Question for skeptics.

In all sincerity, and in all honesty, do you think Christians truly have faith entirely devoid of evidence?

I must stress intellectual honesty, please.

As a non-Christian who happens to share some Christian values, I thought that faith was a matter of that - faith. Not requiring evidence.

As the years pass by, I find myself becoming more and more spiritually and self-aware, but I also increasingly find that the religions of the world don't fit in with my own interpretation of God. In my opinion, religions have shaped and been shaped by the societies in which they function, and I'm sure to many they serve a purpose, and have also been hijacked by people who understand and know how to abuse the power religion has.

I believe there is a God, but I don't subscribe to the Biblical interpretation of God. Nor to the Koran's or to any other religious text.

My opinion of Christians is that they do have faith without requiring evidence - some Christias may require evidence of God, and believe that they have the evidence (they "know" God, or have "spoken" to him, or "seen" him). They are entitled and welcome to their opinion, as long as they let me be entitled to mine!

Originally posted by Darfius
In all sincerity, and in all honesty, do you think Christians truly have faith entirely devoid of evidence?

I must stress intellectual honesty, please.

I myself believe there is no evidence of the existence of God, so by that rationel, I believe the Christian faith is based intirely on faith and not on evidence.

Adding to this, I don't think Christianity is a bad thing, I am very happy to live in a Christian society (Denmark), but also glad that the religious impact on society is very limited.

Originally posted by Darfius
In all sincerity, and in all honesty, do you think Christians truly have faith entirely devoid of evidence?

I must stress intellectual honesty, please.

Yes indeed. Their evidence that sustains their faith is not evidence that is acceptable to most rational and logical people. Please don't take offence at this comment.

Faith, is just that. Faith. Those who are truly faithful (full of faith) need no evidence.

That is why there can be no reconciliation between science and religion. One requires evidence, the other faith.

Originally posted by Darfius
In all sincerity, and in all honesty, do you think Christians truly have faith entirely devoid of evidence?

I must stress intellectual honesty, please.

"Evidence" is a strange word, a vague word often based mostly upon opinion. This kind of evidence is called "circumstantial evidence." This is the essence of Christian evidence, when all one can say is "see, it makes sense if you think about it." It doesn't make logical sense because of all the missing pieces that have to be filled in by the imagination.

Even if you accept this situation and are okay with the circumstantial evidence, most of this evidence only points toward spirituality and the existence of God, not Christianity. That is the leap that I can never buy, the leap that always has me shaking my head, ashamed of the race of people I belong to. God exists so therefore Christianity is the right path. God exists so therefore the Bible is His infallible Word. There was intelligent design in the making of the universe therefore an antient story that makes great points about the human relationship with God should be taken as the literal story of creation.

If this sort of completely illogical leap of thought is what you call "evidence" you can keep it. Admit that your belief is a matter of faith.

... --- ...

Originally posted by Darfius
In all sincerity, and in all honesty, do you think Christians truly have faith entirely devoid of evidence?

I must stress intellectual honesty, please.

Do you think we've been pulling your leg all this time? I fail to see any good evidence to indicate that there is a god. As PawnCurry observed, your faith is built entirely around faith. If you were to come clean and admit as much then I might respect your candor. But christians seem determined to have it both ways. They want to insist that their faith is "rational", or that there is some solid evidence for it. Well there isn't. If there was, you wouldn't have any need for faith. Faith is only necessary because there is a complete lack of evidence to support your beliefs.

Faith and reason are opposed to one another. If you had some reasonable evidence for your claims then faith would be superfluous. As the amount of reasonable evidence is whittled away to nothing then the need for faith increases in direct proportion.

Originally posted by rwingett
Do you think we've been pulling your leg all this time? I fail to see any good evidence to indicate that there is a god. As PawnCurry observed, your faith is built entirely around faith.

Rwing.

Taking into account that Nobel winners, Watson and Crick (athiests) agreed that DNA's complexity was too advanced to have evolved on Earth, would that state that you believe in aliens ?

If not, are you claiming DNA evolved on Earth (which you have no proof

If yes, would you claim your believe in aliens is based on this statement by Watson and Crick, or some other form of evidence ?

pc

Originally posted by pcaspian
Originally posted by rwingett
[b]Do you think we've been pulling your leg all this time? I fail to see any good evidence to indicate that there is a god. As PawnCurry observed, your faith is built entirely around faith.

Rwing.

Taking into account that Nobel winners, Watson and Crick (athiests) agreed that DNA's complexity was too advan ...[text shortened]... in aliens is based on this statement by Watson and Crick, or some other form of evidence ?

pc[/b]

I see nothing to indicate that DNA has an extra-terrestrial origin. I therefore conclude that it most likely had a terrestrial origin. It's a matter of probability, not belief. I have no vested interest in the origin of DNA. If future discoveries indicate it might have been delivered via a meteorite (or whatever), then I'll adjust my views accordingly. This is a far cry from the theist who believes that his god is factually true, and who bases his life and world view around that belief, despite having no evidence to support it. I have no need for faith in order to entertain hypotheses about the origin of DNA.

Originally posted by rwingett
I see nothing to indicate that DNA has an extra-terrestrial origin. I therefore conclude that it most likely had a terrestrial origin. It's a matter of probability, not belief. I have no vested interest in the origin of DNA. If future discoveries indicate it might have been delivered via a meteorite (or whatever), then I'll adjust my views accordingly. Th ...[text shortened]... o support it. I have no need for faith in order to entertain hypotheses about the origin of DNA.

Which is it, no good evidence or no evidence whatsoever?

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Which is it, no good evidence or no evidence whatsoever?

No good evidence.

People may claim to have had visions of god, for example, which they may try to count as evidence for his existence. If this type of testimony is to be admitted as evidence, it is of a very poor quality, and among the least persuasive types of evidence.

Anyone who claims there is no evidence to warrant faith is fool. A fool does not understand the meaning of evidence or faith. The evidence is there, and even the fool acknowledges the existence of the evidence. But he has confused the evidence for the object of faith that the evidence might point too.

For instance, the atheist may claim the evidence does not point to the existence of God. That does not mean there is no evidence. Only that the atheist believes the evidence is unconvincing. So the atheist has no faith in God, because he thinks the evidence is inconclusive. All the atheist could be said to have faith in is the inconclusively of the evidence, which is indeed a strange thing to place your faith.

Now evidence of God is all around us, and within us. It is all things nature, all perceived facts. From within, it is the rational mind of man. Man’s capacity to analyze the evidence, is itself evidence that we are made in the image of God.

The atheist may rightfully argue that the evidence does not convince him. That’s fine. But it is sheer stupidity to say there is no evidence. Your very existence is evidence.

That aside, what then is faith? Faith is simply the intellectual assent to understood propositions. Nothing more, and nothing less. It is not instinct, or sensation, or emotion. It is not mystical.

Everyone believes in something, therefore everyone has faith. The atheist may only have faith in his perceptions, or maybe not even that. We all have faith that we exist. Most of us have faith that others exist in the same manner as ourselves.

I have faith that my car will get me to work without the brakes failing. There is nothing mystical about that faith, and there is no emotional content. Nor can I be totally certain about it, for experience tells me that there’s a chance I may be wrong. But I believe it is true and that is faith.

So faith is universal to all men, because we all believe something. If that faith is justified is another issue. The evidence is there for us all to see. The question comes down to:
1) What does the evidence point too?
2) Is there enough evidence to believe what it points too?

Originally posted by Coletti
Anyone who claims there is no evidence to warrant faith is fool. A fool does not understand the meaning of evidence or faith. The evidence is there, and even the fool acknowledges the existence of the evidence. But he has confused the evidence for the object of faith that the evidence might point too.

For instance, the atheist may claim the evidence d ...[text shortened]... hat does the evidence point too?
2) Is there enough evidence to believe what it points too?

Masterfully said.

Rec'ed.

Originally posted by Darfius
In all sincerity, and in all honesty, do you think Christians truly have faith entirely devoid of evidence?

I must stress intellectual honesty, please.

To be honest, I don't know. If there is evidence, it's very slim.

Originally posted by Coletti
Anyone who claims there is no evidence to warrant faith is fool. A fool does not understand the meaning of evidence or faith. The evidence is there, and even the fool acknowledges the existence of the evidence. But he has confused the evidence for the object of faith that the evidence might point too.

For instance, the atheist may claim the evidence d ...[text shortened]... hat does the evidence point too?
2) Is there enough evidence to believe what it points too?

Nonsense.

I have tried to make a distinction between evidence and good, or compelling, evidence. You may choose to claim any number of nebulous things as evidence for your god, but it doesn't necessarily advance your case one bit. You claim that:

Now evidence of God is all around us, and within us. It is all things nature, all perceived facts. From within, it is the rational mind of man. Man’s capacity to analyze the evidence, is itself evidence that we are made in the image of God.

This is a statement of faith, not evidence that could be used to establish the existence of your god. It would be a simple matter to discredit this so called "evidence" by introducing perfectly natural explanations for them all that do not rely on a reference to a god. In order for you to use "nature" as evidence for your god, you have to demonstrate that it could have come around by no other means than by the hand of god. Of course you can't do so.

In order for something to count as good, or compelling, evidence, it has to convince a broad spectrum of people. If your evidence only convinces other christians (who are already pre-disposed to believe it) then it is worthless.

Your definition of faith is also worthless. The intellectual assent to understand propositions? I don't think so. The definition of faith is:

1a: allegiance or duty to a person: loyalty
1b: fidelity to one's promises
2a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to god
2a (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of religion
2b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
2b (2): complete confidence
3: something that is believed esp. with strong conviction; esp. a system of religious beliefs

People do not have a strong belief that the brakes on their car will not fail. They simply think that the chances of it happening are very low, hence they proceed with the assumption that they will not fail. Assigning a negligible probability to something is not the same as having faith in the opposite.

You say we all believe in something. That is true. But it does not in any way mean that we have faith. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because there is a super abundance of evidence to indicate that it will do so. I cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I can believe it with a very high degree of confidence. It requires no faith on my part at all. I will assign a degree of belief to any number of things based on the evidence that supports them. Faith is believing something very strongly in spite of the fact that there is no good evidence to do so. Faith is not at all the same as believing something for which there is good or strong evidence.

Originally posted by rwingett
...Your definition of faith is also worthless. The intellectual assent to understand propositions? I don't think so. The definition of faith is:
...
[b]2b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
...
3: something ...[text shortened]... s believing something for which there is good or strong evidence. [/b]

Your highlighted definition of faith confirms what I have said. “...firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”

Since faith is firm belief, then we must define belief. And belief is well defined as intellectual assent.

Few beliefs are base on proof, as you have said. We can not prove the sun will rise tomorrow. And you agree that we firmly believe it will. So by the very definition you have provided, that is faith – a firm belief in something for which is no proof.

You said:
“Faith is believing something very strongly in spite of the fact that there is no good evidence to do so.”

But in no part of the definition you quoted did it mention a lack of evidence, good or bad. It said was faith is firm belief, and conviction.

Since you also agree we all believe in things, it would seem to be a matter of how firmly we believe them.

As for my faith in my brakes: It is a very firm belief based on my intellectual understanding of the probabilities and on my daily experience. It is a strong belief because I am trusting my brakes with my very life!! If it were not a firm belief, why should I take the chance? The same is true every time I get into an elevator, and each time I fly, and whenever I go to visit my in-laws.

But to believe in something you most have something to believe. And that something is knowledge. All knowledge is prepositional. And since it require agreement with the truth of the propositions, it involve intellectual assent. And you must understand something to have intellectual assent. Thus faith is the belief (intellectual assent to and understanding of) propositions.

You seem to have an irrational desire to assert that faith is unreasoned belief. You don’t seem to like the idea of faith having intellectual content. Your requiring that faith be belief when “there is no good evidence” is simply you personal bias against all things you associate with religion.