Traditional Christianity is bent. Not congruent with rational faith.
Faith, by definition, is irrational. It transcends both logic and reason and laughs at the need for proof.
Richard
Not so. I have faith that the chair at my desk will not collapse when I next sit in it. We also have objective evidence of God’s trustworthiness.
1 Like
Not using the biblical definition of faith (which I know you know)
Richard
Apparently I don’t. Please enlighten us. (Nowhere does it say that faith is without evidence.)
Hebrews 11: 1
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Richard
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Nope there was nothing in the Biblical definition of faith about rationality.
On the contrary, I assert that rationality is impossible without faith. Logic only takes you from premises to conclusions, therefore without accepting premises on faith, logic will not give you any conclusions at all. (the point being that they go hand in hand rather than being opposites)
The point of faith is that we are not paralyzed by the lack of proof for things but commit ourselves by going forward with our lives and choices by accepting and leaping over such uncertainties. It certainly doesn’t mean we have no good reasons or the evidence of our experiences supporting those choices. (I don’t agree with Dale’s use of the word “objective,” but I agree with him otherwise)
Not being able to see something does not mean there is no rational reason to believe in it. I have faith that my IRS refund will be direct deposited into my bank account. (I do not believe it will be worth as much as the same dollar amount was at the beginning of the year. ; - )
I believe you exist, but sometimes you are unbelievable! XD
Faith based on evidence can be broken if the evidence changes or is disproved and so on. Faith based without the need of evidence is much harder to break. It would need unshakable evidence to override it. (or doubt, of course)
There are, other definitions of faith with rationality included, but I maintain that the Biblical (Pauline) definition emphatically denies evidence (and therefore logic)
Richard
Nope. “evidence” and “logic” are nowhere to be found in that definition. I do not accept your rewrite of the Bible.
I quoted Scripture. There was no redaction or rewrite. It is unambiguous and needs no interpretation.
Richard
We have unshakable evidence – trustworthy testimony, among other things. It is our faith that is shakable.
Trust?
Do we really need to go here?
Faith is beyond trust. Trust is what you have in your chair. It is reliant on experience, either of the object or the person. Trust and faith are not similies.
Richard
I trust in what I have faith in. And I have rational evidence for doing so.
Then it is not biblical faith. The definition stands. There is no discussion here.
My faith in God does not rely on any experience or positive feedback. and as such is unshakable. Whether I have had any sort of positive feedback is not the point. The point is that my faith is not based upon anything else. It germinated from upbringing and Scripture, but it has gone beyond both.
Richard
Says Richard ex cathedra. I believe you have difficulty with rationality. We have trustworthy evidence. XD
Says Scripture. (And I get accused of disbelieving Scripture?)
I have no problem with rationality. I just do not rely on it for my faith. Do you have a problem with that?
Richard
You really have not made your case. The only thing you have cited says that we have faith in what we do not see. That says zip about evidence. Just repeating yourself does not make your ‘argument’ any more compelling.
Just read Hebrews 11. Paul is very clear about what he means. And it includes your notions about evidence. His whole treaty is based on the fact that faith means no evidence…It even talks about faith against conflicting evidence.
I only gave you the opening line. I assumed you would recognise it!
Richard