Faith is belief without evidence?

[Tart]

I never understood this kind of thinking... That is, saying to believe in God is to base your beliefs on faith without evidence... Or to say that there is no evidence of God...

I believe in God because the evidence convinced me beyond doubt, so how does it make sense when someone says there is NO evidence? I believe BECAUSE of the evidence... It might make more sense if they say that the evidence I believe in is false, or something like that, but they dont say that.. They continue to say that there is NO evidence...

I also dont think the definition of Faith: as belief without evidence isnt an accurate use of the word in Christianity... If anyone can show me a verse or passage in the Bible that demonstrates this definition then we can say it is a Christian definition.. But Im not sure if Christianity uses the term "Faith" as to form beliefs without evidence... "Faith" in Christianity is a virtue, it is related to righteousness, and that makes sense... To live righteously is to live faithful in our actions... In fact I think righteousness can be summed up by living faithful, and that goes for everyone... To sin, or to do bad things, make it impossible to live faithfully...

"just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.�(Romans 1:17)

However, Faith is also defined in Hebrews 11:1... Where it says Faith is being assured in the evidence of things not seen... Specifically they use the Greek word "elegchos", which is literally translated as "exposing", and can also be translated as "conviction" or "evidence"..

Are they not saying that Faith is believing in the evidence of things not seen?

I read somewhere that the definition of "Faith: belief without evdience" was actually adopted in the 1950's... That is nearly 2000 years after Christianity has been using the word... Can anyone link "belief without evidence" to "faith" as used in the scripture?


Also, I want to share a quote from a man who is said to be one of the leading, world renown experts on "evidence".. Simon Greenleaf literally wrote the book on "evidence" (called "Treatise on the Law of Evidence"), he founded Harvard Law School, he is an expert on evidence and he was an atheist in this position. He didnt believe in Christianity, didnt believe in God, and thought Jesus's Resurrection was just a legend... So while in this position, Dr. Greenleaf was challenged by his students to investigate the evidence of Christianity, and being an expert on this subject of evidence, he knew what he had to do, namely explore the evidence before making up his mind...

Dr. Greenleaf explored the evidences of Christianity, and is later quoted saying (a quote I 100% agree with in my own beliefs)

"Of the Divine character of the Bible, I think, no man who deals honestly with his own mind and heart can entertain a reasonable doubt, For myself, I must say, that having for many years made the evidences of Christianity the subject of close study, the result has been a firm and increasing conviction of the authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible. It is indeed the Word of God."
~Simon Greenleaf

This is exactly what happen to me from my studying the evidences of Christianity... It convinced me beyond doubt....

So, (for atheists) how do you make sense of this, and say there is no evidence of God? Would it be better to say the evidence of Christianity is false, then to say it is nonexistent?

And (for Christians), do you think your beliefs are based on no evidence? How do you articulate this idea that "Faith" is "belief without evidence"? Do you agree with that or not?

[OnceConvinced]

So, (for atheists) how do you make sense of this, and say there is no evidence of God? Would it be better to say the evidence of Christianity is false, then to say it is nonexistent?

The so-called evidence usually tends to be subjective. That is why people say that. What is really needed is scientific proof. One can become convinced that what they see is evidence, when really it can be wishful thinking, gullibility or presumption. Often it can be just things they've been taught that they've accepted at face value.

I would be more likely to say that faith is "belief without proof."

One can say they have faith because they believe that everything they've experienced so far is proof of god, but I used to be in the same boat for many years. See your next question...

And (for Christians), do you think your beliefs are based on no evidence? How do you articulate this idea that "Faith" is "belief without evidence"? Do you agree with that or not?

I was a Christian for 30-40 years, ie most of my life and from a young age I was taught certain things about God and taught them as absolute fact, so I simply adopted my parents beliefs without question.

For many years, even as an adult I continued to hold onto those so-called facts. I was also manipulated to believe that certain things were God working in my life and doing things, so from a very early age, I was absolutely convinced God was real because I saw all these things he was doing in my life. All this answered prayer and what I believed was his guidance. My faith became very strong and it was very strong for a long time.

However over a period of time, I began to see that what I thought was God was not really god at all. Now that I look back in hindsight I can see all this so-called evidence and proof was not really evidence and proof at all. What I can see was this faith of mine was built on a lot of presumption, wishful thinking and taking the words of other Christians (ie Christians who were experiencing similar things or even greater things. Christians who were telling stories of amazing things. Exaggerated or untruthful testimonies and all that sort of stuff). A lot of it was me really wanting to believe so conjuring up reasons to believe and seeing every little thing as God working in my life. ie If I prayed for something and got it, it was God answering my prayer, even though I actually got what I wanted due to my own actions!)

To me now, I don't see faith as something virtuous. I see it as people exercising stubbornness, and/gullibility, and/or perhaps just a strong desire to believe that they don't really look at their beliefs critically and rationally. They claim they have "faith".

[Tart]

[Replying to post 2 by OnceConvinced]
If Christianity could be shown to be true, without "scientific proof", would that be sufficient?

[OnceConvinced]

Hi Tart. I just made a few additions to my post so hopefully you catch those.

[Replying to post 2 by OnceConvinced]
If Christianity could be shown to be true, without "scientific evidence", would that be sufficient?

When I originally came to this site I was hoping that Christians may be able to help me with some doubts and questions I had and that maybe someone might be able to convince me using rational and logical arguments that God was real and that my faith was real. That Jesus was real! Thus I would be able to embrace Christianity again, because believe me I never wanted to be an ex-Christian. Never!

Over the last ten years though, nobody has been able to do that. Instead I went from Deist to Agnostic to Atheist over that period. I was convinced more and more that Christianity was not all it was cracked up to be and that it's very unlikely there are any gods at all.

I am still open to rational and logical debate on this and it may be possible that someone may convince me of some things. Some have managed to sway my opinions here on this site, but it happens only rarely and there are so many things that need swaying. Generally though, what I get are arguments that I have heard time and time again which just don't hold water.

I really think that for me now I would need God to prove himself mightily to me. Himself! Not some so-called spokesperson working on his behalf. No someone with some testimony who may be lying or exaggerating. I figure that if God is real and loves me as much as Christians claim, he would be willing to do that, after all I cried out enough to him as I lost my faith. However so far I have nothing. It's all in God's ball court now. Of course I could be proven to be wrong and a Christian here may suddenly be able to come up with evidence or reasoning of God that convinces me.

I'm sure God himself, if he is real would know what needs to be said and would pass that on through the holy spirit, don't you think?

[Tart]

Hi Tart. I just made a few additions to my post so hopefully you catch those.

[Replying to post 2 by OnceConvinced]
If Christianity could be shown to be true, without "scientific evidence", would that be sufficient?

I'm sure God himself, if he is real would know what needs to be said and would pass that on through the holy spirit, don't you think?

Well im not God... All i know is that your story isnt how my story works... I went from non-belief to belief from studying the evidence.. It wasny my parents, or other people, or some kind of indoctrination on my behalf, or what God gave me by answering my prayers (actually i think prayer is about alligning Gods will with my own, and not the other-way around)... My belief lay on Jesus Christ, and Him as the Messiah, the revealing of truth through his death and Resurrection, and how he works in my life... It is a Revelational Epistemology based on God alone...

But the scripture says that God isnt going to convince people just because... It says people must seek God, and they will find Him... Now i dont know you, or your story, or if what you say is true, but I believe anyone who seeks God first (before their own will), will find God...

But Christianity never makes the claim it will convert nonbelievers who dont want God... It actually says the opposite, that God will allow nonbelievers to continue to believe in their folly (the Bible actually uses the word "delusion") (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

For myself, I must say, that having for many years made the evidences of Christianity the subject of close study, the result has been a firm and increasing conviction of the authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible. It is indeed the Word of God."
~Simon Greenleaf

I think that there is no need for faith (even faith as described by the OP) in relation to this claim. The bible is not the 'word of GOD'

This morning I had a dream where there was a commentary on 'the word of GOD' in relation to the story of creation as relayed in the bible...

The words 'let there be' related to that idea of GOD - that creation was somehow spoken into existence may well be metaphor, but in relation to the idea of 'the word of GOD' (not the bible) it is evident that creation itself is the grand result of 'the word of GOD' rather than any subsequent book produced from that event.

I think that if anything is used to replace that, then it is counterfeit, and in relation to the bible, just because it holds certain wonderful concepts does not qualify it to substitute the actual word of GOD. It is simply a book created by human beings and interpreted differently for that. The universe is less able to be interpreted differently - at least in relation to its fundamentals, but certainly as the product of the 'word of GOD,' there is ample more to learn about it.

I am certain that while people continue to believe and to teach that the bible is 'the word of GOD' human beings will remain less evolved than they could be.

♦ Is The Bible Really The Word Of GOD?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 6 by William]

Hi William, in the case of the quote you commented on, it is said that from studying the evidence that "the result has been a firm and increasing conviction" of the "authenticity" and "plenary inspiration" of the Bible... and that therefor it is concluded by the commentator to be "the Word of God"....

[Divine Insight]

But Christianity never makes the claim it will convert nonbelievers who dont want God... It actually says the opposite, that God will allow nonbelievers to continue to believe in their folly (the Bible actually uses the word "delusion") (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

The reason I personally reject the above claim for this theology is because I see this as being nothing more than an ancient religion that has become derailed from its original thesis.

The original religion was all about morality and behavior. Christianity has changed that entirely. Now with Christianity it's all about "belief". In fact, Christianity holds that personal moral responsibility can't even matter at all. Paul strictly forbids it. He proclaims that no man can be responsible for his own salvation lest he would be able to boast in heaven.

Ephesians 2:
[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
[9] Not of works, lest any man should boast.

This is a complete derailment of what the original religion was all about.

So this isn't "Biblical" in the context of the entire Bible, it's only Biblical in terms of the New Testament which flies in the face of the original Old Testament.

Christianity took a religion that was about moral responsibility and twisted it into being a religion entirely based on believing that Jesus was the demigod Son of Yahweh.

~~~~~~~

You see Tart, when I was a Christian I had decided to teach the "Word of God". Because, like you, I too fell for Christianity on the surface. I wanted to do the right thing and teach the word of God as we are called to do. However, before I could teach it I first had to fully understand it, not merely believe in it on faith. You can't teach anyone anything from a position of pure faith. If can't show why something makes sense, then you have nothing to teach.

So I understood that I would need to read the entire Bible clear through from Genesis to Revelation in order to understand the big picture. And at that time I, myself, had the question of why it was necessary for God to give his only begotten Son for our salvation. Keep in mind here that I wasn't questioning the idea at that time, I simply wanted to understand why it was necessary so that I could teach others why God requires this.

So from this perspective I began to study the entire Bible in depth with the sincere expectation that would find the answer to this question. I actually expected to find the answer when I first set out to study the Bible. After all, I was taught that the Bible contains answers to all our questions and I believed that on faith.

However, as it turns out, there is no explanation for why God had to sacrifice his Son to make salvation for humans possible. In fact, not only is there no explanation, but this idea flies in the very face of the original religion. Even the "promises messiah" wasn't supposed to end up being crucified to pay for our sins. To the contrary, the promised messiah of the Old Testament was supposed to actually become the King of the Jews and bring peace to all the nations of the world. Jesus did neither of those things. So the Jews are right. There is no way that Jesus could be the messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.

In the end, I came to the realization that there is no justification for the New Testament claims of Jesus being the Son of the God of the Old Testament who supposedly was sacrificed by God to pay the wages of sin for us humans. That thesis makes no sense on any level. Not the least of which is the fact that Jesus didn't stay dead. Even if Jesus had died to pay the wages of sin for mankind that check would have bounced the moment he was resurrected and taken up into heaven to be given the gift of eternal life. That's not the wages of sin. To the contrary this is the dream of every Christian!

The bottom line is that this religion as a whole cannot be made to work. It's an ancient religion that began as a religion about moral responsibility and personal accountability, and ended up in Christianity becoming totally derailed into being a religion about believing in Jesus instead of being about moral responsibility.

So the idea that this religion could now be all about "believers versus non-believers" instead of being about moral culpability doesn't hold water. Yet Christianity doesn't even allow for moral culpability at all. According to Christianity dogma no man can attain salvation based on his own works or behavior. It's now all about placing faith in Jesus. In fact, now, according to Christianity it doesn't matter how immoral a person had lived their lives. According to Christianity the most wicked criminal could be "saved" by Jesus on death row by simply asking for salvation.

Christianity isn't about "justice or righteousness" at all. It has become a religion that is entirely about handing out free undeserved amnesty to anyone who asked for it.

Christianity is Judaism derailed. It's a train-wrecked religion.

And it cannot be taught via reason because it's not a reasonable religion.

This is why Christianity has become entirely dependent upon demanding that people buy into it on pure faith alone and stop asking so many reasonable questions. There are no rational answers because the religion cannot be justified.

[Tart]

Well this is getting way off topic.. This post is about Faith, and what Faith is to Christianity, and whether or not there is evidence...

But you are claiming Judaism is about Moral Responsibility, and Christianity derailed Judaism?

But, to me, it seems to be that Jesus fulfilled the blood sacrifice for sin, which Judaism started for the forgiveness of sin... Jesus's sacrifice fulfilled the laws of Judaism for the sin sacrifice... And in fact, Judaism has since abolished the offering for the sin sacrifice... It is because Jesus fulfilled it...

[Divine Insight]

But, to me, it seems to be that Jesus fulfilled the blood sacrifice for sin, which Judaism started for the forgiveness of sin... Jesus's sacrifice fulfilled the laws of Judaism for the sin sacrifice... And in fact, Judaism has since abolished the offering for the sin sacrifice... It is because Jesus fulfilled it...

But he didn't. He didn't stay dead.

The wages of sin is death. Not dying for a mere three days and then being resurrected and given the gift of eternal life. In fact, that's the reward every Christian hopes to receive. So Jesus actually got the reward of eternal life. So he could hardly be said to have paid the wages of sin.

By the way, have you noticed that even Judaism is self-contradictory?

If the wages of sin is death, then why offer people atonement for sacrificing an animal to God? Judaism already contradicted its own thesis. Instead of the wages of sin being death, the wages of sin becomes a need to make an animals sacrifice to God.

Therefore even the Old Testament can't be justified long before we even get to the New Testament. So this religion shot itself in the foot even long before Christianity was ever invented.

That's the whole point. In fact, it makes absolutely no sense to speak about placing faith in Christ until we can first talk about why it makes sense to place faith in the Old Testament. You need to justify the Old Testament before moving on to Christ.

Consider the following TRUTH:

Before it can make any sense to place your faith in Jesus as your "Savior" you must first place your faith in the idea that Yahweh is out to damn you, and that you deserve to be damned.

So Christianity actually starts by placing your faith in the idea that you deserve to be damned. If you don't have faith in that idea first, then it makes no sense to place your faith in someone who is supposedly going to save your from that deserved damnation.

So Christianity boils down to placing faith in the idea that you deserve to be damned.

Only then can the concept of the Christian Christ even begin to make any sense.