It take a minimal amount of intelligence and reasoning to know that a fire is hot. Most animals know fire is hot and instinctively avoid the fire. Moths, on the other hand, use moonlight to navigate. They fly towards the light and are burned. Neither has any faith. Human children have to be thought what is hot and learn quickly. If they are not cared for, and they do get burned, they will know for the rest of there life that fire is hot and can harm them. No faith involved. But human reasoning can learn to harness fire for good life cooking meat and killing bacteria in food. Evolved human intelligence and reasoning not faith.
We can’t resolve the faith issue on the BioLogos boards. But I think we can agree that BioLogos represents a faith that enlists the more scientific side of God… 
George
I agree. Biologos’ mission is to harmonize science with faith. However, the results of science are rarely discussed.
Because the science part is not the controversial aspect…
You feeling persecuted and ignored, Patrick?
Not in the least. I feel blessed to live in a secular country where families of “nones” can come together on a secular holiday to enjoy a great meal together without saying grace.
1 Like
Faith is accepting something as true based on rational justification in the absence of proof. The only people that can form a belief based on the absence of evidence are atheists, which is why they claim their belief to be a “non-belief” Considering that a cognitive process such as a belief is to decide if to accept or to reject a truth statement based on presented evidence which for any hypothesis can only be based on inductive or deductive reasoning or witness statements, the admission to have non beliefs, e.g. to be void of a cognitive process when faced with a proposition is only a declaration of being incapable if performing a cognitive process. In that respect new atheism is to having a worldview like non stamp collecting to a hobby. If someone forms a belief based on factual or material evidence such as a dead body in order to belief that the person is dead ,he must be a “bright”, e.g. so intelligent that he cannot gain knowledge from evidence that is proof.
Considering that you propose that one can form a belief without evidence you might please explain how you imagine the formation of a belief without reasoning about evidence.
rational justification? What is that?
Sorry, but I don’t understand the above as it is making no sense to me. belief = non-belief ??
[quote=“Patrick, post:352, topic:3316”]
rational justification? What is that?[/quote]
justification based on the process of reason rather than evidential proof. I take it you understand that evidence does not necessarily represent proof. If I do an experiment my results are evidence towards the truth of my hypothesis. The only experimental data that are proof are those that show a hypothesis to be wrong.
if faced with a proposition you can either be agnostic towards it thus to abstain from judgement about the proposition or express a belief of the proposition to be true or not. To a new atheist however it seems to be possible to form a belief in the absence of evidence as you proposed in your statement whilst they claim that they can only form a non belief because they have no evidence. That is an incoherent statement as a non-belief in the face of a truth proposition would be the admission to be able to entertain a non-cognitive process in their brains- which would be stupid. As such, assuming that they possess intelligence I can only assume that they confuse not to belief something with with the absence of a belief. Considering that to me the only cognitive response to a proposition is to ignore it, to form a belief about it or to resolve the proposition by a proof, e.g. to acquire knowledge you must have a different understanding of cognitive responses that I would like you to explain so I can learn how you propose a belief to come about. It sounds interesting and would surely be helpful towards my study of the philosophy of science.
Neither.
Faith is accepting that things are true even if they have not been proven to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt?
My explanation is that I am agnostic to your beliefs.
that is an incoherent reply to the question. but perhaps coherent with your understanding of an answer
Ok, I will expand on it. I am agnostic to other people’s beliefs. I really don’t care to know what they are and I chose to be agnostic to them. I am also agnostic to just about everything I have read in the Bible. The Bible clearly is not a history book, and certainly not a science book. It is not even a book that is useful to form morals and ethics in 21st century America. To me, the Bible is just 2500 year old ANE mythology. Nothing more and nothing less. When people ask do I believe in this or believe in that, I usually say no. So I am a non-believer in what you believe.
I asked about an explanation of how you consider it to be possible to form a belief without evidence as you belief this to be possible.
Are you sure the book of numbers was not written to teach the calculus? If you believe the bible to be 2500 year old you should put a bit more attention to today’s date and put it in context. Perhaps you read a few “answers” too many 
Yes, I believe that a person can form many beliefs without evidence, even huge amount of evidence contrary to the belief. People do that all the time. People believe in UFOs and astrology. Ask the billion Muslims in the world why they believe in the same God as you do and not Jesus as God. Beliefs can be in anything. And people don’t usually need any evidence to believe in them. How do I think this is possible? Two ways Childhood indoctrination and societal convention.
When was the Bible written/put together? OT about 2500 years ago NT 1900 years ago? When it was pulled together as a book, it is not relevant to me to live in today’s world.
[quote=“Patrick, post:361, topic:3316”]
When was the Bible written/put together? OT about 2500 years ago NT 1900 years ago? When it was pulled together as a book, it is not relevant to me to live in today’s world.
[/quote] your relativistic attitude to the bible is obvious, the us my suggestion to pay attention to detail.
[quote=“Patrick, post:359, topic:3316”]
To me, the Bible is just 2500 year old ANE mythology. Nothing more and nothing less.
[/quote] Were is your evidence for such a belief. Do you know that or is it based on indoctrination?
how do they do that if they have no evidence to believe in
you sound like you believe in a brain in a vat. How can they run a cognitive process without input?
I think you meant “Faith is BELIEVING that things are true even if they …”
George
do you have evidence to think or believe that that. Also, do you think that he meant that or do you believe that he meant that. At least I would not think you have faith that he meant to say that as I figuren you do not accept your belief to be true
forgive me, nothing personal but sorry, I could not resist
Yes I know that the Bible is a collection of stories written by human beings in the Middle East starting around 2500 years ago and ending about 1900 years ago. Tell me what you know as fact about the Bible?
It is called imagination. Humans have an amazing ability to imagine just about anything.