XnForums

From Christian writer John Shore's blog:



What are your thoughts about this?

OK, we both take a “leap of faith.” The question is: Who takes the bigger leap, and what do we mean by “faith”?

Like saying I drive a car and Mario Andretti drives a car. Even though that is true in a global sense, the types of cars we drive and how we drive is very, very different. I doubt one would compare me to Mario Andretti.

Theists, to be fair, should more often admit that the belief that there is a God is, in every sense of the word, a belief-as opposed to a fact. It's a guess. It's a reasonable guess, to be sure. But it's absurd to suggest that it's any more reasonable a guess then that there is no God.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I don't know why it is that theists want/need so much to say that atheism is a belief. Maybe for some atheists, their atheism is a belief. I don't know of any atheist creed or mission statement that atheists follow or believe in.

I would never say, "I believe there is no God." I say, "I think it's likely there is no God and I live as though their isn't." Is that a belief?

I was asked don't you have a hole now where your faith was? Don't you have an empty spot that needs filling? (A paraphrase/summary of a much longer conversation.)

My answer was that whatever hole that symbolically might need filling was filled with a sense of peace. I didn't feel empty or wanting. I felt peace. Is that a belief?

We are so conditioned to take sides, to believe something, anything. We're so conditioned for looking for the truth that when each of us leaves the truth for another truth or decides, wow, some things at this time aren't knowable...people don't know what to do with that...and they've got to make "not-believing" into a belief.

As a waning Christian, I looked around, and I too deduced, there must be a God.

However, it was reading Christian apologetics, reading Christian books on spiritual abuse and reading my Bible that led me away from believing in God or at least at first, the God I onced believed in.

I don't remember a sense of leaving my faith as a leap of faith. It was a step outside a previous box of belief. I took a step out and then stepped out with the other foot and voila, there it was, peace.

For atheists who have never believed in God (actually don't we all start out as atheists) I don't sense in them at all that they have a set of beliefs associated with their atheism. I've seen theists say, well what do you believe in then?

The atheist lists things like, love, justice, hard work, taking care of their family, helping the poor, etc. and the theist comes along and says, 'See you do believe in something.' Well, duh? Sure. Don't we all? But, saying that because an atheist believes in something, doesn't mean atheism in and of itself is a belief.

I think he abuses the words "belief" and "faith" to claim what he does.

Good answers.

I think Christians cannot accept any faith other than their own, which defines their doctrinal belief, and therefore they cheat faith for what it is in their promotion of what it is not.

Everyone, all of humanity has faith in something. You might have faith that your studies in education will land you a certain high paying job. Then, when you have landed that particular high paying job your faith has been realized, and it is no more faith but reality. Then you move on to something else that you have faith in the outcome. Being optimistic, having hope, is a continuous and progressive element of our being. Christians cannot claim faith as their own truth, but they have distorted its meaning by applying it to their doctrinal belief in their own religion. Thus the Christian sees a hole where none exist in atheism.

Christians have no trademark on faith, as even their bible story tells the story. Jesus reminded his followers that other non-Jews, whom the Jews called evil people, had faith amongst themselves. These "evildoers", labeled as such for their being non-Jewish, had faith, desires, hope and optimism for their own families and their social surroundings. So, it's evident that even the Jews did not have a trademark on faith but directed their faith in their doctrinal belief thus distorting the actual meaning of faith.

I don't think that having a career goal requires faith...

I can't think of anything I have faith in.

Of course it requires faith. Faith that what we study for will land us a career or a job.. Faith that the industry will still be available for our employment. Even if one industry shuts down, we have faith that our studied accomplishment will service us elsewhere. Else, we give up and say, "there is nothing for me".

I can think of lots of things that you have faith in. Your most prominent thing is that of your family's support in your ability to learn and achieve. Unless you think your family hates you, and even in that thinking you would still have faith that they would or might harm you in their ill feeling toward you. I'm not a part of your immediate family but as a person and member of humanity I have faith that your ability to achieve will cause you to be successful.

If I study, experience tells me that I am more likely to succeed. That is not faith. I think you are extending the meaning of faith further than what it really means.

I see my family every day and have made a decision on how they feel about me based on our interaction. This is also not faith.

Faith is required to believe something where a decision cannot be made rationally. Whether that is from demonstrational or observable means.

I have heard faith illustrated this way.
There is a story of Blondin, a high wire walker. In the early 1900's, he rode a bicycle across Niagra Falls.

When he got to the other side, he asked the crowd if anyone believed if he (Blondin) could carry anyone
on the bike back to the other side. One fellow said, "Yeah, I believe you can!"'

"Then get on..." said Blondin...

When you are willing to put your life on the line for what you believe, that is faith.

clean'

Faith as defined by biblical precept is: "Faith is the thing hoped for, evidence of it not yet seen."

If the fellow who said he had faith that Blondin could carry a rider back across the high wire and he himself then went along for the ride, his journey to the end of that high-wire was completed and he as evidence of it revealed there was no more need for faith in it to apply. So then with that faith completed, he went on to other faith based initiative.

Christians have faith that Jesus will return. It is their hope with evidence not yet seen.

Some Christians recognize the appearance[second coming] of Jesus within them via his words. Their faith and hope is thus achieved and complete.

You almost got it right.."Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen." Hebrews 11:1


But, I don't see how that counters my post.
Am I missing something?

clean'

Ah…the ol’ Charles Blondin/Tightrope over the Niagara Falls analogy for Faith. (Although traditionally, it has been a wheelbarrow, not a bicycle.) Two points on the story.

First – it is not true. Some Christian came up with the example and like a viral plague, it has passed from Christian to Christian, none bothering to actually look into the facts of the matter. Of course, when pointed out, most Christians say, “Well…at least it is a good analogy” unrealizing the demonstration of credulity impairs credibility.

Second – the life of Charles Blondin is actually far more exciting. He walked across the gorge below Niagara Falls on a tightrope. He walked across blindfolded. He walked across backward. He lay down on the rope in the middle. He took a stove, cooked an omelet, lowering to a boat below—all while on a tightrope!

One of the most harrowing trips was when he took his Manager across on his back. He had not accounted for so much extra weight, and the incline after the middle all but did him in. Further, the manager had to sit very, VERY still, to prevent imbalance. Could you imagine being the manager, on his back, while Blondin had to keep stopping to rest, just to make the trip? And you had to remain perfectly still?

The problem for Blondin was that he couldn’t make any money off of it. Watching him was free. In order to generate funds, he advertised that people could pay Blondin to be taken across in a wheelbarrow. As far as we know—no one took him up on the offer.

Now as to the problem of “faith.” Traditionally it has been an extremely difficult word to define. How much evidence does a belief have to have, and still be faith? 0%? 1%? If I am 99.99% sure of something, does that .01% mean I still have faith? Is it the same amount of faith as a person with 1% evidence?

Take the Blondin story. Imagine you are standing on the shore, having never seen Blondin cross once, and he asks you to ride over in a wheelbarrow. How much “faith” would it take to agree? But what if you heard newspaper accounts regarding his feats? Is this less faith? Or what if you watched him cross with an empty wheelbarrow. Twice.

Less faith? Or if you watched him cross with another person who weighed 50 lbs more than you. Or 100 people. Or 1,000 people. At what point does the idea of going across with Blondin reach a level of “reliance based upon past observation” as compared to “faith”?

The analogy fails to take these into account.

Finally, if one is going to use the word “faith” from the Bible, one should do some research into the term. Pistos is better translated, “Loyalty.” We might use the term “She was faithful to her country” or “He was faithful to his service.” The Mediterranean First Century Culture would use the term as one would be loyal toward God—doing the duties and following the service God requires. See Malina.

It is a later addition to impose this concept of “faith” being an element of belief.

I'm just wondering how many right wingers you need to get together before the sheer density of stupidity will create some sort of stupid event horizon, from which no intellect can escape.