|
Author
|
Topic: Creation, Evolution, and faith
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
Message 46 of 456 (553093)
04-01-2010 11:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 12:53 AM
|
|
Did you read Acts 17? The reasoning is there. Again, can you please outline this reasoning? I simply don't see it. As others have pointed out Acts 17 contains a long list of baseless assertions. That is not reasoning. Paul simply begs the question by putting the conclusion in the premises.
Paul's arguments may not resonate with us today, but they were strong enough and provocative enough to convince some of the philosophers of his day. I wasn't aware that the rules of logic have changed in the ensuing 2,000 years.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 12:53 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 4:28 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
|
Message 47 of 456 (553095)
04-01-2010 11:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 6:50 AM
|
|
There are numerous cases in science where new data comes in, but scientists are unwilling to accept this new data because of prior intellectual commitment to a theory. That is stubborness, not faith.
The academic establishment of Galileo's day opposed him and his data fairly strongly due to prior commitment to an Aristotelian worldview. Don't you mean a prior commitment to Papal inerrancy based on religious faith? Was Galileo placed under house arrest for the remainder of his years because Academia disagreed with him?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 6:50 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 53 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 4:36 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 48 of 456 (553139)
04-01-2010 3:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by PaulK
04-01-2010 2:04 AM
|
|
quote:
If your best evidence that Christian faith is based on reason is that a pro-Christian document says that Christians more than 1950 years ago had reasoned arguments, then you don't have a case worth considering.
If one really wants to understand a view that he himself does not hold, he should go to the advocates of the view. I was referring to Acts 17 mainly to establish what "religious faith" is and means according to the Bible.
quote:
We can't know to what extent Acts is accurate (likely it exaggerates) or to what extent emotive appeals rather than reason were the persuasive force.
We know, of course, that it is quite accurate geographically (though it was once thought not to be). But whether or not it is accurate here is not my main point. I don't want to sidetrack the thread on this. I am mainly trying to show the biblical meaning of "faith". Here are some of the claims of "reasoning" in Acts:
NASB writes:
Acts 17:2-4 And aaccording to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ. And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. Acts 17:17 So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. Acts 18:4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. Acts 18:19 They came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. Acts 19:8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
Whether or not you would find Paul's arguments persuasive today is not the point. Whether or not Dr. Luke's records are accurate is not even the point. The point is that the Bible claims faith is associated with reasoning and persuasion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 2:04 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 4:28 PM | | kbertsche has replied | | | Message 59 by Taq, posted 04-01-2010 5:00 PM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Many Assertions, No Reason
quote:
You seem genuinely perplexed that Acts 17 is not being accepted as an example of reason in action, despite containing phrases like "he reasoned with them". Let's take a closer look at Paul's attempts at reason.
I am not surprised that unbelievers find the reasoning unconvincing and reject it. But yes, I AM surprised that they take the position that there is no reasoning at all. But as I said to PaulK, this was not my main point and I do not want to sidetrack the thread on this. My main point is the definition of "religious faith." Perhaps it's better to go back to dictionary and lexicon definitions. Below are some excerpts. We've already seen the Greek "faith" from Liddell & Scott, which I found somewhat odd. Here is their main definition of the verb form, "believe:"
Liddell & Scott writes:
pisteuo—, f. euso—: plqpf. pepisteukein: (pistis):to trust, trust to or in, put faith in, rely on, believe in a person or thing, ...
Here are some definitions from Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias:
New Intl Encyclopedia of Bible Words writes:
BELIEF/FAITH Few words are more central to the Christian message or more often used to describe Christian experience than belief and faith. Yet these words are often corrupted by a misunderstanding of their biblical meaning. People today may use faith to indicate what is possible but uncertain. The Bible uses faith in ways that link it with what is assuredly and certainly true. Christians may sometimes speak of believing, as if it were merely a subjective effort, as if our act of faith or strength of faith were the issue. But the Bible shifts our attention from subjective experience and centers it on the object of our faithGod himself.
Easton's Bible Dictionary writes:
Faith: Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.
And even a good non-theological work like Webster's has a good definition:
Webster's Dictionary writes:
Faith (fa—th), n. [OE. feith, fayth, fay, OF. feid, feit, fei, F. foi, fr. L. fides; akin to fidere to trust, Gr. peithein to persuade. The ending th is perhaps due to the influence of such words as truth, health, wealth. See Bid, Bide, and cf. Confide, Defy, Fealty.] 1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony. 2. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth. ... 3. (Theol.) (a) The belief in the historic truthfulness of the Scripture narrative, and the supernatural origin of its teachings, sometimes called historical and speculative faith. (b) The belief in the facts and truth of the Scriptures, with a practical love of them; especially, that confiding and affectionate belief in the person and work of Christ, which affects the character and life, and makes a man a true Christian, called a practical, evangelical, or saving faith. ... 4. That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or religion; especially (Theol.), a system of religious belief of any kind; as, the Jewish or Mohammedan faith; and especially, the system of truth taught by Christ; as, the Christian faith; also, the creed or belief of a Christian society or church. ...
I don't see the concept of faith against reason in any of these definitions, not even Webster's. But the concepts of conviction, persuasion, and evidence are in a number of definitions, as I was trying to show from Acts. The point is that this is what is meant by "religious faith" in a biblical or Christian theological context.
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 50 of 456 (553143)
04-01-2010 4:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by PaulK
04-01-2010 7:40 AM
|
|
quote:
But remember that this started with your condemnation of Dawkins' use of "faith". Even if you can show that there is a precise theological definition (and you should do that before claiming to use it) it seems unreasonable to expect Dawkins to be using that in a book written for the lay public.
Hopefully my last post has showed that there is a fairly consistent biblical/theological definition of "faith" and that this is in harmony with a careful English definition. Yes, it is unreasonable to expect Dawkins to use theological terms correctly. It might have been reasonable to expect Dawkins to use Webster's definition in a book for the public, but he did not even do this.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 7:40 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 51 of 456 (553144)
04-01-2010 4:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 3:54 PM
|
|
quote:
If one really wants to understand a view that he himself does not hold, he should go to the advocates of the view.
Then, since Dawkins argument concerns ordinary believers rather than theologians he should use "faith" as it is understood by ordinary believers, and not rely on the technical terminology of theologians - if there even is such a definition as you claim.
quote:
I was referring to Acts 17 mainly to establish what "religious faith" is and means according to the Bible.
However when others pointed out that the reasoning was absent you actually questioned whether they had read Acts 17.
quote:
Whether or not you would find Paul's arguments persuasive today eis not the point. Whether or not Dr. Luke's records are accurate is not even the point. The point is that the Bible claims faith is associated with reasoning and persuasion.
Then the point is wholly inadequate. The question is to what extent religious faith is actually based on reason. Claims that reason converted some people long ago do not establish anything about the current situation. Especially when we cannot even verify those claims in any way.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 3:54 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 52 of 456 (553145)
04-01-2010 4:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by Taq
04-01-2010 11:29 AM
|
|
quote:
Again, can you please outline this reasoning? I simply don't see it. As others have pointed out Acts 17 contains a long list of baseless assertions. That is not reasoning.
Again, the details of paul's reasoning are not my main point here. Sorry to sidetrack the thread. My main point is the biblical/theological definition of "faith." This IS pertinent to the thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by Taq, posted 04-01-2010 11:29 AM | | Taq has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by Rahvin, posted 04-01-2010 4:40 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 53 of 456 (553147)
04-01-2010 4:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by Taq
04-01-2010 11:32 AM
|
|
quote:
Don't you mean a prior commitment to Papal inerrancy based on religious faith? Was Galileo placed under house arrest for the remainder of his years because Academia disagreed with him?
No, I meant what I said. The Church was one of Galileo's strongest supporters until he ticked off its leadership. His main opponents were the academic elite, who were committed to an Aristotelian worldview. They finally persuaded the Church to go against Galileo, helped by his own obnoxiousness. The "common wisdom" that this was a simple science-religion battle is simply wrong. A number of good historically-accurate popular-level books have been written on the subject, and there have been some well-done TV documentaries on it (maybe the Discovery network?). This is an interesting subject, but it is also off-topic for this thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by Taq, posted 04-01-2010 11:32 AM | | Taq has not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 7.6
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 54 of 456 (553148)
04-01-2010 4:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 4:28 PM
|
|
Again, the details of paul's reasoning are not my main point here. Sorry to sidetrack the thread. My main point is the biblical/theological definition of "faith." This IS pertinent to the thread. It's all irrelevant anyway. No matter how you slice it, scientific theories carry a confidence in accuracy that is borne of experience - previously verified predictions, observations, independent repetition of experiments, etc. You could say that I have "faith" that when I jump I'll fall back down, but my confidence in such a situation is due to my previous experience of having fallen back down every single time I;ve ever jumped, and everyone around me I've ever seen or heard of jumping having an identical experience. Religious faith of the sort that allows for belief in deities is compeltely different, because there is no observation, no confirmation, no independant testing, no previous experience that meaningfully justifies confidence in such assertions. Even if you insist on calling them both "faith" (an absurdity that I think broadens the definition of the word such that it can be used for any beleif based on anything at all), it's blatantly obvious that there is a different thought process happening between the person who asserts that gravity will pull him back to Earth if he jumps, and the person who asserts that Jesus is waiting to judge him when he dies. That's the crux of this topic, and there's really no arguing it. Your side discussions are red herrings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 4:28 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 56 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 4:47 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 55 of 456 (553149)
04-01-2010 4:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by PaulK
04-01-2010 4:28 PM
|
|
quote:
Then, since Dawkins argument concerns ordinary believers rather than theologians he should use "faith" as it is understood by ordinary believers, and not rely on the technical terminology of theologians - if there even is such a definition as you claim.
In my experience, ordinary believers use the term consistent with the Bible Dictionary definitions. Even Webster's definition is a large step up from Dawkins'.
quote:
However when others pointed out that the reasoning was absent you actually questioned whether they had read Acts 17.
Yes, because I thought it was obvious that Paul was giving reasons. But I guess it wasn't so obvious to the rest of you.
quote:
The question is to what extent religious faith is actually based on reason.
That's a good question, but not what I was mainly trying to address.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 4:28 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 4:58 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 56 of 456 (553151)
04-01-2010 4:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by Rahvin
04-01-2010 4:40 PM
|
|
quote:
Even if you insist on calling them both "faith" (an absurdity that I think broadens the definition of the word such that it can be used for any beleif based on anything at all),
See Webster's definition #4 above. He calls them both "faith." You can call this absurd if you like, but you are out of step with English language usage.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by Rahvin, posted 04-01-2010 4:40 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 57 of 456 (553152)
04-01-2010 4:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 4:18 PM
|
|
Re: Many Assertions, No Reason
quote:
I am not surprised that unbelievers find the reasoning unconvincing and reject it. But yes, I AM surprised that they take the position that there is no reasoning at all.
Why would you be surprised at unbelievers pointing out a fact obvious to anyone who reads Acts 17 ?
quote:
I don't see the concept of faith against reason in any of these definitions, not even Webster's
I do. Leaving aside your selective and misleading use of Liddell Scott, the New Intl Encyclopedia of Bible Words describes faith as
The Bible uses faith in ways that link it with what is assuredly and certainly true. Christians may sometimes speak of believing, as if it were merely a subjective effort, as if our act of faith or strength of faith were the issue. But the Bible shifts our attention from subjective experience and centers it on the object of our faithGod himself.
But what articles of the Christian faith can be established as "assuredly and certainly true" by reason ? Reason does not tell us that it is "certainly and assuredly" true that God - or even similar entities like the deist God even exist. Easton's agrees with you, but it's assertion appears to be false, effectively equating Christianity with Huxleyan agnosticism. Webster's definition directly links theological faith to false beliefs. The Bible is not historically reliable and there are good grounds to doubt a supernatural origin of many parts - and no good grounds to believe it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 4:18 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 58 of 456 (553156)
04-01-2010 4:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 4:43 PM
|
|
quote:
In my experience, ordinary believers use the term consistent with the Bible Dictionary definitions. Even Webster's definition is a large step up from Dawkins'.
See my comments in the previous post.
quote:
Yes, because I thought it was obvious that Paul was giving reasons. But I guess it wasn't so obvious to the rest of you.
Acts 17 asserts that Paul used reason, but the statements it attributes to him are preaching. not rational argument. It really is obvious if you just read it.
quote:
That's a good question, but not what I was mainly trying to address.
The point you were meant to be addressing was your claim from Message 32 :
But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason.
Further, if faith is not actually based on reason all your claims about definitions - even if they were correct - only show that Dawkins usage is closer to the truth than those you prefer.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 4:43 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
|
Message 59 of 456 (553159)
04-01-2010 5:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 3:54 PM
|
|
If one really wants to understand a view that he himself does not hold, he should go to the advocates of the view. I was referring to Acts 17 mainly to establish what "religious faith" is and means according to the Bible. Then in that case "religious faith" involves assuming God exists and assuming God has specific characteristics with no evidence or reasoning to back it up.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 3:54 PM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 60 of 456 (553167)
04-01-2010 5:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by PaulK
04-01-2010 4:48 PM
|
|
Re: Many Assertions, No Reason
quote:
Why would you be surprised at unbelievers pointing out a fact obvious to anyone who reads Acts 17 ?
Perhaps some of the folks here don't understand the definition of "reason" any better than they do "faith?"
Webster's writes: Reason (re—z’n), n. [OE. resoun, F. raison, fr. L. ratio (akin to Goth. rathjo— number, account, garathjan to count, G. rede speech, reden to speak), fr. reri, ratus, to reckon, believe, think. Cf. Arraign, Rate, Ratio, Ration.] 1. A thought or a consideration offered in support of a determination or an opinion; a just ground for a conclusion or an action; that which is offered or accepted as an explanation; the efficient cause of an occurrence or a phenomenon; a motive for an action or a determination; proof, more or less decisive, for an opinion or a conclusion; principle; efficient cause; final cause; ground of argument.
"Reason" does not necessarily imply an airtight logical argument.
quote:
Leaving aside your selective and misleading use of Liddell Scott,
What, pray tell, was "selective" or "misleading" in my quote? The word "pistis" is a noun derived from the verb "pisteuo". To understand the noun, it is helpful to also look at the verb. This is normal in trying to understand a Greek word. We should probably also look at the related word "peitho":
Liddel & Scott writes:
PEIThO‘, f. peiso—:aor. 1 epeisa: aor. 2 epithon, Ep. redupl. 1 pl. subj. and opt. pepitho—men, pepithoimen, inf. pepithein, part. pepitho—n: pf. pepeika:Med. and Pass., f. peisomai: aor. 2 epithome—n, Ep. pithome—n, 3 sing. redupl. pepithoito: f. peisthe—somai: aor. 1 epeisthe—n:pf. pepeismai. II. intr. tenses of act., in pass. sense, pf. 2 pepoitha; imperat. pepeisthi, subj. pepoitho—, Ep. 1 pl. pepoithomen (for -o—men); opt. pepoithoie— (for -thoi): plqpf. epepoithein, Ep. pepoithea, syncop. 1 pl. epepithmen. III. as if from a collat. form pitheo—, Hom. has f. pithe—so— and part. aor. 2 pithe—sas, both intr.; but the redupl. aor. 1 subj. pepithe—so— trans., Il. I. Act. to prevail upon, win over, persuade, tina Hom., etc.:c. acc. pers. et inf. to persuade one to do, Il., etc.; also, p. tina ho—ste dounai, etc., Hdt.; p. tina ho—s chre— Plat.; p. tina eis ti Thuc.; in part., peisas by persuasion, by fair means, Soph. ...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 4:48 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 62 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 6:09 PM | | kbertsche has replied | | | Message 63 by Taq, posted 04-01-2010 7:22 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2