Why is Faith a Virtue?

The supposed "evidence to the contrary" here is not convicting evidence to the contrary despite your conviction that it is. What so many here regard as incontrovertible proof, though they dislike that term, as for instance against the flood, simply is not. It's all speculation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK. That's an amazing concession as a matter of fact. A first I think. At least I can't think of anybody else on the opposing side who has ever acknowledged that there is evidence on the creationist side.But it does make a difference to the discussion of faith as a virtue whether the evidence really is incontrovertible or not. TRULY incontrovertible evidence should call for a rethinking of the basis of one's faith and there would be no virtue in clinging to faith under such circumstances. But not the kind of evidence that is just speculative. The problem is that many THINK there is incontrovertible evidence when it really isn't.But perhaps that does take us off topic.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I want to echo Iano's statement that nobody has asked that faith be respected by anybody. Within the Christian frame of reference, the tougher the faith in the face of adversity the more admirable, but that's for Christians to appreciate, not unbelievers.Dawkins gave a straw man picture of faith based on blind tradition. Silly really.

I don't ask them to respect the strength of my faith. Isn't that the topic? Because nobody can have faith based on blind tradition. Overall you are probably right but don't be "absolutely certain" about that. It can be a pretty riveting read for someone who has never heard of it before. I am aware of at least one striking case where someone happened to read just a few verses in Matthew and became a believer (and I don't think this is unique, I just can't think of other examples). In this case the person was a young KGB agent in the Soviet Union in the late 60s who had the job of breaking up secret Christian meetings in private houses, beating up the people, tearing up the Bibles and so on. One time he was threatening an old woman who prayed out loud that God would forgive him. This made him even angrier and he raised his stick to hit her. Before he could, he felt his arm gripped by something and couldn't carry out the swing, though nobody was near him. That scared him. That was probably the most important element in his conversion, but soon after he found a piece of a torn Bible and read it, this fragment from Matthew, and realized what he had been told was false, that these people were not planning to overthrow the government. He became a believer gradually over the next few years but never left his job, then elaborately plotted his defection. He was a navy officer when his ship was near the west coast of Canada and he jumped ship and swam to shore. Had a brief happy time among Canadian Christians but was tracked down and killed by the KGB within a year or so. Good story. Title The Persecutor.Sorry for the digression but you happened to be wrong about that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nobodfy can have faith based on tradition. Period.All the KGB officer knew about Christianity was that he was assigned to harass them. Period. {edit: He'd been told they were enemies of the state}People disbelieve divine intervention all the time. They refuse to believe it, explain it away. And I did not say his faith was a virtue. I was answering your claim that reading the Bible without knowledge of the religion wouldn't prove anything {edit: meant wouldn't convince anyone}. I believe it was what the Bible said that made him a Christian, not the divine intervention.I understood the topic to be strong faith IN CHRIST (nothing else, at least as far as it interests me) under adversity. That's the only thing I would claim to be a virtue, and it's only a virtue to Christians, not to anyone else. And it is a virtue to hold onto it under extreme duress, under torture for instance, which has happened a lot in the history of Christianity, under ridicule, which happens quite frequently to any of us who try to spread the gospel, under aggressive ridicule in the claim that we are being "wilfully ignorant" in denying evidence against various Biblical claims for instance. People lose their faith unfortunately frequently under such tests, some as soon as they are confronted with something that pretends to be evidence against faith, or they willingly compromise their faith to accommodate what unbelievers think. That's why it's a virtue to hold onto it, it takes courage.It may even be a virtue when the belief is false as in the instances you mention, because it does take courage, sad though it is.But I don't make anything out of this sort of virtue. It doesn't interest me. I find it an unpleasant topic to discuss. I only answered the few things that interested me and don't care to pursue it further. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Remember the context is Dawkins' teapot story. His straw man of faith was that it was believed in ONLY because everybody else believed in it. That's not how faith works. You can't truly believe, let alone have the kind of faith that endures scoffing and debunkery and even torture, unless you have personal knowledge of some sort about the thing you believe in, at least a conviction based on historcal facts that testify to its actual existence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Is it being "indoctrinated" to read books about it and be persuaded?

Stories don't inspire faith. Written history sometimes does though. It's based on true history, not stories. Can't leave out a major test of the virtue of faith, that many have experienced over the history of Christianity. I meant that group belief, tradition, is useless. Many people grow up performing the rituals and reciting the creeds of religion without fully comprehending, let alone believing, them. The belief has to be arrived at individually and personally.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Good historical evidence has just as much weight as empirical evidence, and in this case there is a LOT of empirical evidence reported in the history; and NOT to believe the honest people who reported it is an act of bad faith and dishonesty and maybe even character assassination.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The honest people who reported it. As I said.

All the people who experienced it and reported it. All the writers of the OT and NT, and all the people they describe as witnessing the evidence.

The Bible is a historical document, reporting on historical events by eyewitnesses throughout and taken as such by millions of believers through the centuries. The Koran is nothing but a collection of precepts. I don't know much about the Iliad except that I didn't think anyone regarded it as anything but fiction.{edit: The Bible reports eyewitness accounts of many miracles. There are no miracles in the Koran. I have no idea why you think the Iliad belongs in this company at all.} Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Eyewitness accounts cannot possibly be "completely untrustworthy" or you wouldn't dare get out of bed in the morning.The Bible accounts are multiple and overlapping, on the Biblical criterion that any event must be multiply witnessed to be reliable. The Bible meets its own criterion.Perhaps the Iliad has true historical elements. What that has to do with the Bible is beyond me.

The Bible is a lengthy continuous history that demonstrates the doings of God among ordinary human beings over two millennia. It is unique. Its many writers over the many centuries all contribute to the consistent history. I see nothing similar except in the most superficial ways between it and any other ancient or modern document.If you really think the Mahabharata is equivalent in credibility, that's your judgment call.

The Bible is self-verifying. It is patently authentic, its authors patently honest witnesses. Again a judgment call.I suspect it also teaches things that are of infinitely more importance to human beings than the Mahabharata does, but not having studied the latter, though I've read books by various Hindu gurus and about Hinduism in general, this is merely what I suspect.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.