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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 138 by tam]

Because one of the first memories that I have of my Lord speaking to me as a young child was Him teaching me to QUESTION what these 'teachers' said.

I was sitting in a 'Sunday school class', listening to what the teachers were saying, and He asked me how they knew the things that they were teaching. How did they know these things were true?

Tam...while I can't find the quotes, I am familiar with you talking about this in the past. This contradicts what I remember you saying in the past. I remember you saying two things
1) this voice from/of Christ is not audible, it is not like a voice one hears from another person
2) that you had to be taught by some other person to listen to Christ, to hear him which if I recall correctly (I could be mistaken) didn't take place until you were a teenager? Adult? It wasn't like Christ spoke and you were always somehow able to hear and obey him.

[tam]

[Replying to post 138 by tam]

Because one of the first memories that I have of my Lord speaking to me as a young child was Him teaching me to QUESTION what these 'teachers' said.

I was sitting in a 'Sunday school class', listening to what the teachers were saying, and He asked me how they knew the things that they were teaching. How did they know these things were true?

Tam...while I can't find the quotes, I am familiar with you talking about this in the past. This contradicts what I remember you saying in the past. I remember you saying two things

I apologize if I confused you by being unclear, dear Rik. I will try and clear that up now, but feel free to ask questions if I do not.

1) this voice from/of Christ is not audible, it is not like a voice one hears from another person

Yes, because I hear His voice within.

2) that you had to be taught by some other person to listen to Christ, to hear him which if I recall correctly (I could be mistaken) didn't take place until you were a teenager? Adult? It wasn't like Christ spoke and you were always somehow able to hear and obey him.

I always heard His voice (He speaks to everyone) and I even listened to what He told me (though I am sure I didn't always listen). I just did not recognize that He was the One speaking (not until I was an adult and came to learn that He did speak, having researched and asked for the truth on the matter after a sister shared openly some things she had received from Him). Before that I never knew He was even supposed to be able to speak; or that He promised He would speak; or that there were multiple testimonies in what is written of Him doing just that.

I had also never thought it through that if He truly was alive and the Word of God; then why would He not speak, teach us, guide us? Why/how would a living Word of God NOT speak?




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

[Replying to post 140 by rikuoamero]

Think of it this way. Think of the stories of Christ raising Lazarus or the woman's daughter from the dead.
Why did he do that?

Love for those people mourning, love of Lazarus and his sisters, and because of the faith of the people asking Him in the case of the daughter or servant they wanted healed or raised. Keep in mind that these people were not demanding a sign. Their faith was already in Him; they knew (because of their faith) that He could do what they were asking Him to do; they simply asked if He would do these things for them and their loved ones. Remember the woman who touched his cloak as the crowds were pressing in around Him? She had faith that if she just touched Him, she would be healed. And He said, "Who touched me? I felt power go out of me." Then He told her that her FAITH had healed her.

Imagine if Christ, in that time and place, was going around saying he has power over life and death, that he can bring back the dead. Imagine the people around him. Wouldn't they be saying "Well...bring some back then! Prove it!"?

Like at Mark 8:11,12?

Some did demand things like that. He did not perform on demand like that for such ones. Do you recall Him saying that no sign would be given to such ones except the sign of Jonah?

They would not have put their faith in Him even with a sign.


You and CB (and DI elsewhere) have admitted something that was already known: that even passing your 'test' would not cause you to put your faith in Him; it would not even cause you to believe it was Him rather than some trick or some lying spirit instead.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Clownboat]

So because you don't hear Him (Christ, not God) no one can?

I never made this claim.

Then can you please explain to me what you meant by this?

"This (your two decades worth of living a life that served god and your wanting nothing more to hear his voice and continue to be a believer) informs you that the voice I hear, like very other scenario to date is just a voice in my head."

Yes, and thanks for asking.
I wanted to hear from god and I wanted to remain a believer.
Notice that no where do I claim that because I didn't hear from god, even though I sought him, that no one can.

Because that sounds to me like you are saying that you NOT hearing Him, despite all that time and all that wanting, informs you that I am not hearing Him either.

How many times do I need to say this Tam? I believe that you hear a voice. I'm aware that many people hear voices and I do not dispute that.

Thank you CB. Thank you for explaining why relaying a message on your desk (or anything similar) would NOT prove that Christ is speaking; and might even lead to someone fearing (and possibly blaspheming) against the Holy Spirit.

It appears that you missed my point. It would lend credibility to the claim that this voice is external and not just in your head. Knowing whether this voice is external or you are just schizophrenic for example is very important to me. Now, if this voice helped you in your debate here at this debate Christianity and Religion forum, that would certainly point to a Christian entity helping you out. From there, believing it is Christ is a small leap.

Indeed, even DI said on another thread that God (appeared to) show up in the sky speaking, that would still not prove to him that God exists because... someone might have the technology to make it appear so. (I am paraphrasing)

What does that have to do with me? Seriously, just ask it to help you debate. Type the words that this Christ voice is saying to you. A demi-god would slay in debate I would think due to all the knowledge it would have that us mere mortals don't.

You do realize that He also said that some do not hear His voice because they are not His sheep, right?

I was his sheep, slave if you like for 20 years.

I believe that you believe this. I am not so sure you are correct. Not because true Christians cannot fall away; but because of some of the things you have said you believed about Christ and God.

Well, with such great examples you put forth, how can I refute this?
This is one of those times where the voice could provide you with an actual example that would reveal that I did not have a relationship with Jesus. I don't get that though. I get words from Tam.

You do realize that you are saying this to someone who has learned that we CAN know for sure, because we can ask and hear Him even now, right?

Please show that you speak the truth.

You claimed that you had evidence and alluded to the voice as being said evidence. I'm addressing the fact that said voice is not available, and therefore cannot be considered as evidence.

I claimed that my faith is based upon evidence (indeed, I don't know who has faith that is not based upon some evidence or another). That evidence is available to me. (and to others; just not in the way you want it to be available to others)

For the love of all that is holy, please tell me what evidence you have offered that is available to me. Taking you (people in general besides for the mundane) at your word would be foolish lunacy.

The available body of facts or information that I have does indicate whether my belief or proposition is true or valid.

Please show that your belief or proposition is true and valid. I want to examine these available fact/information. What do you have for me?

I believe that you hear a voice and I believe that you think this voice is from Jesus. I'm so super happy that you are convinced, but how does that inform me whether or not your beliefs are true or valid?

It doesn't.

Thank you for that admission. Therefore, you have no 'evidence' due to the fact that none is available. What we have is Tam claims to hear a voice of a demigod. I do not dispute this claim.

Well there you go. If it would be good enough to be evidence for you (regardless of whether anyone else heard or not - unless you intend to add that as a caveat), then why is it not good enough to be evidence for me?

I was already a believer Tam. I wanted to remain a believer. Yes, hearing a voice that I thought was the god I so wanted to be real would have been enough to remain in my belief. Now that I don't have a dog in the fight any longer, I cannot just believe unknown people that claim to hear from a demigod. I would now need some sort of confirmation. Like improved debate. (I'm not saying you are a bad debater by the way, I'm just saying having a demigod help you debate would be noticeable).

[OnceConvinced]

My Lord encouraged me TO think and TO question....

Some people are naturally more rebellious than others. I was a very naïve and trusting kid.

It took me a while before I got to the point where I was able to question and challenge, but I got there in the end.

But what I read from what you wrote at the start of your story reminded me of what my Lord taught me, and so I shared that.

Thanks for sharing.

[peterk]

As a Christian I agree with the OP that many skeptics assume my belief is held "in the teeth of the evidence." In my experience this is usually not true. I find that people both believe and disbelieve for a range of reasons. I get that skeptics may not find reasons given by Christians compelling. But the point is that those Christians do find such reasons compelling. In other words, a typical Christian will have an internally coherent foundation for faith. I have yet to meet a Christian who would say to me, "All the evidence strongly points to Christianity being false, but I will believe anyway."

For my part, the set of reasons why I believe are:
1. Historical. I have looked at the Christian story (particularly the life, death and resurrection of Jesus) and consider it to be a true story.
2. Philosophical. I find that the Christian explanation makes good sense of facts such the existence of creation and of moral values.
3. Personal. I have had life experiences which persuade me that God is real.

[marco]

For my part, the set of reasons why I believe are:
1. Historical. I have looked at the Christian story (particularly the life, death and resurrection of Jesus) and consider it to be a true story.
2. Philosophical. I find that the Christian explanation makes good sense of facts such the existence of creation and of moral values.
3. Personal. I have had life experiences which persuade me that God is real.

1. There is nothing in history that suggests Christianity is true. Islam is better supported by history. We have details of who Muhammad was, his relatives, what he did, his wives, his battles and his conversion. We have a psychological portrait of a small part of Christ's life.

2. One can philosophically regard the sun as our parent on whom we depend for our existence. There is very little philosophy in supposing a giant built the bricks of the universe and took a rest. Basically we don't know how everything came into being, but making up simplistic explanations is not clarification.

3. This is probably the best, if not the only basis for acceptance. We develop a gratefully dependent tie with an unknown being. Some people believe they have angels helping them and can show what seems to be proof. Odd things happen; some call them divine messages. Saints through the ages have had ccurious experiences. Who knows why?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

As I always do, there's the stories and studies of Near Death Experiences suggesting the existence of soul. This seems to straighten out why people can make "miraculous" regeneration.

Then there's all that about telepathy that I find true (and that I take pleasure from, the liberated mind).

Then there's all that "freak nature" that "doesn't fit into the school books". Eg. The giant of India, here on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4jdrPG0C94. Also see the (his-)storytelling of "golems" as very tall creatures which could not be affected by spears or arrows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem.

In short, I'm with Tart!

[H.sapiens]

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?

Let's look at what his assumptions were, for therein lies the errors of his ways.

According to Professor Greenleaf, we must:

1) begin with an open mind, not clouded or congested by the impediments of prejudice; (if only he had actually been able to do so.)

2) subject the testimony of the disciples to no greater burden of proof than to which any fair courts would hold any other witnesses; (if only he had actually been able to do so, but the threat of perjury could not be invoked.)

3) realize that the factual foundation for the basis of the Christian religion as to birth, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection is based upon professed personal knowledge of our witnesses (i.e., “the Gospels are altogether free of Gnosticism and of the other aberrant theologies that pervade many writings from the second century);(if only he had actually been able to do so, the provenance of the gospels is so murky as to render this "realization" unreasonable. Keep in mind that he first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century.)

4) accept our conclusions regardless of where they lead;

5) give no consideration to special or express revelation beyond the factual accounts of the evangelists;(if only he had actually been able to do so he would have realized that what is in doubt here is the factual basis of the evangelists and that without giving such consideration the entire question is moot.)

6) begin with the assumption that copies of the Gospels we have today are accurate unless and until proved otherwise—the burden of contesting their accuracy being on the person(s) contesting their accuracy, similarly to the presumption of innocence placing the burden of proving guilt on the one alleging guilt; (he has the burden wrong, remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and here even ordinary evidence is lacking. All there is is a claim which it is most unreasonable to assume to be accurate.)

7) presume that individuals are conversant (“knowledgeable�) about their own affairs;(There must also be the implicit and unreasonable presumption of precise knowledge of exact authorship and provenance, which is nonexistent.)


8) examine who and what manner of men the disciples were (e.g., were they men of moral and sincere purpose, or men given to foolishness and frivolity?);
understand that, in trials of fact by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true;(There must also be the implicit and unreasonable presumption of precise knowledge of exact authorship and provenance, which is nonexistent.)

9) understand that a proposition of fact is proved when its truth is established by competent (i.e., admissible) evidence unless and until refuted by greater evidence;(There is no competent evidence here, not even if hearsay were to be declared admissible.)

10) recognize that, in the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility being on the one seeking to impeach;(The circumstances do engender suspicion, to declare that there is absence of suspicion denies the entire rationale for the discussion to exist.)

11) appreciate that the credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends firstly upon their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, upon their number and the consistencies of their testimony; fourthly, upon the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, upon the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances;(None of which are relevant if there is reasonable suspicion as to the identity of the authors and provenance of the the documents.)

12) consider that the disciples declared their “great truths� with one voice (e.g., that Christ rose from the dead and only through repentance from sin and faith in Him could men hope for salvation);(The most logical explanation for one voice is a single author or subsequent massaging of the documents to bring them into line with an established dogma.)

13) consider their varied and unique “qualifications,� Mark and John being much too unlearned to forge the story of their Master's Life; Matthew and Luke too learned to be duped; (Again there is the issue of exact authorship and provenance.)

14) evaluate the paradoxes in their narratives—men contriving a lie would be consistent in every respect; men telling the same truth(s) from their own perspectives would tell it differently, albeit without contradiction; (There is no such consistency unless blinker yourself and stick to the gospels from a single tradition and translation. Bart D. Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus - The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, notes that there are more textual variants in the New Testament (200-400 thousand) than it has letters (c. 140 thousand).)

15) dispense with faulty logic, e.g., the argument against miracles, which supposes that the Creator of all things first made a code of laws, and then put it out of his own power to change them; (Irrelevant.)

16) consider the “coincidence� of the disciples’ testimonies with collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances (e.g., the works of other authors and discoveries of subsequent archeologists). (There are no "collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances" extant.)

All in all, in the face of modern knowledge, Greenleaf’s own words, while perhaps good argumentation in his day, are revealed to be weak, pale and wan and are only of interest in a strictly historical sense or to those with an underdeveloped understanding of today's knowledge. So your are discovered to be holding naught but a misplaced argument from authority.

[peterk]

For my part, the set of reasons why I believe are:
1. Historical. I have looked at the Christian story (particularly the life, death and resurrection of Jesus) and consider it to be a true story.
2. Philosophical. I find that the Christian explanation makes good sense of facts such the existence of creation and of moral values.
3. Personal. I have had life experiences which persuade me that God is real.

1. There is nothing in history that suggests Christianity is true. Islam is better supported by history. We have details of who Muhammad was, his relatives, what he did, his wives, his battles and his conversion. We have a psychological portrait of a small part of Christ's life.

2. One can philosophically regard the sun as our parent on whom we depend for our existence. There is very little philosophy in supposing a giant built the bricks of the universe and took a rest. Basically we don't know how everything came into being, but making up simplistic explanations is not clarification.

3. This is probably the best, if not the only basis for acceptance. We develop a gratefully dependent tie with an unknown being. Some people believe they have angels helping them and can show what seems to be proof. Odd things happen; some call them divine messages. Saints through the ages have had curious experiences. Who knows why?

Thanks Marco for your reply. What stands out to me is that you have responded only to half of my post. You have commented on my specific reasons for believing, but said nothing about the first pragraph (which for me was the more important). My key point was that both Christians and non Christians generally believe because their view "makes sense" to them. It's not helpful to attribute to Christians a "believing in the teeth of contrary evidence" mindset.

I say this because it seems to me that's just what you have done in your three part reply to my set of reasons. My goal was obviously not to write a book length exposition of why I believe, but rather to summarise a set of reasons that together provide a rational foundation for my belief. I'm well aware that if we had any realistic dialog the whole area would need to be much expanded. But in the absence of details you have chosen to read irrationality into those sentences.


1. "There is nothing in history that suggests Christianity is true." I am hard put to imagine a more dogmatic one sentence put down. There are many reputable historians who would disagree with you.

2. "sun as our parent... giant built the bricks of the universe and took a rest...simplistic explanations..." What's with the straw man? I don't believe any of what you have quoted.

3. The experiential is perhaps "the only basis" for belief. In other words, it's impossible for a Christian to be rational. "...gratefully dependent tie with an unknown being..." In other words, it's all about our needs and feelings. But in fact, if you took the time to hear my story, the key fact was that I came to believe out of atheism, and despite the fact that I had no conscious need for a god.

We need to truly listen and respect.