenged this notion, you claimed that you believe that on the basis of "My conversations with the religious." Now, the belief is wrong; it is incorrect; it is not true. But you had a reason for believing it: not a very good reason, but a reason nonetheless. I suspect that no matter how many people you spoke to actually said that, it still consists of a number of Christians who do not comprise any statistically significant number; and I suspect it does not include any significant number of people with formal education in the field. So the problem is not that you had no reason; the problem is it is simply not true.

So my point stands: as with so many other unbelievers, you're arguing the wrong point.

 

[hankroberts]

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

You do understand the etymology does not dictate use?

Reputation for what?

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.

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

And since I still don't know what that is, I still don't know how to respond...


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?

And do you understand that what I said was that this is how the term is used in the biblical record, and how it is used by the Christian community. So if you want to engage in Equivocation you are free to do so, but when Christianity speaks of 'faith', this is how they are using the term. So if you're going to talk about the 'faith of Christians', this is what we are talking about.


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

Reputation for what?

Did you not read what I posted?
"The idea is trust in someone or something on the basis of their trustworthiness or reliability, their steadfast character."
"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’."


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.

And as clearly stated, your notion of "the religious sense of the word specifically" is false: it bears no relationship to reality. The fact is that no significant portion of the Christian community uses the word in that manner. What Christianity teaches about "faith" is precisely in line with what the rest of the world means when they use that term: it is trust in someone or something on the basis of experience or reputation.

Now if you've found a few people who say what you indicate, I believe you: I've heard a few say that as well. (I always correct them.) But I also know a few people who say all atheists are idiots: that doesn't make it true. (Incidentally, I correct them, too.)

 

[Davian]

Ok, I'll try one more time.



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

Your link is broken.

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

I don't need evidence. The burden is not on me, it is on the religionist.

Otherwise, you appear to be presuming it is imaginary, based on your presupposition.[/I]

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

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.

That was not my claim.

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

What evidence do I have that cold fusion does not work? Please remind me.

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

Where do I make this presupposition?

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

I know this to be false, from personal experience. As an adult, I have believed that Santa is real, even though I know (intellectually) that he is not.

Still, belief is not a choice. I cannot consciously decide to once again believe that Santa is real. It just happened, under the right, convincing, circumstances.

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


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.

Not at all. I am not asking for justification of your belief, I am asking in what manner your god belief comports with reality.

I can believe that the Earth is flat, for all of my life. I am justified, in that I have never had to accommodate any alleged roundness in my personal or professional life. That other areas of the world keep different time is annoying, but beyond that, flat is flat. Need I acknowledge that this belief may not comport with reality?

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.

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.

You had your chance.

Yes, inaccurate.

It will take more than your opinion of that to convince me.

 

[Deidre32]

I was raised a Catholic, then departed from Christianity about 4 years ago. A path at that time, led to atheism, and over the past year or so, I've been struggling with making sense of my grandmother's illness and recently, her death. I explored Buddhism and Islam...and even parts of Christianity, again. But, now...I've concluded that what resonates with me in a very natural way is Deism. I don't really like labels per se, but I'd say Deism resonates better with me these days than Theism. No one knows with certainty if a god exists or not...but, I'd like to believe one does. And I still find much beauty in the Abrahamic faiths, but I'm not convinced any one religion is the only enlightening way to 'know' God.

 

[hankroberts]

[/i]
Your link is broken.

I don't need evidence. The burden is not on me, it is on the religionist.

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

That was not my claim.

What evidence do I have that cold fusion does not work? Please remind me.

Where do I make this presupposition?

I know this to be false, from personal experience. As an adult, I have believed that Santa is real, even though I know (intellectually) that he is not.

Still, belief is not a choice. I cannot consciously decide to once again believe that Santa is real. It just happened, under the right, convincing, circumstances.

Not at all. I am not asking for justification of your belief, I am asking in what manner your god belief comports with reality.

I can believe that the Earth is flat, for all of my life. I am justified, in that I have never had to accommodate any alleged roundness in my personal or professional life. That other areas of the world keep different time is annoying, but beyond that, flat is flat. Need I acknowledge that this belief may not comport with reality?

You had your chance.

It will take more than your opinion of that to convince me.

Ok, I'll try one more time. ...

You had your chance.

Indeed; and I gave it my best...

It will take more than your opinion of that to convince me.

And apparently more than logic, reason, and facts. "Against such, even the gods themselves contend in vain." So be it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.[/I]

Really? No one here has claimed that Christian Faith is believing without evidence?

No, no one has claimed that faith means accepting "things as true without absolute scientific proof." You've redefined "without evidence" to mean "without absolute scientific proof."

No, the argument is precisely that your claim is false; that the assertion of belief without good reason is demonstrably incorrect. Practically, epistemically, it is virtually impossible to believe something without having some reason to do so. Try it: you cannot.

Some reason, any reason, does not equate to a good reason. Peter Popoff claims to be a genuine faith healer. 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?

Example: your assertion that "'faith' in the religious sense, which is a strong belief in something without evidence*, ...I would amend that to belief regardless of the evidence." When I challenged this notion, you claimed that you believe that on the basis of "My conversations with the religious." Now, the belief is wrong; it is incorrect; it is not true. But you had a reason for believing it: not a very good reason, but a reason nonetheless. I suspect that no matter how many people you spoke to actually said that, it still consists of a number of Christians who do not comprise any statistically significant number; and I suspect it does not include any significant number of people with formal education in the field. So the problem is not that you had no reason; the problem is it is simply not true.

So my point stands: as with so many other unbelievers, you're arguing the wrong point.

I don't think so, or put otherwise, I'm not convinced by what you've argued so far. In your previous post you seemed to have the issue backward: it's not whether the claim happens to be true or not, but whether there is good reason to believe that it is true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And since I still don't know what that is, I still don't know how to respond...

Now would be a good time to look it up.

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).

I already responded to this.

And do you understand that what I said was that this is how the term is used in the biblical record, and how it is used by the Christian community. So if you want to engage in Equivocation you are free to do so, but when Christianity speaks of 'faith', this is how they are using the term. So if you're going to talk about the 'faith of Christians', this is what we are talking about.

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

Alright, granting your definition, I think it's worthwhile asking: trust on the basis of what experience and reputation for what?

Did you not read what I posted?

No, I told you I wasn't going to respond to a gish gallop.

"The idea is trust in someone or something on the basis of their trustworthiness or reliability, their steadfast character."
"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’."

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 sounds like it; it's the same word being used as a synonym for trust.

And as clearly stated, your notion of "the religious sense of the word specifically" is false: it bears no relationship to reality. The fact is that no significant portion of the Christian community uses the word in that manner. What Christianity teaches about "faith" is precisely in line with what the rest of the world means when they use that term: it is trust in someone or something on the basis of experience or reputation.

Experience of what and reputation for what?

 

[madera23]

You're the only know it intellelectualy, not from within.
Forget everything you studied, that is not from the higher source,
that speaks only to a quiet mind.
Noi to a busy mind that can only hear itself.
Good evening.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You're the only know it intellelectualy, not from within.
Forget everything you studied, that is not from the higher source,
that speaks only to a quiet mind.
Noi to a busy mind that can only hear itself.
Good evening.

Is this an attempt at poetry?

When someone tells me things like this it sounds like they are saying that I'm thinking too much, and that if I stop thinking, then it makes sense.

 

[madera23]

YES
check the bible as someone suggested,
It says "be still and know."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

YES
check the bible as someone suggested,
It says "be still and know."

There's a lot things that might "make sense" if I stopped thinking so much. Being credulous is not a virtue.

 

[Davian]

Ok, I'll try one more time. ...



Indeed; and I gave it my best...

Actually, you declined to respond to my request that you demonstrate that Christianity comports with reality.

And apparently more than logic, reason, and facts.

Well, you would have to do more than just allude to these things.

"Against such, even the gods themselves contend in vain."

Being imaginary, they would have little say in these matters.

So be it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You're the only know it intellelectualy, not from within.
Forget everything you studied, that is not from the higher source,
that speaks only to a quiet mind.
Noi to a busy mind that can only hear itself.
Good evening.

My within agrees with my atheism. It tells me that the universe is amazing and natural and godless. When I look up with a quiet mind at the stars at night, they tell me that they were here long before any of our ideas about God, gods, or goddesses.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My within agrees with my atheism. It tells me that the universe is amazing and natural and godless. When I look up with a quiet mind at the stars at night, they tell me that they were here long before any of our ideas about God, gods, or goddesses.


eudaimonia,

Mark

"My 'within' tells me..."

"You're doing it wrong!!"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Consciousness.

There is a book called biocentrism, by Robert Lanza, that you should read. It basically states that quantum physics points to the fact that the experiments done show that consciousness is creating the world we see, not the other way around.

The truth is that consciousness is the only provable fact, not the physical world that we see in our consciousness. God is the Eternal Consciousness: the first cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DGgvE6hLAU

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Archaeopteryx, try taking a look at the people that do have a background in quantum physics that have reviewed Robert Lanza's book on biocentrism and see what they have to say about the book and Robert Lanza's conclusions.

Like this guy?

Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza's Notion of a Conscious Universe | Nirmukta

Or Moriarty, who I linked to in the video?

 

[Eudaimonist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DGgvE6hLAU

Incidentally, if you change https to http (removing the "s"), it doesn't mess up the page width.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am still waiting for the shred of evidence to show that the physical world actually exists outside of consciousness. Just 1 go ahead.

I maintain the only provable fact is consciousness and if science is the study of provable facts let me see the shred of provable factual evidence that you have to support your theory that the universe exists outside of consciousness.

Nice sidetrack... Not taking the bait though.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Incidentally, if you change https to http (removing the "s"), it doesn't mess up the page width.


eudaimonia,

Mark

THANK-YOU! This is one of the most useful pieces of information I have received today. I'm not being sarcastic either... I've been irate about this page width issue on CF for so long, hoping that someone would come up with a fix for it. I had no inkling that I could fix it myself though, until now.