Friday, February 3, 2012

Fistbump of the Day: dangerous idea: Is Reasonable Faith an Oxymoron?

Dr. Victor Reppert has written a very insightful post that I think should be repeated:


Faith does seem to involve believing in spite of something. Atheists jump on this and say that what believers are talking about is believing in spite of having no good reason to believe it, and good reason to not believe it.

However, we can, for example, trust that a spouse is going to be faithful even though the spouse is out of our sight. In fact, the Apostle Paul contrasts faith with sight, not reason. Unless seeing is the only way we can have a good reason to believe something, it does seem to me that we cannot say that reasonable faith is an oxymoron by definition.

I agree with him and I find that many Atheist make that mistake because they don't know what "Biblical faith" is. They even make the mistake of missing the obvious that there is no reason to reject anything of great importance if the best you can do is point to the improbability of it. And then to get mad at other who are unconvinced of the lack of evidence? Makes no sense.


dangerous idea: Is Reasonable Faith an Oxymoron?
Enhanced by Zemanta

41 comments:

  1. A lot of empirical data is involved when an individual decides to trust that a spouse is going to be faithful, or unfaithful, even though the spouse is out of our sight.

    Victor seems to be suggesting that no spouses decided, based on data, that their spouses are unfaithful.

    What empirical evidence do you have that any gods exist?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Changing my heart and replacing the stone (like you have) with a heart of flesh. I'd consider that great evidence. But since you haven't experienced it, you wouldn't know.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, you had a stone for a heart prior to becoming a christian? Was the medical community aware of this? I went for a check up last year, and I believe they confirmed my heart was made of muscle (flesh). Also, I made Anticuchos de corazon the other night, and I'm pretty sure that was flesh too, definitely not stone. Do cows naturally have flesh hearts? Do they not need to be born again? Or was the cow heart I grilled from a born again cow?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also, the "text-enhance" doesn't add anything to your blogspot site.

    ReplyDelete
  5. See, I knew you didn't understand anything the Bible says and proving you have a heart of stone when it comes to the Gospel. Thanks so very much.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I couldn't ask for a better illustration.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My point Dense Marcus, is that poetic language does not empirical evidence make.

    Also, you are aware of this thing called sarcasm, right?

    If not, here's the wikipedia page on the subject (hint: more sarcasm!!!)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was using employing the same poetic language that the Bible used..and it does perfectly describe the reality of your unrepentant, thick, and enslaved to your self mind and attitude. I thought that you understood the metaphors. Must be over your head I guess. My mistake. I'll use more direct language from now on. Not that it'll help.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Marcus, you know I understand the metaphors, I just don't believe they represent reality. So let me ask what value do you add by claiming that I don't understand them and saying it's over my head? Does it make you feel better? Are you posturing for your 'audience'?

    Just curious...

    ReplyDelete
  10. By your own admission you never had the experience. That does not mean it's not real. I said the concepts were over your head because you ridicule and mock them. It was either assuming your attitude being caused by either immaturity, ignorance, or stupidity. I decided that the cause were ignorance but because you say it's not ignorance, then I guess we are down to immaturity or stupidity. I'll leave it to my "audience" to decide.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Audience" - your words not mine. Ironic considering you asserted that no one was reading my blog because you were to only one making "comments" (and calling your opinions "comments" is purposely trying to give you some credit).

    ReplyDelete
  12. By your own admission you never had the experience.

    I had the experience, it just wasn't what you think it is, you'll figure it out someday. If not, oh well.

    "Audience" - your words not mine. Ironic considering you asserted that no one was reading my blog...

    There was a reason the word was in quotes.

    You didn't answer my question though.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I had the experience, it just wasn't what you think it is, you'll figure it out someday. If not, oh well.

    You had a experience but not the experience the Bile describes. You have missed something. That is what is bothering you.

    There was a reason the word was in quotes.

    In English we use double quotes not single ones so I missed that you had "audience" in quotes. Apology accepted.

    You didn't answer my question though.

    I did answer your question. I must have been using too high a vocabulary. I don't really think what I wrote is too hard to understand. Let me try it again. Maybe you just missed it given the way you read.

    I said the concepts were over your head because you ridicule and mock them. It was either assuming your attitude being caused by either immaturity, ignorance, or stupidity. I decided that the cause were ignorance but because you say it's not ignorance, then I guess we are down to immaturity or stupidity. I'll leave it to my "audience" to decide.

    In addition, it does not add to the argument any more than your mocking me adds any weight to your vacuous "arguments". But if that is how you want to roll, we can do it like that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OK, so you did answer, but in classic Marcus non-answer fashion. You are so bound up in scoring rhetorical points that you are incapable of engaging in an acutal dialogue. I've seen you react the same way with the 2-3 other people who post here. You talked past Johnny P when you could have actually had a valuable dialogue. It's amusing to a certain extent, but for the most part, it just makes me sad. I wish you the best, but mostly I hope you are able to pull your head out of your ass someday.

    ReplyDelete
  15. OK, so you did answer, but in classic Marcus non-answer fashion.

    Okay what did you not understand in what I said? Should you not consider that maybe you just don't like the answer instead of it not making sense?

    You are so bound up in scoring rhetorical points that you are incapable of engaging in an acutal dialogue.

    You mean allowing you to keep deluding yourself into thinking that you were born-again and all that you thought you experienced is all there is when I know my experience has been profoundly different and I know I'm not the only one? No thank you. I'd be harming you instead of trying to help you.

    I've seen you react the same way with the 2-3 other people who post here. You talked past Johnny P when you could have actually had a valuable dialogue.

    I found Johnny P worst than you. A dialogue requires give and take and as far as I can see, none of you are interested in really discussing the issues and showing why you believe what you do and really seeing if your understanding of what the Bible says really lines up with what it said. You don't seem to understand what it is you are rejecting. Neither of you.

    It's amusing to a certain extent, but for the most part, it just makes me sad. I wish you the best,

    The thought of you missing out on the gifts that God has for you due to just your own pride and arrogance just is not amusing. It makes me sad. However, there isn't any need for me to put up with your name-calling and outright meanness against me just because you can't handle what the Bible says and you are taking it out on me. I can't help that the Bible is true and I believe it. I can take no credit for that and don't. You can't be right and God be right because you are saying contradictory things. One of you have got to be wrong. And it's not God.

    but mostly I hope you are able to pull your head out of your ass someday.

    Yup...that's mature.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I know my experience has been profoundly different...

    How would you know that?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I know my experience is extremely different than yours because you said that it was not real. We agree. Your experience was not real. Because your experience was not real does not mean that everyone else's is not real. You seem to claim that everyone must be wrong because you were wrong. Kinda arrogant. Why does that make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, of course yours was real... just like Alan Miller's and Jose de Miranda's experiences. Just like Mohammed Atta's.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You are the one who said yours was not real. I just agreed. Shifting the context to other religions is simply a red herring to the point we have discussing because maybe their experiences were real...whether or not their experiences were real or not has nothing to do if mine or your are real. Please grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Alan and Jose are part of your religion, but I'm sure you'd agree their "experience" was not real.

    The point being, you (or me, or Alan or Mohammad Atta) saying "Trust me, I had an experience! It was real" is not evidence. It's all well and good for you, but it should do nothing to convince anyone else that your experience wasn't subjective.

    Unfortunately for you, "I had an experience!!!" is your Alamo.

    ReplyDelete
  21. That is silly. We agree yours wasn't real. That says nothing about anyone else's experiences being true or false. And bringing up people I don't know doesn't matter. They could have been true. I'm saying yours was false because you said it was false.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Problem is Marcus, I spent 20 years believing it was absolutely real. How long will you spend?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Just because you traded one delusion for another, doesn't mean that Jesus doesn't love you. He does. And you have the real thing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm cool. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nor will you. Nor will anyone. Your religion is a by product of the fear of death. It's cool though, just don't be scared.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. That statement makes me think you never read the Bible, because it's way more than about alleviating the fear of death or nonexistence.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yeah, sorry, your religion is a by product of the fear of death with a liberal dash of authoritarian control thrown in.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If you think that is what Christianity is no wonder you became an apostate. You were doing it wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This is something discovered after the fact from a clearer perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Clearer perspective? I don't think so. If Christianity should be based on the Bible, you have failed to understand what it says. When people go off the rails we do see Christian Churches that look like "a by product of the fear of death with a liberal dash of authoritarian control thrown in." This does not mean you walk away from God if you find yourself in that kind of Church. You seek God with more of your mind, heart, and strength....and switch churches.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I don't think so.

    Yes, but it doesn't matter what you think. One of your failures to understand is rooted in the fact that you think (consciously or not) that there is a person (me) has only one reason (at any given time apparently) for coming to the conclusion that the christian narrative is false.

    ReplyDelete
  33. No, I'm sure you have a laundry list of reasons (excuses) for rejecting Christ. None of them really good ones.

    ReplyDelete
  34. No piece of evidence is "really good" taken in isolation.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Agreed is why I'm wondering is wrong with you.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Not sure what you mean... Try rewriting it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I was saying: Agreed. That is why I'm wondering what is wrong with you.

    ReplyDelete
  38. OK, that's what I figured, still makes no sense though given your previous comment.

    ReplyDelete
  39. That's because it's my opinion. Only God truly knows what is wrong with you.

    ReplyDelete