I prefer the translation which has the author stating that faith is evidence. What a concept, that our faith can actually be evidence.
1 Like
Sounds a little bit like the pragmatism of Charles Sanders Pierce based on the maxim: the effect of believing something is part of its truth value. This is something I adhere to as well.
I think it’s blind faith and I’m not an atheist or using it as a power move nor do I believe it’s synonymous with a lie.
Faith is not the antithesis (the correct word) of evidence. There are reasons for faith, it just is not subject to proof. Anyone who thinks that there are not reasons and evidence for faith might as well be a Pastafarian.
3 Likes
So for me evidence means something that proves something. It’s submitted as evidence to prove a position. So it’s this simple.
-
No one on this planet from any faith is seemingly able to walk into saint Jude children’s hospital wing and begin to systematically 100% cure on the spot instantly every child regardless of what cancer they have or what stage they are at. They can’t walk and go into the local VA hospital and begin to heal every crippled person instantly, on the spot, regardless of what God/goddess they pray to, regardless of what magical potions they create and so on. Something that we see that Jesus did. Jesus and his apostles for years healed person after person instantly with just the touch of their fingers or shadow. Healed person after person regardless of what they faced, even death and supernatural cosmic evil beings, Indra fly in front of crowds of people.
-
There is no concrete evidence that the supernatural exists. Not any god, demon, reincarnated spirit of long deceased person or someone’s ancestors.
-
There is nothing that can prove that Jesus or any apostles preformed any supernatural miracles.
-
There is no proof of intelligent design. Not in how any laws came about. Not in how evolution happened. Not how cosmology works. Just no evidence anywhere.
If you disagree with any of these four just submit the undeniable proof. Since I have never seen anyone able to disprove beyond reasonable doubt with concrete verifiable evidence that those claims are wrong it means to me there is no evidence.
So for me, my faith, which could be in a pasta god, os not. My faith is in the god revealed as Yahweh to ancient Jews who is the father of Jesus Christ. All things that I accept as faith, and not because of evidence.
1 Like
Reprise for us your conversion account – it has to do with evidence… Actually, I have it handy:
There is a big difference between evidence and undeniable proof, and even proof is deniable:
“…they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'”
Luke 16:21
1 Like
God is active in the world and people from an incredible diversity of cultures across time and geography report similar encounters with the Holy Spirir and demonstrate similar transformation in their lives. In addition to the testimony of multitudes of people, I have my own testimony of encountering God in ways that harmonize with the gospel preached in the New Testament. Is all of this something atheists who don’t share these experiences will find compelling? Probably not, but that isn’t threatening to me or my faith. I hope they live long and prosper and find meaning and purpose in life. But I’m allowed to trust my own experiences, because my own experiences are a valid way of knowing truth for me.
3 Likes
I would also submit that that many have objective, as in factual, experiences and thoughts, even if they are not outwardly observable. Just because they are personal does not make them subjective – subjectivity involves sensations and feelings, not facts. (Phil Yancey’s account jumps to mind.) That is certainly not to say that they do not involve emotions as well!
We’ve discussed before how you are using objective to mean unbiased and most of the rest of the world uses objective (in the context of evidence) to mean without reference to an experiencer/subject and I am not going to rehash all that here. Please don’t derail the conversation again into a long argument for why experiences are objective evidence.
2 Likes
You should consider that I am very aware of my own story and that I still have landed where I landed because ultimate all of that could be a coincidence. I choose to have faith that it was something of God. It’s not evidence though because it does not prove the supernatural does anything. It proves out of around 27,000 prayers I’ve roughly prayed in my life maybe 2-5 were answered and were answered in a way that could still have just been coincidence. A 0.019 success rate just is not proof for me.
But I don’t see the need to defend my faith or keep circling around what i mentioned as proof and evidence vs faith. So I’m pulling out of the convo until something new arises.
After all, I’m not here to undermine what works for you but share what works for me with someone who I think is more likely to view proof the same as I do.
The view of faith as the antipathy of reason can get you into a lot of trouble if you actually put such a view into practice. Been there, seen it, done it, got the T-shirt.
Reason and faith should be viewed as complementary, not contradictory. Hebrews 11:1 tells us that faith is the evidence of what we do not see. It does not tell us that faith is the denial of what we do see. That is lying.
Faith is being prepared to take action when you have insufficient evidence but only someone’s word to go on. But you still need to verify the integrity of the evidence that you do have, and that is what reason is all about.
Venture capitalists and investors apply this principle all the time. Just watch any episode of Dragon’s Den. Investing tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds in a startup is ultimately a step of faith, but if they didn’t apply reason before taking that step of faith, they would end up investing in people who don’t know what a balance sheet is, trying to break into an already saturated market with vapourware.
When you start viewing reason and faith as enemies, rather than as complementary to each other, it’s all too easy to end up getting into complete unreality or making things up. I’ve seen people buy into that line who ended up considering it perfectly acceptable to make demonstrably untrue claims about material facts, completely losing track of the fact that doing such a thing is lying. I think that the thirteen or so LSDYECs who have tried to convince me that Deuteronomy 25:13-16 does not apply to science most likely all fall into that category. And don’t get me started on the way they end up falling hook, line and sinker for every tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that’s out there…
7 Likes
That Jesus existed does not mean he did and said everything in the gospels. You are conflating a historical Jesus with a Biblical Christ.
For me it’s about experiencing God while reading the gospels. They are marvelous literature but beyond that nothing special. It’s God that is special. God uses them to mediate the sacred. They aren’t super unique or super accurate or super trustworthy by themselves. These are all myths of apologists who desire certainty. The fact is if you read the gospels individually they look coherent and consistent. But if you get a synopsis and read them side by side the differences strike you as being very obvious.
We can know that Jesus existed in the first third of the first century, he was a Jewish teacher, considered a miracle worker, He was crucified and many of his closest followers believed He rose from the dead. We also know that a crucified Messiah was not what the Jews were really expecting at the time.
No they can’t. Roman records would suggest Jesus was dumped in a shallow grave. Not buried in a kingly-like tomb with a fancy rolling stone, only 4 of which out of the 900 or so discovered look like. What Jewish records support Matthew’s claims about the guards? They are extremely late if there are any and cannot be shown to be independent of the gospel. Now I don’t rule out burial. I think Jesus was buried but quote after quote from ancient Roman authors would indicate crucified victims were often left for wild animals. But during a time of relative peace and to satisfy Jewish piety this is very possible. We have a bone box with a crucified victim in it to show it.
Roman records confirm the act of crucifixion as a capital punishment at the time for certain a classes of criminals/crimes. Tacitus records Jesus being crucified but he writes 85 years later and may simply be telling the basic story as known at the time, not providing a line of transmission back a century earlier. Josephus is a much better source but the interpolation issue reigns high. I believe Josephus clearly references Jesus based on the shorter passage which necessitates the longer one in some form.
And the fact that Jesus was crucified is only that. Thousands of others were crucified. It means nothing by itself. Just that some guy came to a grisly end 2000 years ago. It does not validate the gospels, the theological meaning they assign to it or the resurrection.
Most critical scholars consider the guards made up or legendary. Matthew is embellishing Mark (think of all those dead saints walking around Jerusalem and no on on record mentioning it). Matthew went full apocalyptic. He loves earthquakes! Mark probably embellished the actual burial of Jesus as well.
The historical record could more easily indicate Rome had no concern about a peasant from some backwater hamlet who gathered a following rising from the grave. They would have hunted and crucified Jesus’s followers if they considered Him and them a major threat as well. They did not so they did not. Beyond this is apologetical imagination. Joseph of Arimathea was most likely real but Jesus may have been buried in a common Jewish grave by a member of the Sanhedrin to satisfy Jewish piety which Mark turns into a kingly tomb and other gospels into a follower. It’s very bizarre at any rate to see a member of the Sanhedrin
burying Jesus. It might just be Markan irony as well. Closest followers abandon him but a Jewish Sanhedrin member buried him. It’s so odd there is most likely a historical core here. But Matthew and John make him a disciple. One a “secret disciple.” These are more likely narrative developments of Mark than independent historical information.
I did the opposite. I said just because Jesus existed as a man does not mean anything wrote about him is true. That you have to accept by faith the supernatural stories about him.
3 Likes
and yet NONE of your examples are about blind faith, which I defined as going AGAINST the evidence and reason – basically willful ignorance.
They 1-4 are all examples of not having any proof or evidence not some need to go against proof or evidence.
Thus these are all examples of how I defined real faith as leaping over the gap between evidence and belief. There is a faith that the Bible isn’t lying to us just as scientists have a faith that the evidence isn’t lying to them.
Amen to that!
1 Like
- Hear! Hear!
- My own initial response to this thread’s OP was “personal” precisely because I chose not to try to speak for others.
- That said, I am personally convinced that there not only is no conflict between “orthodox faith” and “good science”: the vocabularies of both, IMO, become complementary the closer both approach accuracy.
- In fact, I go so far as to define “Beauty” as the result of “Faith” and “Science” agreeing.
3 Likes
I guess if that’s the leaps in logic you make that’s the leaps in logic you have landed on.
Jesus didn’t think so, else He wouldn’t have told the audience at the house in Capernaum, “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.”"
He was supplying the audience with evidence.
Yes. Paul certainly pointed to evidence on occasion.
2 Likes
I completely agree.