The F word
The F word is one of the most misunderstood words in the religious arena. The F word is of course, 'faith'.
There are a group of modern atheists who claim that 'faith' the enemy of science and reason. Sam Harris defines faith as 'unjustified belief'. According to Richard Dawkins faith is 'blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence'. AC Grayling goes even further to suggest that faith is a 'commitment to belief contrary to evidence and reason'.
These people claim to not have 'faith', they claim that atheism is not 'faith', but based on evidence and reason.
However these atheists have misunderstood faith. There is nothing wrong with faith. In fact we demonstrate 'faith' every day. Faith is not blind, it is a commitment. Faith often flows from evidence. Faith should not be set against evidence, for the two are not incompatible. We demonstrate faith when we cross the road based on the 'evidence' that there appears to be no vehicles ready to knock us down. We demonstrate 'faith' by sitting on a chair that according to our reason seems sturdy and unlikely to break. We put trust or commitments into these things BASED on the evidence, not contrary to it. This is reasonable faith.
The issue is not whether or not we have 'faith', because we all have faith. The real issue is the reasonableness of that faith. The type of faith these atheists have described is 'blind' faith. It is an unreasonable faith. Essentially they're saying that faith is a commitment to something that we know is just not true. This may be convenient for their own dismissal of religion, but it is not the faith of the Bible. The faith described in the Bible is a faith based on response to the action and activity of Jesus Christ. We are to have faith in Jesus, faith in his death on the cross and faith in his resurrection (look at 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). These are commitments based on evidence in the real world. The question then is not a question about 'faith', instead the question becomes, 'is there reasonable 'evidence' for me to put my faith in Jesus?'
Comments
I think ultimately the problem here is that I care about facts. I want to believe in as many true things as possible while believing in as many few false things as possible. You are just interested in justifying your preconceived beliefs that your life is given meaning by a brutal murder 2000 years ago.
You have a story in 4 parts written in the LATE first century about a man who lived and died in the EARLY first century. The story's details are not independently verified by contemporary sources and only the belief of the cult members for this story was verified at all.
It's one thing to accept that Jesus probably existed, it's another entirely to believe all the things it says in the Gospels about him.
I care about the truth and so I'm highly critical about justifications for believing things, accepting premises. The more significant the premise in its ramifications, the more justification needed. The proportional justification needed for accepting this premise is woefully lacking.
-
Thu, 17/11/2011 - 11:37am—
Mike,
Just want to bring you up on one point. You didn't read my earlier post carefully enough. I didn't rely on 4 stories written late in the first century to justify belief in the resurrection. I relied on 1 Corinthians 15 which was written very soon after the events occurred. 1 Cor 15 was written in the mid 50's, some 20 years after the events recorded, it's not late at all. Further it utilises pre-existing tradition, which brings the distance between the occurrence of the events to their reporting to virtually nothing. By dismissing this so easily I would gently suggest that you have overlooked some of the best evidence for the historical 'truth' of the resurrection of Jesus. Hence my belief in it.
Thanks for your contributions.
Robert
Trust based off an empyrical pattern is a type of faith, therefore not all faith is blind, therefore Christian religious faith is not blind? That's convincing. Believing in aliens has better and more consistent eyewitness testimony than the Bible.
"We demonstrate faith when we cross the road based on the 'evidence' that there appears to be no vehicles ready to knock us down. We demonstrate 'faith' by sitting on a chair that according to our reason seems sturdy and unlikely to break. We put trust or commitments into these things BASED on the evidence, not contrary to it. This is reasonable faith."
This might be reasonable faith, though I would say trust, but it is not similar to religious faith.
If you have faith that there are no cars coming when you cross a road, and you happen to be wrong, what happens?
You act on the expectation that you will cross unharmed, but if you are wrong you may end up in hospital.
If you have faith in a God and you are mistaken, what happens? Nothing. There is nothing that could happen to demonstrate that your faith is misplaced.
That is why religious faith is blind and it is absolutely the faith of the bible. Don't kid yourself.
Mike,
I strongly disagree with your conception of religious faith. Consider the Gospel of John, the author writes in 20:31,
'But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.'
The whole purpose of writing the whole book is to provide the evidence for faith. He never says, 'believe in Jesus even though you know it's not true'.
Can you demonstrate to me where the Bible draws on 'blind' faith to encourage belief?
Hi Robert,
Well the question you have raised has spawned a whole lot of other things!
Firstly, what is blind faith? Is the Christian faith blind? Can be prove that Jesus was raised from the dead? Can I prove to you right now that God exists and I have a relationship with Him?
Should we have faith in visible things? Or is believing in things which are invisible blind faith?
To my understanding, Christians: "walk by faith and not by sight". Christians were "saved in this hope. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience."
We believe in an invisible God who was manifest as flesh for around 33 years, ~2000 years ago. He is invisible. We believe in Him. How is that rational? Sam Harris has a point when he says our faith is blind.
Seeing my ranting has gone nowhere, I'd like to add that I agree with John the apostle's statement that the gospel was indeed written for those to read and after reading, to believe in the Lord Jesus.
Mike,
Wow, yes, you're right. This does spawn lots of other questions.
One of the key questions is, 'Is walking by faith and not by sight' the same as 'blind' faith? I would suggest this isn't the same. Another question is, 'Is it rational to believe in something you can't see?' It seems that you're saying that it is irrational to believe in something you can't see. Is that right?
However I would suggest that this test fails. I can't see you and I've never seen you, but I believe that you exist. None of us have ever 'seen' the wind or gravity. Some scientists even believed in the existence of Neptune before anyone saw it.
I think this topic warrants it's own post and I'll write something else soon to explain this further. Thanks for your questioning and inquisitive comments.
-----"He never says, 'believe in Jesus even though you know it's not true'."
ಠ_ಠ... that's not what blind faith means. Blind faith is something that cannot be distinguished from being wrong. That is how your faith in the bible is not like faith that crossing the road is safe. You're wrong about the bible, nothing. You're wrong about the road, road kill.
-----"Can you demonstrate to me where the Bible draws on 'blind' faith to encourage belief?"
Isn't that a circular question. My understanding of these words says that the faith is the belief. These words are interchangeable in this context. The question is not where the bible draws on "blind faith to encourage belief" but how the bible establishes its epistemology. As an example, Hebrews talk about faith thuslywise:
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...”
You'll undoubtedly disagree, but that sounds blind to me. This is saying explicitly that faith is itself the evidence of things not seen. This is circular again making faith on this basis entirely fallacious. It also aspires to wish-thinking.
So lets say you have faith in something that doesn't exist. What test could you possibly do to learn that you are wrong? Give us a standard of disproof, and that day your faith will no longer necessarily be blind.
Mike,
A quick comment on your statement on how the Bible establishes it's epistemology. I would suggest that one of the key aspects of the Biblical epistemology is empiricism, as I mentioned before John 20:31, is an empirical epistemology, i.e. see the evidence and believe.
In terms of a test which could prove the Christian empiricst wrong is a simple one, 'find the bones of Jesus'. If Jesus' bones were found, Christianity would disintegrate immediately.
----"is an empirical epistemology, i.e. see the evidence and believe."
If that were the case then faith would be irrelevant. The notion of conviction of belief, and the importance of personal experience would be absent from Christianity, it would cease to be religion and it would become science.
To date that has not happened.
----"'find the bones of Jesus'."
That's a ridiculous test. If it weren't true, we still wouldn't expect to find any bones - how could we confirm any set of bones in fact match the Legend of first century hearsay that is Yeshua Christus? Even if we had blood, skin, hair samples &c, there's no expectation that the bones would have to survive or be found, there's no guarantee they could be recovered.
That is not a test that could falsify your test. You're going to have to do a lot better than that to earn your 'Falsifiable' merit badge.
Mike,
Again, my apologies for not responding sooner, but I have been unwell this past week.
Your comment on the relevance of faith in the presence of empiricism misunderstands faith, which is why I wrote the post in the first time. Faith is commitment or trust in a set of data, i.e. faith is the result of empiricism.
We need to have 'faith' even in science. Science can give us data and empirical results, but we still need to trust those conclusions, i.e. conviction of belief. Scientists are constantly modifying their theories as new evidence comes to light.
Thanks for your comment.
Rob
-----"We need to have 'faith' even in science. "
Nope, and you explained why this is the case:
-----"Scientists are constantly modifying their theories as new evidence comes to light."
Scientific theories are only accepted as far as facts can establish them. Going further than that (ie. having faith in things) only makes it harder to keep what is accepted based purely on the facts.
It's irrelevant because if we can prove something empirically then we do not need faith. If we cannot prove something empirically then we should not have faith, because it's not yet justified.
Either way, faith does nothing for us.
Mike,
I think you have collapsed 'data' and 'theory' into the same thing. Many scientific theories are 'the best explanation of the data'. This is why theories are modified and changed as new data comes to light. Scientific theories also need to make predictions - i.e. in light of this theory, this is what we should expect. Then you use the data to confirm or support the theory. I don't think you can ever 'prove' a scientific theory to the same degree of certainty as mathematical proofs, for the two are quite different.
You do need faith even with empirical evidence. You need to trust that the instruments you use are the correct instrument, is correctly calibrated, is used correctly etc. You also need to have faith that you have interpreted the data correctly.
Thanks for your reflections,
Rob
When it comes to falsifyability, some ideas are immediately better than others.
For example, the Theory of Evolution. Were ToE false, it would be very easy to falsify. Firstly, genetics would be nothing like it is. To elaborate, we have a fossil record to map many species' evolution and place them in a phylogenetic tree. We then sequence the DNA of animals and see if their degrees of similarity matches with the phylogenetic tree. The chance of that happening by coincidence is so infinitesimal, as to be negligible by many many multitudes of orders of magnitude. It just wouldn't happen. So if they didn't evolve, there'd be no reason at all why genetics would match phylogeny.
Another way to falsify it would be to find, as J.B.S. Haldane famously put it, "fossil rabbits in the precambrian." The strength of ToE as a scientific theory is that such a small discovery would completely disprove it.
I happen to think that when it comes to Christianity, it comes down to this notion of "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" (or Legend, as I think). The only real way I can imagine Christianity could be entirely falsified (even the sects that believe he may have been human) you be to actually, first, prove he existed oddly enough, and then proceed to prove he was completely mortal and not in communication with a god.
You could find his bones and it wouldn't disprove that he at some point was resurrected (and spiritually ascended). You could prove he didn't die on the cross, doesn't disprove that he wasn't a person at least possessed by God, who still offered forgiveness. Etc., etc., ad nausium.
What about the belief that Jesus wasn't a ploy by Satan to deceive the Jews in their wait for a messiah? How, conversely, could you disprove that? And if you can't then surely it is as justified a faith as any. I know it's said that he drove out Demons and they accused him of doing it by the devil but he said, effectively, the devil cannot turn on his own forces, but that doesn't rule out that it was simply a demonic rouse.
And of course none of that goes towards disproving Judaism, or a personal god, or monotheism or that there's a god at all. It's rather like the antithesis of a theory.
Mike,
The reason I suggested finding the 'bones of Jesus' was because at the heart of my Christian belief is the resurrection of Jesus. I would suggest that if you wanted to convince me out of my belief in Christianity then demonstrate that the resurrection never happened. I would suggest that this is a kind of 'falsifying' test. But I wouldn't go so far as suggesting that these historical claims can be 'proved' or demonstrated 'false'. They can be shown to be reasonable or not.
The other thing to be wary of is applying scientific tests to historical or personal questions. We approach historical questions differently to scientific ones and hence I'd caution before trying to 'prove' or 'falsify' historical events.
Thanks again for your enthusiastic and thoughtful questions and I hope this is further food for thought.
Rob
-----". I would suggest that if you wanted to convince me out of my belief in Christianity then demonstrate that the resurrection never happened. I would suggest that this is a kind of 'falsifying' test. But I wouldn't go so far as suggesting that these historical claims can be 'proved' or demonstrated 'false'."
Precisely, I'm glad you finally see how your religion is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You can not distinguish history where Jesus did not resurrect and a history where he did.
-----"The other thing to be wary of is applying scientific tests to historical or personal questions. We approach historical questions differently to scientific ones and hence I'd caution before trying to 'prove' or 'falsify' historical events."
But see here is where your faith falls down. It's like when people tell me that there's no direct evidence of Socrates existence and I point out that it doesn't matter whether or not Socrates existed. We have the Socratic method regardless and nothing extraordinary is claimed about Socrates. We don't take a hard line on the existence of Socrates. We shouldn't about Jesus either because of the inadequacy of the evidence. Your faith becomes arbitrary making it, I believe, illegitimate.
Mike,
In terms of a 'falsifying' test I would suggest that history doesn't use the same tests as mathematics. History uses the test of reasonableness.
As I said before, if someone could reasonably demonstrate to me that they had found the bones/body/anything that demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was not resurrected, then I would no longer believe in its truth.
I would also suggest that your claim that the evidence of Jesus is 'inadequate' is incorrect. I would suggest there is ample evidence for the truth of his existence and resurrection. Hence rather than making my faith arbitrary, I believe it is trusting in the evidence presented before us.
Thanks for your comment,
Rob
You're demonstrating exactly why faith doesn't work as a method of understanding the world. It cannot distinguish reality from delusion with any reliability. Just look to other religions who use equally flimsy historical evidence to rationalise their arbitrary beliefs.
[In terms of a 'falsifying' test I would suggest that history doesn't use the same tests as mathematics. History uses the test of reasonableness.]
But the problem for you here is "reasonableness" gets thrown out the window for extreme premises. You could never expect to find enough evidence to reasonable conclude that a particular preacher 2000 years ago was a magic man sent from God.
The "reasonableness" test might be able to tell you if he existed, what his beliefs where, and what events he was alleged to do as well as how his cult developed over the decades following his death, but you could never find the evidence required to reasonably conclude divinity.
[As I said before, if someone could reasonably demonstrate to me that they had found the bones/body/anything that demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was not resurrected, then I would no longer believe in its truth.]
I'm sorry but the burden of proof is on your shoulders. If you want to claim Jesus existed as described, you have to find the evidence proving he ascended heavenward.
[I would also suggest that your claim that the evidence of Jesus is 'inadequate' is incorrect. I would suggest there is ample evidence for the truth of his existence and resurrection. Hence rather than making my faith arbitrary, I believe it is trusting in the evidence presented before us.]
You have a legend that is attested to in a handful of books written decades after the events they described which are not independently verified but contemporary sources. You cannot pretend to tell me your faith is somehow not arbitrary.