Faith. The word that has been used and abused by billions throughout the centuries. It can have good, bad, or evil connotations, depending on who you talk to. Today I want to examine the word from a few angles, to clear up some misconceptions that people like to use, and to make a point. I fear I may step on a great many toes today, but I will seek to not misrepresent anything, only point out the flaws that necessarily exist, but are often overlooked. Before we proceed, we must establish a coherent, unchanging, clear definition of faith, which is slightly impossible with so many definitions floating around from other people.
Faith: Working Definition(s)
faith (noun) (from Dictionary.com)
The above set of definitions serve to point out some of the problems when talking about “faith:” namely, the fact that faith(1) means confidence or trust in something, while faith(2) is belief in the absence of proof. The problem in the English language, and even in the Greek (pistis), is that the word for faith is used interchangably, and only on examination of context can you be sure which is used. *A note on the Greek, the word Elpsis is also translated as faith, in 1 instance in the KJV, but more often as hope.* From here we need to examine which definition is used to describe faith. First we look to the most commonly referred definition of faith given in the bible, Hebrews 11:1 (NASB): “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” We must spend time here before proceeding.
Faith itself is the substitution of evidence for hope. Let me repeat: Faith acts as a substitute for the assurance given by evidence (things seen), to give credibility to a belief or claim. Here we see a very clear parallel to faith(2) given above. The latter portion of the verse, “the conviction of things not seen” refers to the epistemology employed by people on almost all other matters. It is assurance (or belief) of things you hope to be true, despite having no emperical evidence. So a slightly reworked wording of Hebrews 11:1 is “Faith is the proof for what one hopes is true, in spite of observable proof.” I have made no grave errors in this extension, but it is becoming apparent where this is not necessarily an optimal use of our reasoning faculties.
Mincing the Definition
It is often said to me that I (as an atheist) take things on faith. This is true, in the sense of faith(1) but no longer in the sense of faith(2). I have faith(1) that this chair will not collapse below me as I sit, which is based on a reasoned, emperical evaluation of prior evidence to support this idea. I can observe the chair’s materials, its construction, examine the physics of the mass-weight ratio, the orientation, the material construction. I could, if need be, present a mathematical proof to a journal on why the chair will hold me up. This means that if I use the word faith(1) here, it is definition 1; i could just as easily say I have a belief founded in evidence that the chair will hold me up.
This is not the same as faith(2) which is used in theistic circles to mean belief in the absence of evidence; they are completely contradictory terms in this case, and mean nothing like the same thing. When discussing religious matters, this misuse of the term is known as the straw-man fallacy, which basically ignores the case of an opponent and attacks a distorted version of their case. By switching out the definition for faith(2) with “reasonable hope,” you are being at least patently ignorant, and at worst intellectually dishonest. Also, in this article I am addressing the second, biblical definition of faith, not the first. As I said previously, faith(2) acts as a substitutionary reason for belief in something, so faith(2) satisfies 1Peter 3:15b “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” In the next section I seek to provide a basis for equating biblical faith to the definition given by faith(2).
Examples of faith(2)
In Hebrews, following verse 1, is an area called by many evangelists the “Hall of Faith,” a list of heroes of sorts to the Jews the letter was intended for. One such story mentioned is that of Abraham in verses 17-18. By faith, Abraham followed through with God’s command to sacrifice his only son, having been told to by a voice speaking to him (presumably within his head). Abraham invented a story when asked by his child what was to be sacrificed; “The lord will provide a sacrifice,” hoping beyond hope. Even considering this story I am met with the vestiges of hoping in my own life to have faith like Abraham. But let us step back:
Is it a universally beneficial trait to listen to voices in your head that tell you to slit the throat of your son on the altar, with no observable evidence that this voice is anything more than a hallucination? Schizophrenia often results in audible hallucinations, and can result in self-destructive or otherwise violent behavior that does not typically characterize the normal mode of operation of a person. And yet this is held up as the pinnacle of human spiritual development.
A second example, that is a “preemptive strike against critical thinking” as Matt Dillahunty put it, is that of “doubting Thomas.” The story is told in John 20 (NASB):
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called [d]Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
26[e]After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been[f]shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then He *said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
Here we have a story whose moral is incredibly clear: It is better, more admirable, to trust the message of the Resurrection in spite of the lack of evidence for it. This highlights the problem I find inherent to Christianity: It makes a virtue out of accepting stories without evidence as factual occurrence. Many go so far as to willfully ignore evidence to suit their own views. There is a word for this, and it is nearly the same as faith(2): Gullibility.
Gullibility:credulousness: tendency to believe too readily and therefore to be easily deceived
Dangers of Faith(2)
Few like to be called gullible, and rightly so. We learned the dangers of gullibility on the playground, when people told us our hands were bigger than our face, or in the cafeteria, when others insisted that it was not, in fact a word. We paid a price in the laughter of our peers, when we found, scrutinizing the pages of Meriam-Webster, the word was there all along. Many more have been suckered into pyramid schemes, the lies of faith healers or mystics; of televangelists promising wealth if you sow your seed into their ministry.
Many more will say that they could never have been suckered in to such obvious hoaxes; that they live absent gullibility. And yet they are willing to accept, based merely on flimsy non-eyewitness testimony, that a man rose from the dead? As George Carlin (NSFW) said, “When it comes to bull, big-time, major league bull, you have to stand in awe at the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims: religion; no contest.” What evidence is there for these claims, that any one God is real, whether it is Allah, Jesus, or Yahweh? Even for Thor or Apollo or the great bear spirit. There is none. What evidence there is points to the fact that religions are man-made: Stories, fables, guidelines and laws that benefited the story inventors in some way or another. The bible contains nothing about calculus, electricity, or any evidence of divine authorship rather than a desert-tribe story collection. Yet there are verses that dissuade normal agriculture and textile techniques that we have known for centuries to be vastly superior. Ever heard of cotton-polyester blend? God hadn’t.
Conclusion
So, everyone is left with a choice. Your beliefs about the workings of the universe can be founded in empirical, reliable, observable facts, or you can substitute evidence for faith(2). In no other realm but religion do we ignore observable facts. If we are told our house is burning, we go to see it. If we are told a loved one is dead, dying, or stricken with illness, we want to be with them. If a political system is failing, we look to the candidates, see where the money went, and what went wrong. But when it comes to the most important questions: Who are we? Where did we come from? What happens after we die? We are admonished by our pastors, our friends and neighbors, by the writers of the gospels, the epistles, the torah, to accept as fact fantastical stories on words alone. No thinking person in their right mind would ever dream of believing that their mother was murdered by President Obama, or that I can levitate, without proof; and yet many millions of Americans believe that a man rose from the dead, in spite of evidence of forgery, heresy, and with no contemporary records of him even existing at all.
So I would urge you to examine whether your faith(2) in God merits you altering every area of your life, realizing that he probably doesn’t exist.
My mom died today.
I have FAITH she is out of pain.
I have FAITH she is with God, in whom she believed, and that her soul lives on forever.
I have FAITH I will see her again, and that she will be watching me from heaven, guiding me through life.
I have FAITH that the days, weeks and years accompanying this will somehow become bearable.
Have you ever had something bad happen to you? Like, really bad? Something tragic and awful and unfair? Have you ever found yourself in a situation where science and empirical evidence just didn’t apply? Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you where searching for an explanation, searching for reason, looking for logic and found none?
Maybe you should try having your mother die of cancer, slowly and painfully, and see what that’s like. You should try looking at her withered body and telling her, “Hey. It’s just Darwinism, and you didn’t make the cut. Sorry!” You should try telling her that the God she believes in is a lie, and she’s just going to rot like every other tree, leaf and animal out there. You should sit there with all your little books and your little philosophers and your logic and your “evidence” and formulate some foolproof theory about watching the person who brought you into this world die in front of your eyes. What does your calculus and your evolutionary science have to say about that? I’d love to know, because it’s pretty hard for me right now, and maybe that’s because I’m delusional enough to believe in God. So if you have another, better, easier way to process all of this, if you’ve got it figured out, I’d love to know, because I could use some comfort right now.
Amanda,
I’m sorry.
Period.
As much as I possibly can, I’m struggling to empathize and feel your pain, as a fellow human who has had part of their life wrought from their mind. I will do a blog post in response to this, because you deserve the respect and consideration of myself.
I have no idea, and cannot imagine, the pain and anguish you feel right now. I took some time to read through your blog, and find that your mother was a wonderful, beautiful person, that was filled with life and joy, and who you saw struggle for a long period of time. You’re absoulutely right; you deserve to be heard, and If i could will it, i would stop the sun to mourn with you.
I don’t think you’re delusional. I think that we as people want answers to the hard questions, and we feel like the universe owes us an explanation when shit happens. When people die, when children suffer. We want answers, and we demand those answers from anyone that can give one.
I don’t have it figured out. I don’t have words that can magically make the pain go away. I can only offer up what we know about our minds. I can only say that it’s right for you to feel pain. That it is normal for you to feel betrayed by the universe. But I can say that through you, your mother lives on. Through your memory and life, through you passing on her knowledge to others, you can allow her to live on.
The beautiful thing about humans is that we are remembered by those we love, and have an opportunity to live on. My grandfather came to our home for thanksgiving, and will pass soon. It will suck. ass. majorly, and i will probably read your blog again and scream and cry the same way. He is a beautiful man, that loves God with all his heart, and whom I respect more than nearly anyone i know. But he has a cancer in his lungs, that likely spread from somewhere else, and that will end his life.
I will react, with pain and anguish. I will be human, and will have lost a man I loved. But i will recognize that i have been given the gift of life because of his life. I will not squander that in spreading ideas that aren’t true. The truth is painful, yes, but I would rather understand the reality of what is happening, than to hope for something that isnt there, no matter how comforting it may seem.
I’m sorry for your loss, and I understand why you would react so harshly towards my statements at this fragile time. I’d suggest you take time off from examining these perspectives, until you can think clearly again. I will send you a message when I write the blog about this subject. My girlfriend recently lost someone close to her, just when i was going through all of this with her. It hurts, it sucks, and I will be here to help in any way that i can when you want me to.
First, I’d like to apologize for the tone of my first comment. Yes, I was very angry when I wrote it, and it probably wasn’t a good idea to leave comments on people’s blogs while I was in that state. It was only a few hours after I’d gotten the phone call and I was perusing the Internet, looking at grief forums and avoiding having to go to sleep, because I was afraid of waking up and having to do it all over.
Second, I appreciate your words. I really do. So many people have reached out to me, some my good friends, some I haven’t spoken to in years, and it’s truly touching. Many people care about me and how I’m feeling and they don’t have to go out of their way to express their sorrow but they do anyway, and it’s moving.
Third, your blog makes my blood boil, and for some reason that draws me to it. I disagree so strongly with what you say that it reinforces what I believe even further. Maybe that sounds weird, maybe I seem like some troll, but for whatever reason, I love reading it, even though I don’t agree at all with the content. It’s strange.
I have seen you defend atheism from a logical viewpoint. I’ve seen you outline the inconsistencies and fallacies of religion. But there’s something I’ve never seen you do, and that is explain exactly HOW one lives in this world with an atheist worldview. No, none of us have the answers. No matter what, the death of a loved one is painful regardless of what you do or don’t believe. This experience is the worst thing I’ve ever gone through. It’s brought me to my knees, it’s made me question everything I thought I knew. When I looked at it from an atheist point of view, I found very little comfort. I understood the science behind the cancer; I understand how it started, how it worked, how it would spread and how it would eat her body. I understood that once she died, her body would stiffen, and if she were buried, her body would decompose in a few weeks. I understood that we are all living things who must die someday; I understood that nothing could last forever. Regardless of all those things, I felt I needed more. No one could say anything that would make it better. There was nothing I could do to get away from the helplessness and the despair. They raged on, no matter what I told myself.
I came to religion as a last-ditch effort. Well, nothing else is working, I thought, so I might as well try this. I was embarrassed because I thought religion was dumb. Who actually believed the world was made in a week and God dropped two humans into existence and we’re all sinners because a snake told Eve to eat a piece of fruit? It was absurd, because science said the earth was millions of years old and that we came from monkeys. And I knew from my time spent taking psych courses that it was human nature to look for meaning and answers to the unexplained. Which is why the Greeks thought an echo was caused by a god until we learned about how sound works. Not to mention all the crimes committed in God’s name, and on and on.
I say all of that to make this point: I needed more than what science and evolution could offer. Even as a logical, reasonable person who could usually explain everything and who wanted nothing more than to remain in complete control of my life, I needed more. Because I did not have control. None of us do. My mother was dying and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it, and it threw all logic and reason out the window. There was no logic. She didn’t “deserve” it. No one even really knows exactly how cancer starts; we know it’s the rapid growth of cells with damaged DNA, but we can’t tell why it strikes some and not others, and why it starts young in people, and we can’t tell just exactly how to stop it, although we’ve made progress. I was grasping for straws, desperate for something to bring me peace. I felt hollow and alone, like my world was ending. Religion was the only thing that worked.
What I don’t see on this blog, and what I feel you should address, is how to use atheism in places where religion is traditionally used. How does atheism help us cope with unexplained and uncontrollable events? How does atheism comfort us in times of grief and sadness? How does atheism give us a sense of purpose, and how does atheism explain why we’re here? Not how we got here, but WHY we’re here. What morals and guidelines do atheism provide for us to live by? If religion is not the truth, then why do so many people turn to it? If believing in a higher being is just a psychological mechanism that allows for the greatest chances of survival, how did it get that way, and why isn’t atheism favored by nature?
To conclude: You can turn to philosophy and psychology and science to disprove religion. You can call it a lie. But if you do that, tell me how to live with atheism. Tell me how I can use atheism in a way that far surpasses anything religion could ever provide. If you do that, I think you’ve got a strong case.
Amanda,
I think that’s a great direction for a new blog post, and you’re right. And of all the reasons I respect people that believe in God, that’s one i can’t deny: Hope. It gives people hope, in a way that the stale tone of reality and the finality of death do not. I am still learning, but I appreciate your sentiment, and respect you for seeking hope.
Thank you for your inspiration, and I hope that we can see this through. let me know if you want to get coffee in columbia sometime. I won’t preach. I’ll just listen.
newlysouthern, I am going through a similar experience and I agree with your feelings and I am happy about lpmitch’s wording: “And of all the reasons I respect people that believe in God, that’s one i can’t deny: Hope. It gives people hope, in a way that the stale tone of reality and the finality of death do not.” If life gives you the freedom to choose having hope why not….
I think a different type of hope, of awareness, can be offered, but it requires a significant shift in considerations. I’ll plan to address that in my next blog article.
I agree with newlysouthern. If there is finality in death, what in the world are we here for in the first place? How does atheism explain WHY we exist? I think this question was missing from your list of important questions, and I know God has given me the answer in His word.
As a sidenote, I thought it was ironic that the definition of faith you were trying to dismiss used an example from science. “2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.”
I’ve thought of another point I’d like to see you address, and maybe you have but I just haven’t caught it. If atheism is the truth, then why strive to be moral? I do not believe that morality is innate. Animals do not have morals. Animals kill each other all the time. Members of the same species fight to the death over resources. I remember watching an episode of Nature where a mother bird killed her weakest chick, so that she and her other babies could eat. Can you imagine if a starving mother killed her newborn so that her other children could eat?
In nature, sick and dying animals are either eliminated by predators or are left to die. Humans, however, go to great lengths to prevent, diagnose and treat illnesses. Why? Why should human life be preserved? Why don’t we let sick children die so they don’t live to pass on their genes? Why do we fight so hard to save our grandparents, who are past child-bearing years anyway? We believe we are better than animals. More precious. Our lives are worth saving. Where did we get that notion? Where did we get the idea that taking a life is wrong? It is not universal. When we look back on the Holocaust, we know that is wrong. When we hear of genocides in other countries, we know that it is wrong. But who says it’s wrong? Who says stealing is wrong? Why not let stronger people kill weaker people, so that all weak genes are eliminated from the population? Why punish murder? Why not recognize polygamous marriages?
If you are an atheist, then why do you strive to be a good person? What standards do you use to measure whether or not you’re a good person? Of course, people who claim to be Christians do immoral things, and people who claim to be atheists do moral things. But where does that morality come from? I do not believe it is simply evolutionary. Animals do not enter into peace treaties with one another. You’d never see a lion protesting against the slaughtering of zebras. Humans do those things. Humans fight for the rights of oppressed groups. Humans give to the poor. Humans work to cure diseases that would otherwise eliminate entire populations. Humans buck Darwinism in the face.
Speaking of Darwinism, why did we evolve the way we did? Why do we have a conscience, why do we have forethought, why are we able to see years into the future? Why do we experience emotions? Why can we love someone so passionately that it goes beyond what would otherwise be needed to procreate? We experience thirst because our bodies need water. We experience hunger because our bodies need food, and we experience fatigue because our bodies need sleep. So why do we long for the existence of a higher power? What good does it do a species to crave something that does not exist? Why would we evolve in such a way that the only way to deal with life was to delude ourselves with a lie? Animals are adapted to their environment; a fish does not crave a resource only available on land. So what would make humans the exception?
Those are two extremely diverse questions, one of which has been answered already in previous posts (both in my first post and in ‘sex, porn and problems’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology. Also, your comparison of humans to animals reflects a misunderstanding of the typical ordering found in the animal kingdom. While i have no doubt one bird may have killed its child that (apparently) probably would not have survived anyways, it is clear from a cursory examination of the order of animals leading up to humans, that they exhibit a pack mentality, and defend one another, and generally propogate their genes. This stands in opposition to your example. I will elaborate further on our closer ancestors later.
Evolution provides the basis for our morals (why most people are adverse towards punching people for no reason, or killing people for no reason), that are then meted out by changing social and cultural norms (take for example, the bible, which condones slavery, rape, selling your children into slavery, stoning, and many other arbitrary morals that we no longer hold today, but were perfectly acceptable in bronze-age israel). You cited polygamy, which was extremely common for many thousands of years (including in the bible).
Your misinformed “Hitler -Darwinism” is the result of propaganda; evolution or Darwin mean nothing of the sort, and “survival of the fittest” is an incredibly obtuse description of the actual process of evolution. You should inform yourself about what evolution actually says before you try to use it to prove your points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
By murdering, you are limiting the gene-pool, reducing the possibility of mutation, which in turn is detrimental to the overall direction of evolution; though some of what you’re alluding to is where we gained some of the psychological disposition to religion. Furthermore, traditionally those who murder are murdered back, and when you’re dead it doesn’t propogate your genes very well. For example, in the bible, when certain kings were deposed, their children up to several generations were also killed, eliminating their genetic contribution. The sort of morality we have today, that provides the basis for anger in the case of murderers, is because murder is not, nor has it ever been, a beneficial genetic trait, and typically limits sexual propagation (would you marry a murderer? Neither would most humans across time).
In ancient human history, those who no longer feared death, and who where united in cause, formed a much more effective military group than those who were scared: thus, one of the more common memes across religion: Elysium, Valhalla, Heaven (Christian and Islamic).
As for our development, you hopefully know that we are descended from apes, which show certain signs of self-awareness, morality, socialization, and complex problem-solving abilities, while other nearby species do not exhibit these traits. Consciousness was (as far as I know) an accumulated set of beneficial genetic mutations, and surely we can agree that consciousness is and has been a beneficial trait, as we are on top of the food chain, and are able to survive in incredibly diverse climates, from antarctica to egypt, using technology we create for ourselves.
Right now you’re struggling with several issues. Take time and consider each one. Inform yourself on each individually. Here are a few links to some youtube videos that can help you inform yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ Qualiasoup:Morality (1 of 3)
So, from what you’re saying, murdering people is not wrong morally, but wrong from an evolutionary standpoint?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding. But it seems like you’re saying that by and large, people have learned to find the killing of others (and other “moral” dilemmas) wrong because it somehow limits the propagation of the human species. I’m not buying that. I would dare say that most people find murder wrong because they feel life is precious and does not deserve to be taken away by another fellow man.
I do know that we are descended from apes. I know that many of our behaviors are rooted in biology. I believe in evolution. But we are not JUST animals, and I do not believe that evolution accounts for everything that we, as humans, have developed. Other animals are able to survive just fine without a job or without being married. Yet we seek purpose for our lives. We seek companionship. We seek friends. We seek happiness. Couldn’t we survive just the same in the woods, hunting all day, going to sleep at night and mating every now and then?
I suppose that from an atheist worldview you will argue that everything we think, feel and do has a basis in evolution. While I disagree with that, my basis for my disagreement does not qualify as the “truth” to you, so it’s not worth even bringing up. What I still don’t understand is how atheism can be used in a way that far surpasses religion. You yourself talked about how it was your dream to become a worship leader. Maybe you felt that it was your purpose or calling. Now that you’re an atheist, are you satisfied that your purpose in life is to survive long enough to pass on your genes?
I said the root or basis of our morals was from evolution. We now have the capacity to recognize (using our empathy, which is shared with our closest relatives, biologically) how murdering is not a good thing; we value human life because we value our own. There is no god required to understand that fact, or to impart some value to human life. Its wrong for any number of ways, but i was pointing out your notion of killing being optimal for evolution as completely erroneous from an evolutionary perspective.
We could live our lives simply, and whether you believe it or not, some people do. Amish, Quakers, Puritains, many tribes in africa, as well as the majority of our ancestors live this simple life, and it is enough. You are getting into philosophy now, and many people point out the benefits of living ‘the simple life,’ unless you want to discount this without reasoning as well.
its not an atheist worldview that explains evolution, and how evolution created in us certain traits, biologically, sociologically and psychologically; no gods will change that fact. Evolution just explains things better than the notion of ‘sin nature’ better because its a more accurate reflection of our actual development as humans. The cool thing is, once you understand that we as humans find joy in a myriad of different things, you are free to pursue whatever route you want. I’ve started practicing cover songs to play at bars, and will use my skills as a musician to find purpose. I think i’m decent at writing, and so i will use my skills to write on this blog. I have close friendships and relationships i seek to pursue, and many other outlets where I now find meaning.
I just no longer have the possibility of ‘not doing god’s plan’ or being ‘in sin’ when i pick the wrong thing. I dont spend hours reading and brooding over what god’s best for me is. I’m free to do what I find appealing, and the things listed above are the most appealing to me. I make my own future and happiness by doing the things i’m suited for, and I still do many of the same things that made me happy as a Christian, but now i do them without restraint.
I personally don’t think being a Christian requires hours and hours of reading and brooding in order to uncover God’s plan. I think it requires trust and a relationship with God.
This is a little personal, but…you haven’t really changed all that much since you’ve become an atheist. When you were a Christian, you were outspoken about God. It was all you talked about. You knew every verse and every story in the Bible and you treated your faith like it was an absolute truth that could not be questioned. Insert atheism instead of Christianity and you’re doing the same things today.
So, you claim you’ve stumbled upon something that must be shared, but have you? You’re the same person with the same intensity but now instead of being passionate about God you’re passionate about evolution. You think you’ve been set free, you think you know the truth, but it just sounds like you found an interesting topic to read up on and become knowledgeable about, and convinced yourself it must be infallible because you’ve worked it all out in your head. But you had done the same with Christianity for many years.
Honestly, if you truly believe that the only way for your faith to be restored is for God to rearrange history and allow you to witness a miracle that could only be explained by the presence of a higher power, I don’t think you ever understood what it means to be a Christian in the first place.
You spent this entire blog entry against faith(2)? Really?!
Check out this sentence, “Your beliefs about the workings of the universe can be founded in empirical, reliable, observable facts, or you can substitute evidence for faith(2)”
Not only did you completely ignore the other four, COUNT THEM FOUR, possibilites for the kind of faith someone could be using. You don’t even found your beliefs on empirical evidence. You had empirical evidence on your own blog that there were five definitions for faith, but nooooo.. Anything that goes against your atheist dogma must be ignored. So you ignore that faith for a Christian could mean something else.
You remind me a lot of a Jehovah’s Witness. They spend all this time trying to tell me that Holidays are bad and I say “No they aren’t.” They tell me that holidays are from Pagan rituals anda Christian shouldn’t practice them. Aside from commitig the genetic fallacy, they ignore (the same way you do) that me saying “Christmas” is not the same thing as them saying “Christmas”. You say “faith” and I say “faith” but you think I could only mean faith(2). You are no different than the JWs that think because you mean it that way, so must everyone else.
I can’t take you seriously at all.. I agree with Amanda. By the way you talk about what you think Christianity is, you show you never were one.. Just playing the game.
Read my posts under “Spiritual Growth” and tell me if you believe that. I laid out a clear case for why I find faith (2) to be the definition used by the Bible, and attack that specifically. I have no reason to address the other definitions, as that’s not what i have a problem with.
Also, this blog has moved to http://www.coffeeshopatheist.com/blog/
Hey Patrick, I could use some more help when it comes to your two sections on the definitions of faith. I could be reading wrong, but it’s getting a little tangled in my head.
When you talk about the chair and apply the first two definitions of dictionary faith, you liken Faith1 as being confident in the chair because you have physics and math and construction and the like which lead you to believe the chair will not break underneath you.
Then we’ve got Faith2 that says you walk up to the chair, pretty as you please, don’t even check to make sure it has four legs and sit down, knowing that it’s going to hold up alright.
So the way that Faith1 is represented, doesn’t that make it “proof” and not “faith?” It feels like it when I think about it, but I concede that I might be missing something.
Isn’t the point of the “faith” that we’re talking about, being something that you haven’t proven? That you haven’t checked with a compass and a protractor and a plumb line to know empirically that it will hold up?
Lauren,
That’s exactly what I was getting at; there’s a difference between using Faith (1) as proof and faith (2) as proof: one is empical and one is hope-based. Also, this blog has moved to http://www.coffeeshopatheist.com/blog/