Christian Faith

[Politesse]

Would you say the same about atheist proselytisers / counter-apologists lacking confidence?

Christians have a scriptural warrant for defending what they think. (1st Peter 3:15)

Well, I certainly agree with Peter there! If one is honest and earnest in one's beliefs, it should not be hard to give a polite testimony as to the foundation of one's faith, if asked. If I did not believe in the power of such conversations I would hardly be here. But that is not the same thing as trying to "prove" God, as though he were a court case. Or a game of Mornington Crescent. In the next verse, the same letter-writer reminds the reader of the importance of keeping a clear conscience; the heat of a vituperative argument or the web of a skilled rhetorician are perilous waters for such an enterprise.

 

[Lion IRC]

Right.
And scripture nowhere commissions Christians to have to "prove" God exists according to some arbitrary level of empirical, repeatable evidence as is so frequently demanded by strong atheists.
Plus you have to balance the ideal of "polite" testimony with the need to speak in tongues as it were. Frankly, there's a lot of folks around here who only speak vulgarian. (When in Rome....)

 

[DBT]

Biblical faith is a product of evidence and non-evidentiary belief.

You guys know me, and as far as I can remember, I've never posted a scripture, but let's take one for illustrative purposes:

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Both believe. Thomas believes and others. But, Thomas has evidence, right? Yes, but others have evidence too. So, evidence isn't the decisive factor. What you probably see is that others have faith whereas Thomas didn't, and though that too is true, it's still true others have evidence. What Thomas has is indisputable knowledge and evidence based belief. Others have faith, which is a kind of belief, but it's not separate from evidence, even if that doesn't guarantee knowledge.

If God came down and impressed upon us His powers such that nobody would deny Him, we all would believe, but no former believer nor new believer would have a faith-based belief. The latter would have a history of denying previous evidence (because no knowledge was guaranteed by it) and no acceptance of non-evidentiary belief whereas former believers (that continue to be believers) would no longer solely have a mix of evidence-based and non-evidence-based belief--where the prior evidence-based belief is different from the new evidence-based belief. The new evidence better guarantees knowledge.

I can't see anything that qualifies as evidence - a body of information that anyone can examine and draw a similar conclusion, a body of information that supports a given proposition, belief, hypothesis, theory, etc.

What we have in the bible stories that tell us about the experiences of Thomas, Peter, Paul, etc, is not verifiable. They are claims that require evidence in order to be justified, to be proven to have happened as described, so these are not examples of evidence that supports the truth of these stories and claims.

 

[DBT]

Right.
And scripture nowhere commissions Christians to have to "prove" God exists according to some arbitrary level of empirical, repeatable evidence as is so frequently demanded by strong atheists.
Plus you have to balance the ideal of "polite" testimony with the need to speak in tongues as it were. Frankly, there's a lot of folks around here who only speak vulgarian. (When in Rome....)

Evidence isn't just demanded by ''Strong Atheists'' - it's an everyday requirement. Buying property; a deed of ownership. Purchasing goods and services; receipts, tickets, etc, proof of payment.

But it seems that this normal standard of prudence does not apply to matters of faith, where beliefs are accepted because their claims are appealing and written in ''Holy Books''

 

[Lion IRC]

God isn't "selling" you something.
Funny that you want proof of payment.

 

[DBT]

God isn't "selling" you something.
Funny that you want proof of payment.

It is not God, but the collection of books we call the bible, written to convince its readers of something, the reality of its god, damnation, salvation, Jesus, etc.... therefore, in a sense, the authors are 'selling' their own set of beliefs. Believe this if you wish to be saved....

 

[bilby]

God isn't "selling" you something.
Funny that you want proof of payment.

Churches are selling God. They all claim that all the others don't have one to sell.

I want to see evidence that any of them have an actual God, before I buy.

But none of them have any such evidence. All they have is their sales materials, showrooms, and a bunch of guys saying 'don't trust them, trust us'.

 

[Tigers!]

If you are a Christian with true faith why must you intellectualize and prove the faith as true?

I would think that with true faith on can simply dwell in the it without having to explain, prove, or justify. Eternal impervious unassailable joy. Which by the way is what I believe the Buddhism goal, without a deity.

Steve
Didn't you start a similar thread a couple of months ago? Was that one not satisfactory?

 

[fast]

Biblical faith is a product of evidence and non-evidentiary belief.

You guys know me, and as far as I can remember, I've never posted a scripture, but let's take one for illustrative purposes:

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Both believe. Thomas believes and others. But, Thomas has evidence, right? Yes, but others have evidence too. So, evidence isn't the decisive factor. What you probably see is that others have faith whereas Thomas didn't, and though that too is true, it's still true others have evidence. What Thomas has is indisputable knowledge and evidence based belief. Others have faith, which is a kind of belief, but it's not separate from evidence, even if that doesn't guarantee knowledge.

If God came down and impressed upon us His powers such that nobody would deny Him, we all would believe, but no former believer nor new believer would have a faith-based belief. The latter would have a history of denying previous evidence (because no knowledge was guaranteed by it) and no acceptance of non-evidentiary belief whereas former believers (that continue to be believers) would no longer solely have a mix of evidence-based and non-evidence-based belief--where the prior evidence-based belief is different from the new evidence-based belief. The new evidence better guarantees knowledge.

I can't see anything that qualifies as evidence - a body of information that anyone can examine and draw a similar conclusion, a body of information that supports a given proposition, belief, hypothesis, theory, etc.

What we have in the bible stories that tell us about the experiences of Thomas, Peter, Paul, etc, is not verifiable. They are claims that require evidence in order to be justified, to be proven to have happened as described, so these are not examples of evidence that supports the truth of these stories and claims.

You're making "verifiable evidence" sound redundant. Verifiability is not a necessary condition for evidence. Furthermore, "supports" doesn't entail "prove."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Would you say the same about atheist proselytisers / counter-apologists lacking confidence?

Christians have a scriptural warrant for defending what they think. (1st Peter 3:15)

Well, I certainly agree with Peter there! If one is honest and earnest in one's beliefs, it should not be hard to give a polite testimony as to the foundation of one's faith, if asked. If I did not believe in the power of such conversations I would hardly be here. But that is not the same thing as trying to "prove" God, as though he were a court case. Or a game of Mornington Crescent. In the next verse, the same letter-writer reminds the reader of the importance of keeping a clear conscience; the heat of a vituperative argument or the web of a skilled rhetorician are perilous waters for such an enterprise.

That is a very sophisticated way of saying that religious faith has it's own standards when it comes to what constitutes evidence, and that those standards are without value when it comes to deciding real life issues. Actually, it is to say that evidence does not matter at all when it comes to religious faith. And of course I would agree 100%.

 

[steve_bank]

If you are a Christian with true faith why must you intellectualize and prove the faith as true?

I would think that with true faith on can simply dwell in the it without having to explain, prove, or justify. Eternal impervious unassailable joy. Which by the way is what I believe the Buddhism goal, without a deity.

Steve
Didn't you start a similar thread a couple of months ago? Was that one not satisfactory?

I can.t help myself, it is as if a spout guides my fingers. Sometimes I think it may be god sending a message to hypercritical Christians through me.

 

[DBT]

I can't see anything that qualifies as evidence - a body of information that anyone can examine and draw a similar conclusion, a body of information that supports a given proposition, belief, hypothesis, theory, etc.

What we have in the bible stories that tell us about the experiences of Thomas, Peter, Paul, etc, is not verifiable. They are claims that require evidence in order to be justified, to be proven to have happened as described, so these are not examples of evidence that supports the truth of these stories and claims.

You're making "verifiable evidence" sound redundant. Verifiability is not a necessary condition for evidence. Furthermore, "supports" doesn't entail "prove."

Several factors come into play. There was the claim that testimony is a form of evidence. What is said in a testimony, the described events, etc, may or may not be empirically verifiable. Hence the value of the testimony as evidence may rest on other factors, or dismissed altogether.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I can't see anything that qualifies as evidence - a body of information that anyone can examine and draw a similar conclusion, a body of information that supports a given proposition, belief, hypothesis, theory, etc.

What we have in the bible stories that tell us about the experiences of Thomas, Peter, Paul, etc, is not verifiable. They are claims that require evidence in order to be justified, to be proven to have happened as described, so these are not examples of evidence that supports the truth of these stories and claims.

You're making "verifiable evidence" sound redundant. Verifiability is not a necessary condition for evidence. Furthermore, "supports" doesn't entail "prove."

Several factors come into play. There was the claim that testimony is a form of evidence. What is said in a testimony, the described events, etc, may or may not be empirically verifiable. Hence the value testimony as evidence may rest on other factors, or dismissed altogether.

I think we've demonstrated that religious evidence consists of testimony, testimony and more testimony.

Pardon me, it's late. The sound of my typing will likely disturb bigfoot. I assure everyone that he is right now under my bed asleep. I can hear his breathing and he is giving off a smell like wet leaves.

 

[bilby]

Several factors come into play. There was the claim that testimony is a form of evidence. What is said in a testimony, the described events, etc, may or may not be empirically verifiable. Hence the value testimony as evidence may rest on other factors, or dismissed altogether.

I think we've demonstrated that religious evidence consists of testimony, testimony and more testimony.

Pardon me, it's late. The sound of my typing will likely disturb bigfoot. I assure everyone that he is right now under my bed asleep. I can hear his breathing and he is giving off a smell like wet leaves.

Well, all you need to assert a religious belief as true, is great big swinging testimonials.

 

[Politesse]

Would you say the same about atheist proselytisers / counter-apologists lacking confidence?

Christians have a scriptural warrant for defending what they think. (1st Peter 3:15)

Well, I certainly agree with Peter there! If one is honest and earnest in one's beliefs, it should not be hard to give a polite testimony as to the foundation of one's faith, if asked. If I did not believe in the power of such conversations I would hardly be here. But that is not the same thing as trying to "prove" God, as though he were a court case. Or a game of Mornington Crescent. In the next verse, the same letter-writer reminds the reader of the importance of keeping a clear conscience; the heat of a vituperative argument or the web of a skilled rhetorician are perilous waters for such an enterprise.

That is a very sophisticated way of saying that religious faith has it's own standards when it comes to what constitutes evidence, and that those standards are without value when it comes to deciding real life issues. Actually, it is to say that evidence does not matter at all when it comes to religious faith. And of course I would agree 100%.

I didn't say any of those things? Or attempt to be sophisticated for that matter. It's not a complicated thing.

 

[Lion IRC]

I can't see anything that qualifies as evidence - a body of information that anyone can examine and draw a similar conclusion, a body of information that supports a given proposition, belief, hypothesis, theory, etc.

What we have in the bible stories that tell us about the experiences of Thomas, Peter, Paul, etc, is not verifiable. They are claims that require evidence in order to be justified, to be proven to have happened as described, so these are not examples of evidence that supports the truth of these stories and claims.

You're making "verifiable evidence" sound redundant. Verifiability is not a necessary condition for evidence. Furthermore, "supports" doesn't entail "prove."

Ditto what fast said

 

[DBT]

I can't see anything that qualifies as evidence - a body of information that anyone can examine and draw a similar conclusion, a body of information that supports a given proposition, belief, hypothesis, theory, etc.

What we have in the bible stories that tell us about the experiences of Thomas, Peter, Paul, etc, is not verifiable. They are claims that require evidence in order to be justified, to be proven to have happened as described, so these are not examples of evidence that supports the truth of these stories and claims.

You're making "verifiable evidence" sound redundant. Verifiability is not a necessary condition for evidence. Furthermore, "supports" doesn't entail "prove."

Ditto what fast said

To which I replied;

Several factors come into play. There was the claim that testimony is a form of evidence. What is said in a testimony, the described events, etc, may or may not be empirically verifiable. Hence the value of the testimony as evidence may rest on other factors, or be dismissed altogether.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ditto what fast said

To which I replied;

Several factors come into play. There was the claim that testimony is a form of evidence. What is said in a testimony, the described events, etc, may or may not be empirically verifiable. Hence the value of the testimony as evidence may rest on other factors, or be dismissed altogether.

This is precisely how life works and is why we don't place value on everything we hear or read. Think for a moment how life would be if we had to believe everything we hear or read. Instead we naturally evaluate those inputs for veracity, dismissing sensationalism as a lie or just entertainment. These are simple judgement decisions based on experience.

I recently watched a documentary about opioid addiction in the U.S. The brains of addicts are different after addiction occurs. When the addiction has been successfully treated, however, those same brains revert back to being normal in terms of grey matter and the number of dopamine receptors, and the brain ceases to experience those same overpowering cravings. The brain is then once again able to make good decisions when it comes to judgement and day to day life.

There is obviously a difference in the brain of persons who cannot recognize sensationalism. Like everything else this occurs in degrees. But it is fascinating to know that there are adults who cannot make the decision that there is not a bigfoot sleeping under their bed or an invisible person living in the sky, or a demigod talking to them, or apply the simple rules of everyday existence to know some things are not possible, like stories of people flying around in the sky and doing impossible things.

It's probably just fantasizing in the end, but there is certainly a quantifiable, physical, brain connection, just as in a schizophrenic or a child brain. I would not call it abnormal, just different.

 

[ronburgundy]

Would you say the same about atheist proselytisers / counter-apologists lacking confidence?

Christians have a scriptural warrant for defending what they think. (1st Peter 3:15)

First, most Christians do not know that verse as they don't know 99% of the Bible. Second, that verse does not speak about giving any kind of intellectual, evidence-based justification for their belief, but merely "a reason for the hope that is in you." That reason could be "because I have faith" or "because I feel it in my heart". So, it doesn't not account for why so many theists tout faith as a valid basis for belief and yet attempt to construct a rationale that treats faith as insufficient. The likely explanation is that they do not sincerely believe that faith is sufficient and they are on some level ashamed of using faith as defense to others because they know it amounts to nothing more than a childish "because I want it to be true."

As for atheists, they use argument and evidence because they also do not believe that faith is a legitimate basis for belief. The difference is that atheists are honest about this, unlike theists who use non-faith arguments while also claiming that faith is sufficient basis for belief, because they have to pretend faith is legitimate since they always wind up having to retreat to it when their attempt at dishonest pseudo-intellectualism fail and they are forced back into "Well, I just have faith."

BTW, the father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, understood that The Church's attempts to use intellect and reason was folly, which is why he rejected this approach and advocated a purely emotional relationship with God, and said “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

 

[fast]

Ditto what fast said

To which I replied;

Several factors come into play. There was the claim that testimony is a form of evidence.

There is that claim, yes, and that claim is true, not false. There's even a term for it, a two-worded term, and it's called "Testimonial Evidence."

What is said in a testimony, the described events, etc, may or may not be empirically verifiable.

Correct; I have no qualms with that assertion. People say things. Some of the things people say are true. Some are not. Just as some of the things that are said are verifiable, some are not. People make true statements that are verifiable, and people make true statements that are not verifiable; Moreover, people make false statements that are verifiable, and people make false statements that are not verifiable.

Hence the value of the testimony as evidence may rest on other factors, or be dismissed altogether.

Keep the issues separate. There are often net equivalences. Either unverifiable testimonial evidence is evidence or it's not--equivalence to value be damned.

Saying "one has evidence but it's not worth a damn" might ring up to equivalent values with "you have no evidence," but in the latter, there is no evidence at all while with the former, there is evidence--just perhaps not considered to be worth a damn since to some it is unverifiable.