My Definition of Faith
January 13th, 2007 by 
soulster
In the post Do Atheists Have Faith?, I agrue that they do not according to my defintion of faith. (Readers, please note that I do define faith as relational trust using Abraham in that post, and as such many of your comments may be missing my point.) I freely admit that my arguement is dependent on my particular defintion, and does not hold if you define faith differently. According to the comments on that post and drunkentune’s RESPONSE: Do Athiests Have Faith, it is clear that I use ‘faith’ differently than many of the readers here, so I will explain my sources of my definition in hopes of clarifying what I think ‘faith’ should refer to. While people are free to disagree, of course, I hope that this will be informative and will limit the criticism of my post at least to my working definition.
I am not using English dictionary definitions (obviously), which are perhaps the more popular usage, though they hint at my definition (beginning of #2 in drunkentune’s post). In any living language, dictionaries record common usage, and it is my opinion that the meaning of faith has been corrupted for so long, its definition is also corrupted in these sources (refering mostly to definitions in Hellenistic philosophical debate), so like in my example of Abraham, I would go back to older definitions.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testement (TDNT) says this about the oldest usage of faith (pistiV) in Classical Greek:
First attested of the word pis-t is the (verbal) adj. pistoV, with the privative apistoV. It has the act. and pass. senses of “trusting” and “worthy of trust” (”reliable”). It bears the latter sense in Homer, but, since apistoV for “distrustful” (e.g. Od., 14, 150)… [TDNT, 175]
TDNT goes on to say, “in the [literal] sense pistoV is not used of things; it is used only of men…” in classical Greek[176]. This relational usage was extended to deities in the Hellenistic period, and at this point the critics of religion introduced the idea that such trust was unreasonable and was belief outside of logic and evidence (see Celsus), but many, including the Stoics continued the original usage [179-182].
Now on the Hebraic side of things, TDNT remarks that according the the Old Testament “faith is always man’s reaction to God’s primary action” [182], thus maintaining the relational component and the idea of “trust”, but taking it far outside of the idea of holding to unproven suppositions. The Hebrew roots all had a secular meanings before they were used religiously, most relating to attitude and relationship. The most common biblical words support this: ‘aman relating to a nurturing relationship [183-4] and firm reliability [184] that is relational even when used figuratively, ‘emuwn which speaks of man’s attitude toward God, especially “of the exclusive personal relation between man and God” [190], ‘emeth meaning ’security’ and ‘rest’ also in a relational sense with a future looking orientation one might call ‘hope’ [192-4].
The New Testament usage follows the Classical and Hellenistic Greek linguistically [203-204], and the Hebrew narratively [205-206]. The often used verb pisteuein “means ‘to rely on’, ‘to trust,’ and to ‘believe’” [203]. One innovation where the NT is unique is the construction pisteueiv eis “to believe in” [203], or “into” which adds the motion of entering into and joining in identity with the one believed. Also unique is pistiV as the acceptance of the Kerygma (preaching, proclamation) of Christ and his followers, but this is used relationally more than doctrinially because the result is trust in the reliability of Jesus as Saviour and credibility of the Apsotles and their agents [208-209].
Now, it seems the NT authors were familiar with the negative Hellenistic definition mentioned perviously which, I think, has given rise to the popular English dictionary definition. The often quoted passage Hebrews 11:1 is used for a Christian definition of faith:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
This is then used to justify the definition of faith as belief in unproven suppositions. To firm up that reading, the next verses are used:
This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible [Hebrews 11:2-3 NIV].
However, this is reading in our current debate. The origins of the universe was not a scientific issue during that time since no one knew what we know now. In fact, everyone at that time was a creationist or one sort or another, so origins was always a topic of relationship — which god created it, and, therefore, which one should you believe in, worship, serve, etc. That this is talking about believing in creationism amid naturalistic explanations is a silly idea considering the historical and philosophical times. That the context is relational is evident in the next 36 verses (4-40), which takes about faith exclusively as trust in relationship based on God’s previous actions and not at the least as holding to ideas for which there is no proof, evidence, or logic.
Finally, the English dictionary defintion of faith causes its over-application. If in fact, faith is a belief, opinion, or thought when logic and evidence is missing (in the context of uncertainty), this encourages theists to attempt to prove atheists have faith. I would argue that atheists who hold this definition (as conviction in uncertainity) but claim still to not have faith are claiming a falicious amount of certainty (as I said in my last post). All you have to do is dig up a thought or opinion held for which there is no current evidence, inconclusive evidence, shotty logic, etc. Then any response to uncertainty for which evidence or logic is not present is an act of faith. The believer will find some point to launch the accusation “Ha! You think something that you can’t prove, thus you have faith and are really a believer in disguise!”. A relational definition of faith will not allow such an accusation and is much more consistent theologically with our confessed texts. While people are free to disagree, I am certainly not creating a definition willy-nilly or in a extremely personalistic sense.
Posted in belief, definitions and descriptions, epistemology, philosophical issues, scripture | 
January 13th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
All well and good, but my biggest objection to your post was how you added the polemical baggage and implied that to argue in the way I did was prejudicial.
Nor is it relevant that atheists will disagree oftentimes with our assessment of the validity or truth or falsity of various beliefs of theirs, or even how we characterize them. Of course they will, just as we often object to how they characterize us. It can hardly be otherwise.
So why is it that we Christians must be “prejudiced” when we characterize the glaring weaknesses in atheist foundational epistemology, but they are not when they claim we are mentally ill simply by virtue of being Christian, or mock belief in God as the equivalent of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, etc., etc. ad nauseum?
Will you even state categorically that uncharitable and unhelpful atheist prejudice has been expressed in this forum?
But I see that you, too, completely agree with my underlying point in that whole discussion:
I would argue that atheists who hold this definition (as conviction in uncertainity) but claim still to not have faith are claiming a falicious amount of certainty (as I said in my last post).
Exactly! So if we agree on the point itself, why the need to make out that it is an instance of prejudice to make it, simply because the word “faith” was used in a secondary sense? You make the same point; all it is, is useless semantics.
The atheist doesn’t like the word “faith” applied to him at all, because he deludes himself that he doesn’t exercise it in my sense and use of the word.
Likewise, by the same token, I don’t appreciate at all, “blind faith” continually applied to my Christian view, as if it were inherently irrational, and vitually exclusively so, and opposed to reason and science alike: the equivalent of a belief in an invisible rabbit.
THAT is where the pure prejudice lies around here, not in my frank judgment concerning the utter ultimate weakness of the atheist metaphysic. Yet you seem unwilling to categorically condemn that on the same grounds that you disagree with my use of “faith.”
Your discussion of faith is in the religious sense; mine was in an epistemological, or more secular sense. Apples and oranges. I don’t condemn your use (indeed, I agree with it pretty much); why do you make an issue of mine? That’s what I don’t understand. It strikes me as overly-diplomatic, inconsistent thinking.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Dave,
What are the ‘glaring weaknesses in atheist foundational epistemology’?
By ‘atheist’, do you mean naturalist/materialist?
January 13th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Not taking the bait. You had your chance and chose to act like an ass. I don’t attempt dialogue with folks who want to descend down that path. It’s not even possible.
January 13th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Dave,
If you think dialogue is impossible for you here, then I am at a loss. This has been three times now, once at Debunking Christianity, and now twice here, where I have asked you to show evidence for your claims, and you have instead ended our conversation - this time on a very, very low note.
It has never been about ‘bait’; I want you to prove me wrong.
January 13th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
I don’t have any need to prove someone who acts like a fool wrong. Go find someone else. I’m interested in serious dialogue. I’ve found many atheists with whom that is entirely possible, and quite enjoyable (my favorite dialogue ever was with one). You’re just not one of ‘em. Live with it. You get along with soulster. You don’t need me to be your Christian foil.
January 13th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
And, by the way, I “ended” nothing in #3 above. I made it very clear before that I was through trying to reason and “dialogue” with you. Therefore, I can’t “end” it presently, but can only reiterate my past remarks. What is it about those that you don’t get, anyway? How can one totally “end” attempted conversation twice? I came only to clarify my remarks about atheists and faith, not to play your game.
January 13th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Dave,
I enjoy soulster’s company (along with every other Christian that has commented here), but not yours. Not for your faith or words, but for other reasons. I’m interested in serious dialogue too, but, while here, you have dodged questions, made brash claims without any evidence, and on several occasions, insulted my character for no other reason than to hurt me.
I hope we’re done here. From now on, you can talk to soulster or respond to what we’ve written, if you want; I won’t restrict your comments. But I’m tired. I am tired of this. Our conversations have been a lesson for us both, so please give me the space and time to reflect.
If I may suggest something as we end this, please stop using your rhetorical questions. Atheists have faith - we both know that; however, atheists that have read the current scientific literature do not have faith on the origins of the universe.
January 14th, 2007 at 12:05 am
RE soulster
It’s pretty simple to me. Theists have religious faith. Atheists do not have religious faith. Religious faith is seen as virtuous because the bible, or the quran, or (insert religious book here), tells theists that religious faith is virtuous.
Religious faith is seen as virtuous and as a strong indication that what is being believed in strongly, is true. (Whether we change “faith” in Hebrews to mean “strong trust” or “confidence”, the meaning is clear. Religious strong trust, or strong faith, or strong confidence is seen as virtuous and evidence IN ITSELF that what the person has faith in, is true.)
The argument, “DO Atheists Have Faith?” is basically an argument not only about what faith IS, but also about what it IS NOT. It is a tu quoque based in the fallacy of equivocation. Let’s handle the equivocation part first.
Equivocation is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around. This is basically what happens when one tries to imply that “religious faith” is identical to the faith that someone might have that their boyfriend isn’t cheating on them.
For a religious person, their religious faith is evidence that what they believe in in true. They might display this “faith is evidence” position by saying, “because I have such a strong conviction that the bible is the word of god, it must be true.” Or, ” I would not be capable of feeling so strongly that this is true, if it wasn’t true.” The word “faith” used outside a religious context is not presumed to be evidence that what they believe is true. So, the woman who says. “I have faith that my boyfriend isn’t cheating on me,” more than likely, doesn’t consider her faith in this position to be EVIDENCE that he isn’t cheating.
It just means that she has a great deal of trust in him when it comes to not cheating. If she is presented with evidence that suggests strongly that he is cheating, like lipstick on his collar that isn’t hers, or long weekends away with a female work colleague, or phonecalls from friends that his behaviour is less than gallant - then “her faith” in him is likely to be rattled. She may decide to reassess the level of trust, confidence or faith that she has in him, in light of conflicting evidence.
Religious faith, on the other hand is instructed to NOT reassess the level of trust, confidence or faith. Religious faith is instructed that there IS NO conflicting evidence.
So, how does this, for want of a better description, secular use of the word “faith” differ from the religious use of the word “faith.”? Let’s have a look at the bible and how the word “faith” is used there.
Matthew 14:31 “And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” (To doubt faith is bad.)
Romans 1:17
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. ( Faith that something is true is all that is needed. Faith that something is true, is evidence that something is true. If you do not have faith, you cannot be just.)
Romans 3:27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. (Faith is law and supercedes all other law.)
Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Faith supercedes law.)
Romans 5:1
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: (Faith is justified and virtuous.)
Romans 9:32
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; (There is no other avenue in which one can gain knowledge except through faith. Or, faith is the path to knowledge.)
Romans 14:23
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Doubt is sinful because doubt questions faith. Only faith can save you from sin.)
1 Corinthians 2:5
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. ( There is no wisdom in men, only in faith.)
2 Corinthians 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight: (No evidence is required except faith.)
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Works through faith are justified. Works are not justified without faith.)
Galatians 3:12
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. ( The law is not of faith. Faith is the law.)
Galatians 6:10
As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. (Be good to all men, but be better to those of faith.)
Ephesians 6:16
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. (Those who doubt are wicked. Faith is a shield against the wicked. Without faith, one is wicked.)
1 Thessalonians 1:3
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; (Faith is love. Faith is a labour of love. Faith is hope that what is believed is true.)
2 Thessalonians 3:2
And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith. (Those who do not have faith are unreasonable and wicked.)
1 Timothy 5:12
Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. (Those who do not have faith are damned.)
2 Timothy 3:8
Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. (Faith is the truth. Those who resist faith don’t have truth. Those who resist faith are corrupt.)
Hebrews 10:38
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. (One can only be just through faith. Those who do not have faith will be renounced.)
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Faith is evidence.)
Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Faith that the natural world does not exist. It only appears to exist because god wants it to. The natural world does not exist except through the faith that god allows it to be seen by us. )
James 1:3
Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. ( The more that faith is questioned the more one will become patient. - Not the more faith is questioned, the more one will doubt as to doubt faith is evil and sinful.)
James 1:6
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. (Questioning faith is wrong. Doubt is bad. Indescision is wrong.)
It’s pretty obvious to me that when a non-believer uses the word “faith” they are NOT using it in the same way that a religious person does.
Religious faith is unwavering and non-negotiable. Religious faith is dogma.
Now before someone mentions that “the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose” let me state that this reply would be just further evidence that “the faithful” are instructed to view doubt as sin and doubt as evil. The non-religious version of faith, does not consider doubt as sinful, nor evil.
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul, producing holy witness,
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!” - William Shakespeare (1564?-1616?)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1598) act 1, sc. 3, l. {99}
Let me also remind you that ” the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose” is not biblical, through it does echo the biblical religious instruction that doubt is evil and that doubt is sinful. The quote is a from a great work of fiction, but fiction, none the less.
Secondly, the argument that atheists also have faith, is, as I have suggested an argument based in equivocation AND a tu quoque fallacy. A tu ququo fallacy is a retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior. This is done in an attempt to say that as you also have faith, you have no right to pick on me for having faith.
It is also the presumption that the word “faith” means the same in a religious context as it does in a non-religious one.
This sort of argument is pretty lame at best and was chucked out at the Nuremberg Trials where the nazis tried to argue that the allies had also committed war crimes, therefore they didn’t have a right to be pissed off about nazi war crimes.
The tu quoque fallacy is standard operating procedure when someone wants to justify their own actions in light of someone else having displayed similar actions.
The problem with the assertion that atheists have faith too, is that it implies that the word “faith” used outside the context of religion MEANS the same as it does in a religious context. Obviously, it does not.
January 14th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Obviously I don’t see anything noble, holy or righteous about NOT questioning something.
On the contrary, religious believers are led to believe that they ARE noble, holy and righteous if they DON’T question.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Really, guys, the constant cock-measuring is exasperating. Someone please start a topic titled “Why I’m smarter/better looking/more committted to honest discussion than you” and let dt and dave argue go round and round in there.
January 14th, 2007 at 10:02 am
And lest Soulster emerge from this post unscathed: Soulster, I think you’re a little too willing to cede important points. It seems counter-productive to assert “Atheists really don’t have faith”, and then proceed to prove it using this highly limited, almost exclusively Christian definition. It’s like someone arguing “Theists really are more moral than atheists” because some theists define morality as being created by divine fiat.
As much as I dislike Dave’s rhetorical style, this is indeed a point worth arguing:
Also, you might want to spell-check your posts. =P
January 14th, 2007 at 11:00 am
RE matthew
I think that many atheists avoid using the word “faith” for precisely the reason that I elaborated on above.
The problem with the assertion that atheists have faith too, is that it implies that the word “faith†used outside the context of religion MEANS the same as it does in a religious context. It doesn’t.
So many atheists avoid using it when speaking to theists as right off the bat, we are discussing different things.
Sometimes it is necessary to define the words in order to to define the argument. Define the argument so that the discussion is on common ground.
January 14th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Matthew,
True. I’ve invited Dave and any one else who - for the sake of argument - wants to engage in some cock-measuring at my site. I’m sorry the two of us had to whip them out in front of everyone. I’m especially sorry that this longwinded analogy went on so long.
Dave’s rhetorical questions about the origins of the universe try to either force atheists to explain themselves and all sorts of scientific things that are above the heads of most people (physicists excluded) to deny that they use faith with the origins of the universe, or say ‘I don’t know’. If the atheist explains a good deal about quarks and black holes, then Dave says that we athesists have no presuppositions. Then, the atheist must show that he has presuppositions, otherwise Dave jumps on the atheist’s back for a while.
I have faith in several things, and I don’t see how his point matters at all, since my ‘faith’ has nothing to do with the existence of the supernatural. Everyone has presuppositions, and I’ve said mine several times.
January 14th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Triple ditto everything Matthew said.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I’d like to apologize to drunkentune for saying he acted like an ass and a fool (note just for accuracy’s sake, that both pointed descriptions referred to behavior, not him as a person; it’s a crucial distinction leading to a big difference).
Also, I apologize for anything in my writing (especially towards drunken, but in general, too) that was truly provocative in the bad, non-intellectual sense of that word. We can all quibble about where that occurred, and it is subjective to an extent, and good people in good faith can differ on particulars, but wherever I did it (either in God’s eyes or some functionally-equivalent atheist moral standard), I am truly sorry for it.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Dave,
I accept your apology; I hope you can accept mine as well. While I stand by the content of our conversation, the way we presented it did disservice to both our positions.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
much as I dislike Dave’s rhetorical style, . . .
Another note for the record: to say this is my “style” as if the argument from atheists-and-faith or the paper “Deo-Atomism” is my constant modus operandi, and the only way I operate, is to vastly misunderstand my writing and approach.
It’s simply one specific method of response to one specific question of epistemology and comparative atheist-Christian philosophy.
In fact, the Deo-Atomism paper was even a particular sub-form of rhetoric and argument: it was a satire specifically designed to be a turning-the-tables exercise and also a reductio ad absurdum. It’s very specific nature and intent no doubt accounts for much of the great misunderstanding concerning it.
But satire, rhetoric, reductios, and turning the tables (done properly and with proper intent; not simply as exercises of merely personal insult) are all perfectly legitimate forms of argumentation, acceptable in philosophy and religion now, as they have been since Plato and before. You can even find them in the Bible here and there, especially from Paul (a very intellectual person) and Jesus.
Some folks don’t like that, but I suspect the dislike is more basic, extending to the very form and structure of those sorts of arguments, not necessarily only to my own application of them.
Some people think sarcasm or satire is essentially, always (or, most of the time) wrong, in and of itself. This is certainly not the biblical position, nor that of historic philosophy. What would be left of the value of folks like Erasmus or Mark Twain, or even someone like will Rogers, or Bob Dylan in our time, if satire was removed from their work, as unethical and unsavory? That was precisely their brilliance.
Others may simply not care for my style of writing, period (beyond any occasional use of satire and “rhetoric”). That’s fine, and to be expected. No one should think everyone will like their style, in clothes, or writing, or music and movies, architecture, or anything else.
In any event, I have well over 1000 papers on the Internet, most dealing with apologetics, and probably no more than fifteen of them (i.e., roughly only 1-2%) utilize this sort of satire.
I have (without counting) maybe 75 papers directed to atheism alone: most of them dialogues, and this is the only one that I recall that is satirical. But I do satire occasionally about Christians too (far more than towards atheists, because it’s a lot easir, I think, to locate Christian stupidity and folly), even about myself (I made fun of how much I write, doing a take-off of the Beatles’ “Paperback Writer”).
It just so happened that the present dispute involved one of my papers that was satirical. To conclude that this constitutes my entire style and approach to discussion with atheists or anyone else, is a demonstrable mistake.
I can see how, if one only went by what happened here with this dispute, they may think that. No problem. I’m simply clarifying the point of fact.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Accepted likewise, drunken. Thanks.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
drunken,
Perhaps on another topic that doesn’t obviously grate on both of us and cause instant friction, we could do better. If so, I might reconsider hanging out here, if you and soulster are willing to put up with me.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
It is a tu quoque based in the fallacy of equivocation. Let’s handle the equivocation part first.
Equivocation is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around.
Of course, neither soulster nor myself have committed this rather dumb (but sadly common) fallacy.
Soulster (as he has made quite clear in clarification posts) is utilizing a specifically religious definition of faith; therefore, he denies that atheists have such faith. No equivocation or tu quoque there (and I agree with him).
I, on the other hand (as I have made quite clear in clarification posts), was using a second, additional secular or philosophical definition of faith, which drunkentune himself verified from the dictionary, and agreed with (as did beepbeep and soulster).
Therefore, I asserted that atheists had such faith, every bit as much as Christians, if not more so (which is the tremendously controversial assertion). Quite obviously, again, there is no equivocation or tu quoque there, either, because I was utilizing the definition that atheists themselves use, and which they defined in this form, and applying it to both sides.
Now, one may dispute the amount of application or extent of this definition of faith in either case, but in any event, it is no fallacy of equivocation at all.
Ergo, if this fallacy has occurred in this forum, it must have been committed by others besides soulster and myself.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
RE: equivocation and tu quoque
Well, I don’t remember accusing anyone in particular of committing either fallacy. I did, however, elaborate about how these fallacies are committed on a regular basis when theists accuse atheists of having “faith.”
Suffice it to say, that atheists are NOT INSTRUCTED to have faith in something, anything, nothing or everything.
Theists ARE specifically instructed to have faith in their doctrine and to be suspicious of ANY information which conflicts with their doctrine. And that this type of religious faith should be unwavering and non-negotiable.
A naturalist is NOT instructed to have an unwavering faith in naturalism. A materialist is NOT instructed to have a non-negotiable faith in materialism. They are NOT instructed to be suspicious of ANY information which may or may not, conflict with either naturalism or materialism. Therein lies the difference.
That many of them ARE suspicious of “religious information”, does say a lot, however, about the information itself.
Then the equivocation begins as a theist knows that the issue isn’t about whether or not someone has faith, it is about what that faith is in. It is about the basis of religiousr faith. It is not about whether anyone else has faith.
So, the crux of the argument is not whether someone, anyone, has faith, it is about WHAT THEY HAVE FAITH IN. It is also about the fact that the concept that religious faith has marked differences to faith used in other contexts.
Essentially everytime that a theist reacts to an atheist’s accusation of, “you only have faith that these things are true,” or something similar, they ARE committing a tu quoque fallacy.
Let’s see how a tu quoque fallacy works again.
1.Someone accuses you of something.
2.You accuse them of the same thing.
3. You assume that this gets you off the hook.
4. Tu quoque fallacy committed.
Theists know that it is the concept that religious FAITH IS knowledge which is under intellectual attack by non-theists. Any resultant articles about “how an atheist also has faith”, is a direct result of previous accusations about their faith, and they know it. Dave knows it too. Tu quoque committed.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
To sum up. It is not about having faith, but what one is instructed to have faith in. It is not only about having faith but also about WHY one is instructed to have this faith.
What does “to have faith” mean within a religious context and specifically within a christian religious context?
1.It means that faith is evidence that something is true.
2.It means that to doubt faith is bad.
3.It means that if you doubt faith that you cannot be just.
4.It means that faith supercedes all other paths to knowledge.
5.It means that faith is holy, virtuous, or justified BECAUSE it is faith.
6.It means that to doubt faith is to be sinful or wicked.
7.It means that faith is the only way to be saved from sin.
8.It means that faith is wise.
9.It means that all actions are justified through faith.
10.It means that faith is the law.
11.It meanS that to doubt faith is wicked.
12.It means that those who doubt faith are wicked.
14.It means that faith will shield you from doubt.
15.It means that those who doubt faith are unreasonable.
16.It means that those who doubt faith are damned.
17.It means that faith in something IS the truth of that something.
18.It means that those who doubt faith are corrupt.
19.It means that one can live only through faith.
20.It means that faith determines what is true and what is not.
21.It means that faith determines truth.
22.It means that to question faith is wrong.
23.It means that to doubt faith is wrong.
24.It meanS that indecisive faith is wrong.
25.It means that faith should be unwavering.
26.It means that faith is non-negotiable.
27.It means that faith is dogma.
Why are they INSTRUCTED to keep religious faith? They are instructed to have religious faith because they are taught that those who do NOT have it, are probably unwise, sinful, wicked, bad, unreasonable, wrong, untruthful, unable to be trusted, damned and corrupted. (Matthew 14:31, Romans 1:17, Romans 3:27, Romans 3:28, Romans 9:32, Romans 14:23, 1 Corinthians 2:5, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:12, Galatians 6:10, Ephesians 6:16, 1 Thessalonians 1:3, 2 Thessalonians 3:2, 1 Timothy 5:12, 2 Timothy 3:8, Hebrews 10:38, Hebrews 11:1, Hebrews 11:3, James 1:3, James 1:6)
So, the argument isn’t essentially about whether or not people have faith. It is about what people are instructed to have faith in. AND it about what believers are encouraged to believe about
other people because of these INSTRUCTIONS FROM FAITH.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:47 am
When I don’t know the answer, I don’t just make it up. Is that faith, making up the answer? Could faith be: When someone doesn’t know the answer, they make it up? A bit informal, but I hope you get where I’m going with this.
January 15th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Well, soulster, you have your work cut out for you, defending religious faith in the present environment. I wish you the best.
January 15th, 2007 at 6:02 am
RE dave
You can have your religious faith. The problem is that your religious faith involves demanding that everyone else have it too.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Does it? That’s news to me, and would be quite odd indeed, since even God doesn’t “demand” that. He gives you the perfect freedom to reject Him and the faith that leads to Him.
He doesn’t want that; He doesn’t want you to end up without Him for eternity, but He doesn’t override your freedom to make that choice. Nor do I. Go your merry way. But if you ever come to the end of that path, and want to try something different, I’d be more than happy to share a new path and Way with you.
I came to such a place myself, in 1977, so it isn’t like I have no understanding of a life lived without God, either in deliberate atheism, or in practical atheism (as in my case), where God had no discernible effect on my life or beliefs or actions, even though I never disbelieved in Him.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Dave,
If I ‘reject’ God, do I go to Hell?
January 15th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
If you truly know there is a God, in your heart of hearts; know for sure that He exists and that He provides the way of salvation for any human being who will accept it (the acceptance itself by His grace, is what Christians believe), AND you reject Him with this full knowledge, you will assuredly go to hell.
If you don’t know it, you don’t have full knowledge, and are therefore not rejecting the true God, but merely what you mistakenly think is “God,” then in that case, you may possibly be saved. It’s based both on what you know and what you do with that knowledge (see Romans 1-2; especially chapter 2 in this regard).
No one can tell what happens to any given human being. I’m only presenting abstract Christian theology as to the nature of true rejection of God and the offer of salvation, and damnation.
Personally (just my own speculation that doesn’t count for much in the scheme of things), I think there is hope for you, because you question and show interest in spiritual things, even if from a very skeptical outlook at present. Far better that, than a cold unconcern. So this is a very good thing, from a Christian’s perspective. If you are truly open to possibilities, as you say you are, then there is a great deal of hope for you; you’re in a good place compared to many many others who could care less about ultimate things.
The open-minded questioner can, after all, possibly be convinced. I was the same way with regard to evangelical Christianity (in the mid-70s) and Catholicism (in 1990). I was extremely skeptical, but remained open-minded, and was eventually convinced to embrace both worldviews and ways of life.
The closed-minded person shuts himself off to possibilities and persuasion. This is a chilling, frightening state, from any perspective. No one can read anyone else’s heart with certainty. We can only speculate based on repeated behaviors.
If any Christian tells you that they are sure you are either going to heaven or hell, don’t listen to anything further they have to say to you. They know very little about Christianity and do not properly represent it. You can take my advice as one who has done Christian apologetics for 25 years, and who has been both a Protestant and a Catholic. John Calvin himself said that no one could know who was in the elect (yet many Calvinists act like they know).
January 15th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I’m sure everyone accepts your apology. The forgiveness of the blog-reading masses is astounding in both depth and girth, because the longer we hang around, the more are pleased by this friendly intercourse.
Woops. I was unclear. By “rhetorical style” I meant “I dislike the style of Dave’s rhetoric” not “I dislike that Dave speaks rhetorically”.
January 15th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I think it might be more accurate to say “Arminian” rather than “Christian”. What Dave describes is a particular Christian soteriology, not *the* Christian soteriology.
January 15th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Matthew:
Good point. There is tremendous diversity even among the believers here in theology. I’ve been thinking a little bit about how much of this is helpful for the conversation and how much wouldn’t matter to those interested in the over-all dialogue here. In other words, how much of the particulars and variations of Christianity can we express before it becomes too confusing or complicated for the athiest-agnostic-believer conversation? You’re thoughts on this are welcome, as well as those of anyone else — perhaps some feedback from non-Christians would also be helpful on in this regard.
January 15th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I think it might be more accurate to say “Arminian†rather than “Christianâ€. What Dave describes is a particular Christian soteriology, not *the* Christian soteriology.
This is untrue because I wasn’;t talking abouit soteriology per se, but merely answering one specific question. Though I am a Molinist Catholic in my soteriology, and used to be an Arminian Protestant (which is similar) those divisions don’t enter into my argument above, which applies to all of them. Nor does even predestination enter into those remarks (in any sense that would change them), rightly-understood.
The fact remains that if someone rejects what he or she knows to be God, they will be damned, in any Christian system. The Calvinist simply says that such a person did or does so because of being predestined from eternity (or post-fall), and thus wasn’t given the grace by God to do otherwise. But the eschatological fact in either system is that they are damned.
And like I pointed out, even John Calvin said that we cannot know who is in the elect or not, and that was my main point.
Therefore my statemnt about no one being able to know for sure if another person is damned or saved, holds for all Christians.
Generally, when in atheist company, I try to speak for all Christians, in a general sense. That’s why you only rarely see me discussing Catholic distinctives in here (only if a topic specifically comes up and I am asked about it). Moreover, as a former evangelical Protestant missionary and current Catholic published apologist, I’m confident in saying that I know what I am talking about in these areas.
Good point. There is tremendous diversity even among the believers here in theology.
As always. But I reiterate that this doesn’t affect my answer to drunken’s question. I fail to see how being in another system would change it. The only change would be if someone was a universalist and denied the existence of hell altogether. Of course, that is not even historic Christianity, anymore than Unitarianism is. There is a thing called Christianity that can be broadly defined, and some schools of thought or individual tenets fall outside of it.
E.g., the Seventh-Day Adventists are Christian in most respects except that they deny hell and believe in Saturday worship. I would characterize that as having heretical views inconsistently mixed in with biblical, historic Christianity.
Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian at all because they deny the Holy Trinity, which is fundamental to Christianity.
One can’t simply define Christianity however they like, as if it is almost meaningless.
Therefore, I gave an answer that fits in with all historic Christian systems: Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox.
But even beyond that, I was asked a question and answered. Even if I gave an answer that was specifically Catholic and didn’t fit with Protestantism, it still remains that I was asked the question, and so I answered it according to what I believe. How could I do otherwise?
January 15th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
I guess that the bible din’t really mean this.
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
“They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.”
Join us or be killed, join us or go to hell - they are not options of free will. They are threats of violence.
There is no freewill if you believe that a god exists, there is only punishment if you don’t obey.
That’s not free will. That is intimidation, coersion and threats of violence and suffering if you don’t join the club.
January 15th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Scenario:
Vacuum salesman comes to my door and wants to sell me a “ridgy didge, you beaut vacuum cleaner.”
He tells me it is the best vacuum cleaner that you can buy. It will last forever and it has more suck than a frog’s bum on the windscreen of a car travelling at 100 miles per hour.
I tell him that I don’t need a vacuum cleaner as I sweep the floor by hand and that the excess use of electricity will only add to the effects of global climate change.
He tells me that I must buy the vacuum cleaner or he will smash my face in.
Now, if I believe that he has the power to smash my face in, I might be encouraged through the threat of violence to BUY that vacuum cleaner. But it wouldn’t be of my own freewill, as freewill requires that I decide WITHOUT fear of violence or punishment.
Consent is not considered of one’s own freewill if threats of violence elicit the consent.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
RE: “Even if I gave an answer that was specifically Catholic and didn’t fit with Protestantism, it still remains that I was asked the question, and so I answered it according to what I believe. How could I do otherwise?”
You could ask - “Why do I believe it?”
Oooops, you won’t, because doubt of faith is sinful and wicked.
January 16th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Yes, of course. I’m only an apologist, after all, whose very purpose is to explain why Christians believe what they believe. But I believe lots of dumb things about faith and Christianity. Here is a list (my very favorites are bolded):
# Christianity is based on fear
# Christianity preys on the innocent
# Christianity is based on dishonesty
# Christianity is extremely egocentric
# Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality
# Christianity breeds authoritarianism
# Christianity is cruel
# Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific
# Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex
# Christianity produces sexual misery
# Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality
# Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils
# Christianity depreciates the natural world
# Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization
# Christianity sanctions slavery
# Christianity is misogynistic
# Christianity is homophobic
# The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ’s teachings
# The Bible is riddled with contradictions
# Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from other ancient religions
Stuff like this is why I am a Christian!!!! Who could fail to be one, with all these admirable, appealing attributes?????
Sound familiar, beep?
http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html#numbertwenty
January 16th, 2007 at 2:51 am
RE dave
I see you preferred not to answer the question truthfully, but chose to imply that you believe BECAUSE people criticize your religion.
Oh, I see, that must mean, in some sort of warped way of thinking with which I am unfamiliar, that criticism is somehow evidence that your position is right.
That certainly doesn’t work in any other aspect of everyday life.
Let’s see, the boss repeatedly tells me I am not doing my job correctly and critically analyses my performance and work schedule.
My immediate assumption should be - That just proves I am right! If he is finding fault in my work, it must mean that the way I am doing it is correct!
I will refrain from chuckling softly at this point. (But only just.)
One thing I do agree with you about is that apologists spend a lifetime trying to plug the holes in, and make excuses for, their dodgy belief system.
January 16th, 2007 at 3:15 am
LOL It’s astonishing to me, beep, how you can continually be so wrong. One would think that by chance alone you would accurately characterize others’ beliefs once in a while, just like an unplugged clock is right twice a day.
I believe there is something —–SOMETHING —— that you and I agree on, and I am determined to find it. It may be that your favorite color is blue, too, or you like sunsets. ANYTHING will do. I’m desperate. It’s not possible for two human beings to disagree about absolutely everything.
January 16th, 2007 at 4:53 am
Why is it important to agree on something? It is not as if I am going to become violent and challenge you to a typing duel @ 50 paces.
RE: the unplugged clock
That is the point dave, I doubt that you are right even twice a day.
Obviously, I think that the incorporeal clock you believe in, has no hands and no power, regardless of whether you believe it does or not.
By the way, I do like corporeal clocks. I have a nice little collection of dutch, german and english clocks. They “ting whistle, clang, chime and cuckoo” and drive my visitors batty
January 16th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Dave:
I hope you don’t think my comment was directed at you as a criticism. I was asking Matthew about how much detail in Christianity we should bring out in this venue (per his attempted distinction of theological particulars in your comment). I will take your response as an answer to this question: that you attempt to answer atheists in a generic way concering Christianity that is more or less representative of othrodoxy confessed by the major branches.
January 16th, 2007 at 9:59 am
As I’ve reviewed these comments, there is one thing in my original post I think the readers here missed in general: my definition above is not primarily religious — it is primarily relational. Notice that the word origins in both Greek and Hebrew were first secular terms for relational trust and applied only later to religion (Hellenistic period in Greek, Kings/Prophets in Hebrews). I also mentioned in my post that an atheist could say they have faith in a relational context using my definition without it relating to anything religious.
I thought I should clear up this point. I’m not trying to be the definition police — indeed, I cannot. And I would not look down on anyone for using an alternate definition. But for the sake of overcoming a problematic ambiguity, I will continue to advocate this modified definition in general usage, both for believer and non-believer based on the older meaning of the words.
January 16th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Dave said:
No, some Christians are universalists.
Soulster said:
You make a good point, although the same holds true for atheism (ignosticism? non-cognitivism? apatheism?).
To answer the question, I think it’s important to contradict anyone who says that something is what “All Christians” believe, or without justification, says that something is what “Most Christians” believe. So I feel OK saying “some Christians believe that no one is going to hell”.
Beyond that, I’m not sure.
January 16th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Matthew:
Well, I’ll join you there (being unsure). Perhaps that is one of the objectives of this experiment — to figure out how much detail and diversity is helpful for this type of dialogue. And perhaps also the atheists and agnostics on this blog could help us know what is helpful in this regard. Anyone care to venture an opinion?
January 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Matthew,
Good point. A good friend of mine is a Quaker; another is a Unitarian Universalist; another was Episcopalian, but is technically running back and forth between being a pantheist and a Buddhist. All three consider themselves to be ‘Christian’, even though the Quaker is - strangely enough - an atheist.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
This is useful information. Thanks for posting it.
The modern meaning is definitely hard to pin down, but what is remarkable to me is that most faithful people (in my experience) don’t bother to invoke faith as a justification for most of their beliefs…only those that are weakly supported by evidence. Maybe if pressed they would have to agree that every belief ultimately requires at least a little faith, but when people have evidence they just don’t feel a need to invoke faith as a justification, probably because whatever amount is required in this case is trivial. This seems just shy of a full admission that faith is what one uses to justify cherished beliefs when the evidence isn’t good enough.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
godma:
That could be. But it could also be that there is a folk-myth of something we call “the facts” that are public and accepted and other things we call “values” which are private and can be based on faith and some would say require no eivdence (though I disagree with this). It could be that such an artificial dichotomy causes us to understate the amount of uncertainty in one area and overstate the amount of uncertainty in the other. It is possible that even believers communicate or must communicate in this plausibility structure based on a Newtonian view of the universe and cultural modernism which judges much of what they know as non-fact, unacceptable, and unsupported.