Loftus is still confused. Biblical faith is not believing something that is false or unevidenced. And people who call themselves Christians who think faith is believing something "that could conceivably be false" don't know what Biblical faith is either.Christians are saying I have faith because some say that "faith is assenting to a proposition that could conceivably be false." Okay then, let's compare a few ordinary scientific claims to a few extraordinary religious claims. Click on the chart to enlarge it. If I have faith then there is a gigantic difference between scientific "faith" and religious faith, wouldn't you agree? ;-)
Notice in the chart Loftus posted that even the scientific claims are considered "virtually certain" as if things like Gravity, Continental drift, F=MA, and Heliocentric Solar System. I'm shocked. I would change this a lot. I have a background in Physics and if you have ever been educated in Physics at any university worth your time you would do experiments like measuring Gravity and proving Newton's Laws of Motion (Force equivalent to mass times acceleration is the second). Having worked through these things personally, I am more than convinced not just certain that they are true. As for Heliocentric Solar System, I'd count that as a certainty given that people have actually been to outer space and seen the solar system and given what we can measure. Grant it, I'd also would say that the Big Bang is also well-evidenced. I would say that evolution (macro-evolution with all life evolving from a single cell) is not probable at all. It's telling how Loftus seems to agree that Jesus' Resurrection, Atonement, Jesus' Second Coming, Prophecy, Incarnation, and Virgin Birth are "virtually impossible" despite the evidences that point to their validity. Shouldn't be a real shock since he seems skeptical of gravity.
So is there a difference between scientific faith and the religious faith, Loftus defines? Nope. Because he seems to think that they could both be wrong. That's not what Biblical faith is.
Debunking Christianity: Is This Faith, Really?
Having worked through these things personally, I am more than convinced not just certain that they are true.
ReplyDeleteYou worked though these things on earth, not in the region of the universe where the fine-structure constant may be variable. So "true" may not be what you actually want to claim.
In any case, I can't help but noticed you didn't define "biblical faith", but if you decide to, I have "faith" that you will render the term meaningless.
ReplyDeleteYou worked though these things on earth, not in the region of the universe where the fine-structure constant may be variable. So "true" may not be what you actually want to claim.
Conjecture. We have no proof that the laws of physics aren't true everywhere in our universe.
In any case, I can't help but noticed you didn't define "biblical faith", but if you decide to, I have "faith" that you will render the term meaningless.
I've defined Biblical faith several times throughout this blog that is why I have not defined it here other than show how wrongly Loftus defines it. As for your "faith" we know how blind it is.
We have no proof that the laws of physics aren't true everywhere in our universe.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you don't really know what the word "proof" means. We do have evidence that the fine structure constant may not be constant. You'll probably want to look that up.
I think I used "proof" correctly. I didn't say that there was no "evidence" that some interpret that way. The Chart doesn't mention the fine structure constant at all. You are just grasping at straws looking for something to disagree with me about, when I really haven't said anything you can demonstrate is wrong in this post. So utterly sad.
ReplyDeletewhen I really haven't said anything you can demonstrate is wrong in this post.
ReplyDeleteWhat you demonstrated is that you have a very shallow understanding of modern physics.
I'd love for you to render the term faith meaningless, so go ahead and define it. Or even just provide a link to where you previously "defined Biblical faith"
ReplyDeleteWhat you demonstrated is that you have a very shallow understanding of modern physics.
Nice Assertion. No evidence. No example. Nothing. Especially shallow from someone without a degree in physics or anything. Truly pointless. It's be funny if it were not so pathetic.
I'd love for you to render the term faith meaningless, so go ahead and define it. Or even just provide a link to where you previously "defined Biblical faith"
Enjoy. You may learn something.
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/search/label/faith
I love that you assert that I gave no evidence or example for your shallow understanding of modern physics, and yet all you have to do is look at my first and second comments to see where I do give you evidence for my conclusion that you have a shallow understanding of modern physics.
ReplyDeleteIt's almost like you are crazy...
And like I thought, you rendered the term "faith" meaningless.
And no where in the Bible is believing something that is not true condoned or commanded.
This comment in particular was hilarious.
love that you assert that I gave no evidence or example for your shallow understanding of modern physics, and yet all you have to do is look at my first and second comments to see where I do give you evidence for my conclusion that you have a shallow understanding of modern physics.
ReplyDeleteThat's because you haven't...just stated it. Can't prove it. While I do have a Degree from UC Berkeley in Engineering Physics that says otherwise.
Let's check your epistemology for a moment: How does the following:
And no where in the Bible is believing something that is not true condoned or commanded.
Render "faith" meaningless? Oh right, it doesn't. Do try again.
Marcus, ah, engineering physics, got it.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I didn’t say that statement in particular rendered the term faith meaningless, just that you had previously rendered it meaningless. I said that statement in particular was merely hilarious.
“…no where (sic) in the Bible is believing something that is not true condoned or commanded”.
Think about that statement for a little bit. Of course the Bible doesn’t tell you to believe what’s not true, that would be silly!!! It tells you to believe as true, what is unevidenced.
As I recall from previous conversations, you’ve claimed that blepo is only referring to “eyesight” so pistis (or “biblical faith” I’m assuming ) is no different than believing an electron exists because we discern it’s effects rather than seeing it directly with our eyes. When you’ve preformed this eisegesis, you neuter the words of whoever wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.
That is what I mean by rendering the term meaningless.
Also, why do you think that you were checking my epistemology? How would that even apply to the comments? You know what that word means, right?
Marcus, ah, engineering physics, got it
DeleteI don't think you know what that is.
It tells you to believe as true, what is unevidenced.
No it does not. Jesus specifically said to look at evidence and be informed by evidence - not despite of evidence. John 14:10-12
When you’ve preformed this eisegesis, you neuter the words of whoever wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Not eisegesis at all to say that biblical faith is based on evidence. The electron is only an example and not suggested to be in the mind of Hebrews' author.
Also, why do you think that you were checking my epistemology? How would that even apply to the comments? You know what that word means, right?
You claim to know something about faith and what it is and have no idea. That is why your epistemology needs to be checked. You might figure out where you went wrong.
No it does not.
ReplyDeleteOf course it does, in Hebrews anyway.
That is why your epistemology needs to be checked.
Awww, that was cute. But I still don't think you know what epistemology means. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, how we know things, what it means to know, can we know, etc... I could very well be wrong about "biblical faith", but I doubt it has to do with epistemology. Unless you'd like to explain more clearly?
Also, PLEASE DEFINE BIBLICAL FAITH for the class in your own words.
Of course it does, in Hebrews anyway.
ReplyDeleteGood example of reading mis-comprehension.
I could very well be wrong about "biblical faith",
You are wrong.
but I doubt it has to do with epistemology. Unless you'd like to explain more clearly?
It has to do with how you think you know what you know. You think you know what Biblical faith is but you do not. You don't understand how the writer of Hebrews defines "faith". You are 100% wrong because you think the writers of the Bible thought that faith was believing something despite evidence or contrary to evidence. They didn't.
Also, PLEASE DEFINE BIBLICAL FAITH for the class in your own words.
I did read the articles. I gave you a link to almost every time "faith" has come up on this Blog.
You're welcome.
Good example of reading mis-comprehension.
ReplyDeleteHow so? Be specific.
You are 100% wrong...
Um, speaking of one's epistemology...
...because you think the writers of the Bible thought that faith was believing something despite evidence or contrary to evidence. They didn't.
Explain in detail why whoever wrote Hebrews didn't mean just this.
I did read the articles.
I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, but my point was you actually DIDN'T define faith when it's come up. "I did read the articles..."
I have over 60 posts on this blog alone with the label of "faith". If you had read them then you wouldn't be asking confused questions like these. Get busy. you have the link.
ReplyDeleteIf you had read them then you wouldn't be asking confused questions like these.
ReplyDeleteBecause you actually seem to want to avoid defining it.
Like you are doing here.
Also, you have 54 posts with the label "faith" and let's look at the most recent. All you do, is quote some guy.
ReplyDelete"So let's set the record straight. Faith is not the opposite of reason. The opposite of faith is unbelief. And reason is not the opposite of faith. The opposite of reason is irrationality. Do some Christians have irrational faith? Sure. Do some skeptics have unreasonable unbelief? You bet. It works both ways."
Can you point out specifically where he defines what "biblical" faith actually is?
You've already erroneously made up your mind.I've posted enough blog posts that answer you. If you don't understand Greg Koukl, then I see little reason to continue to try to to talk to you, but I will try anyway
ReplyDeleteFacePalm of the Day #70 - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Russ
Debunking Christianity: On Definitions of Faith and Arguments Against It
FacePalm of the Day #45 - Debunking Christianity: "If I Am Wrong...I Want to Know"
Debunking Christianity: Faith is Equivalent to Irrationality - Face Palm Quote #2
FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Faith is an Irrational Leap Over the Probabilities
If you don't understand Greg Koukl, then I see little reason to continue to try to to talk to you, but I will try anyway...
ReplyDeleteHaha, no really, where does he define it?
"So let's set the record straight. Faith is not the opposite of reason.
Not here, he tells us what it is not the opposite of. Doesn't tell us what it is...
The opposite of faith is unbelief.
Oh, this is promising, but providing an opposite does not define something.
And reason is not the opposite of faith.
Again, now we're back to him telling us that something else is not the opposite of what we need him to define.
The opposite of reason is irrationality.
Not helpful in defining faith...
Do some Christians have irrational faith? Sure. Do some skeptics have unreasonable unbelief? You bet. It works both ways."
Also not helpful in defining faith...
So Koukl explaining how faith isn't what you say it it is and why doesn't help you understand what faith is. Figures.
ReplyDeleteI say "biblical faith" is what Hebrews explicitly says it is. Can you point to the exact line above where the guy says it's not that?
ReplyDeleteWhat we know from what he said...
It's not the opposite of reason (neither is ice cream though)
It's the opposite of unbelief, so faith = belief? (ok, getting dangerously close to rendering it meaningless though...)
And faith is not irrationality (ice cream is also not irrationality).
But how about you simply define it in your own words. Or just copy and paste a short definition from a previous post where you actually define it. I've looked through a number of them, and I can't see that you've actually done that.
Or do you, like Kuokl, think it's merely belief but feel the need to pile more words on it to make it seem like more?
No, you butchered and misunderstand what Hebrews 11:1 says. And I gave you all the links you need.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcomed
Chicken. If I'm wrong, explain why, the previous posts didn't do it. You know its a tight rope between rendering it meaningless or acknowleding that it means believing without evidence (trust) but an "apologist" has a hard time swallowing the whole "without evidence" thing.
ReplyDeleteI gave you the posts. but one more time here is one...not that will bother read it.
ReplyDeletehttp://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/03/facepalm-of-day-70-debunking.html
You are truly blind "Faith" instead of evidence or without reason is not Biblical faith at all. Name a single person in the Bible who had what you call "faith" despite evidence? You can't.
I'm curious why you think the definition you gave in the linked post differs from the second one I mention above?
ReplyDeleteName a single person in the Bible who had what you call "faith" despite evidence?
The way you phrased this is interesting. I'm not sure you intended it as I don't think you write that carefully, but what you're doing here is moving the goal post. The unknown Hebrews author most certainly doesn't says faith is believing something despite the evidence, he says faith is believing in something without evidence. There is a difference there, you'd agree?
Now granted, some things christians believe they believe without evidence (theistic god, Jesus resurrection, existence of heaven/hell/souls*), and other things some christians believe, they believe despite the evidence (anti-evolution, young earth, etc...)
I think maybe now we might actually be getting to epistemology, but I'll await your answer.
Also, I get that you don't believe god is an impersonal "it", but why male? Is it just because that's what the bible says?
*belief in souls is actually starting to move into the "despite" category.
The way you phrased this is interesting. I'm not sure you intended it as I don't think you write that carefully, but what you're doing here is moving the goal post. The unknown Hebrews author most certainly doesn't says faith is believing something despite the evidence, he says faith is believing in something without evidence. There is a difference there, you'd agree?
ReplyDeleteOf course there is a difference between believing something despite evidence and believing something without evidence but Hebrews 11:1 does not condone either.
Now granted, some things christians believe they believe without evidence (theistic god, Jesus resurrection, existence of heaven/hell/souls*),
Just because you don't accept the evidence does not mean that there isn't any.
and other things some christians believe, they believe despite the evidence (anti-evolution, young earth, etc...)>
None of these are definitional for being a Christian so you're basically you have no point.
Also, I get that you don't believe god is an impersonal "it", but why male? Is it just because that's what the bible says?
When have I ever said that I believe God is male? When did I ever say that God is female? Category mistake to apply either to God. The Bible does not say that God is either. Both genders are metaphorically applied to God throughout the Bible. We don't have the language to adequately describe God, which is why the Bible looks like it does. It's the best we have.
*belief in souls is actually starting to move into the "despite" category.
Says you. Not everyone would agree with that.
Of course there is a difference between believing something despite evidence and believing something without evidence but Hebrews 11:1 does not condone either.
ReplyDeleteI think we've been over this ground before, so all I'll say is, of course it does, and be done with it.
None of these are definitional...
Way to miss the point!
When have I ever said that I believe God is male?
You posted the link where you did yesterday at 5:29pm.
Another important issue is the at the God of the Bible is not an impersonal "it" and if that is what Russ is looking for, no wonder he can't find the God of the Bible. I realized that many people say they are looking for God to reveal himself to him
I think we've been over this ground before, so all I'll say is, of course it does, and be done with it.
ReplyDeleteYou are still wrong.
Way to miss the point!
No valid point was made by you. Gotcha.
You posted the link where you did yesterday at 5:29pm.
And what pronoun in English is better than
"himself" is better than referring to a personal God who is neither male or female? If you thought that I meant to imply that God is male, no wonder you don't understand Hebrews 11:1 either.
"It".
ReplyDeleteName something that is referred to as "it" and has personhood - that can be known by you and know you at the same time.
ReplyDeleteJust more proof that you don't understand or know the God of the Bible.
Name something, that you can demonstrate actually exists, that has personhood that doesn’t also have a biological gender.
ReplyDeleteIf we ever get there with an AI, I’d be comfortable referring to it as “it”.
But since, god is neither male or female, I don’t see how “himself” is any better than “herself” (or “itself”). I bet you wouldn’t dare refer to your god as “her” though in front of your elders. I wonder why that is?
Name something, that you can demonstrate actually exists, that has personhood that doesn’t also have a biological gender.
ReplyDeleteSo you can't.
If we ever get there with an AI, I’d be comfortable referring to it as “it”.
But what would such an AI, think about that? Are you an "it"?
But since, god is neither male or female, I don’t see how “himself” is any better than “herself” (or “itself”). I bet you wouldn’t dare refer to your god as “her” though in front of your elders. I wonder why that is?
In old English "He", "Him", "Himself" were used to refer to both genders. Referring to just male that way is relatively new. Wonder why you didn't know that?
Name something, that you can demonstrate actually exists, that has personhood that doesn’t also have a biological gender.
ReplyDeleteI can. God.
Sources please on the Anglo-Saxon grammer lesson (hint: what you said is flat out wrong).
ReplyDelete