The Tension of Faith

As a persuasive technique, this must rank near the bottom.Percy

I’m not sure we Unitarians should be considered Christians. I know that historically Unitarianism has been accepted as a branch of Protestantism, but given the direction Christianity in general has taken over the past century or two it seems almost as if Unitarianism is better viewed as a separate species. We don’t believe in the Trinity, nor in the resurrection, nor in the ascension, nor that Jesus was anything other than a man inspired by God. It gets a little complicated after that. There’s a patchwork of Christian beliefs that Unitarians do accept, such as the moral teachings, but they also accept Jesus as savior, leaving open the question of savior from what, since Unitarians don’t believe in original sin.I think it’s fine for anyone to accept Unitarianism as a branch of Christianity, certainly that’s where its roots lie, but the differences are very significant.In the 1950’s (I think) the Unitarians merged with the Universalists, and the result is not recognizably Christian, at least to me.Percy

This is something you believe on faith. I've more often seen it quoted as, "There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition," but the only obvious conclusion from Pascal's words is that one sees what one wants to see. Obviously what people see varies widely. The light isn't good enough for everyone to see the same thing.I disagree with Pascal on another point, about the light being enough for those who only desire to see. Many desire to see but cannot find anything resembling what is found in any of the world's many holy books.--Percy

How are you defining faith? In past discussions you've rejected a definition of faith as not having evidence for what you believe. If you still think that way then faith isn't a gift but just a matter of viewing the evidence.--Percy

Once you require evidence for what you believe then it isn't faith anymore. Your religion has a definition of faith that does not exist in the dictionary. The dictionary definition of faith that applies here is "belief that is not based on proof." If you believe it because you think you can prove it through evidence, it isn't faith.We (meaning most of the world) believe the Earth is round because of the evidence supporting that belief. We believe in the germ theory of disease because of the evidence supporting that belief. But we don't believe in any specific religion because of the lack of evidence supporting any one religionIn other words, there are things we think we know because of the evidence. Religions are not one of those things. The "evidence" they present does not stand up to scrutiny, or even look like evidence.But to get back to the original point where you said, "Faith is a gift," faith based upon evidence is not a gift. It's just a matter of viewing the evidence.--Percy

Hi Faith,You were talking about the gift of faith, and I was responding to that. My point was, "Your kind of faith requires evidence, and if you require evidence for what you believe then it isn't faith." You responded to a different point, as if I had said, "You think you have evidence but you don't," which is not what I said. But responding anyway: John, and the other Gospel writers, told us a story, for which there is no evidence. There isn't even any evidence that Jesus was a real person, that he wasn't merely an invention of Paul. Yes, we know you believe your religious book, as other religions believe theirs. Really I am simply preferring evidence over things made up. The evidence of Islam, the same kind of made-up evidence you're claiming for Christianity, is that God would not have a son. How do you weigh the make-believe of one religion against the make-believe of another? Where is it written that a religion must have a savior? The Bible contains stories, not evidence. Some of the stories are about real places (i.e., there is evidence the places existed or even still exist), some are about real people (i.e., there is evidence the people existed), and some are fanciful (i.e., there is no evidence whatsoever that the story is true or the people were real, not to mention any fantastical elements). Wow, two kinds of faith in the same sentence! One kind of faith requires evidence, the other kind of faith does not. Why isn't there just one kind of faith, the kind in the dictionary, the kind that involves the absence of evidence but believing anyway? Let me translate your sentence. John gave evidence from Jesus, a person who cannot even be shown to have ever existed let alone have provided evidence, and based on this fictional evidence we're supposed to trust Jesus' promise of salvation from an original sin committed by other people who also cannot be shown to have ever existed. That's just the made-up definition of faith of evangelicals. The actual definition of faith is believing something in the absence of evidence. People wrote stories about such things. Yes, this is a correct usage of the word faith. You not only don't know if the Gospel writers were trustworthy, you don't even know who they were. Again, in your entire time here you've presented no evidence that Jesus or John were trustworthy or even existed. This is an odd kind of evidence you describe that cannot be perceived unless one first believes that Jesus and John were trustworthy people who really existed. That the Earth is a sphere hurtling through space has evidence available to everyone. You don't have to believe that Galileo or Newton were trustworthy real people to see this evidence. That's what evidence really is. What you're calling evidence is really just faith. Hooray, you've actually agreed with something true. There you go with your two kinds of faith again, one that requires evidence, and one that doesn't. Again, there's only one kind of faith, and if you need evidence for your faith then it isn't faith. We actually believe almost the same thing. I believe none of the world's religions have evidence for what they believe. You also believe none of the world's religions have evidence for what they believe, except Christianity. What evidence? Words on paper is not evidence. I would hardly call seeing evidence where none exists a gift.--Percy

It does mean it isn't evidence if you want any rigor in what you believe to be true about reality. Just because someone told a story doesn't magically transform it into credible evidence of the story's events. Across all the stories of the Bible, which is more fantastical, the Bible or Harry Potter. If you were looking at these two books from the distant future when both their origins are lost in time, why would you consider either one of them to contain any evidence? Obviously both are full of impossible events and are just fiction. One fits the style of fiction known as fantasy, while the other fits the style of fiction known as religion. You're fond of expressing these sentiments, as if to say, "Just consider the unlikelihood of it all, it must be true," as if inconsistency and unbelievability were an indicator of credibility rather than of bad fiction. The mere writing of words is not synonymous with the production of evidence. If I were to write, "The sorcerer disappeared into thin air," that is not evidence that sorcerers can disappear into thin air, or that sorcerers exist.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Nor in the Bible, either. When did this become a requirement of valid religions? Untrue, but when did history become a requirement of valid religious books? And the Koran has the advantage of being written (well, dictated) by someone with actual solid evidence that he existed. Just like all other religious books, including the Bible. This seems to run against your insistence that the Bible is either all true or all a lie. And what is your evidence that what John wrote was true, that he wasn't just passing on stories that were made up? I'd say there is a great deal of similarity between the "idiocies" (your word) of the Book of Mormon and the Bible. It is one thing to truly state what Christians believe, and quite another to provide evidence of which Christian beliefs are true. John did the former, not the latter. Clearly you are a believer with a fog of misplaced faith over your eyes. An equally fervent and rigid Mormon might say the same to you. Since when did the offering of "eternal life through Christ's sacrifice" become a requirement to be a valid religion. Stories are not evidence. Christianity is not the standard by which all other religions are judged.--Percy

Yes, of course *we* know Harry Potter is a work of fiction, which is why I said to look at the Bible and Harry Potter "from the distant future when both their origins are lost in time." Christianity is gone and forgotten, and suddenly these two books are discovered by an archaeologist. What is it about John that you think would cause the archaeologist to consider its accounts as evidence of actual events, versus what is it about Harry Potter that you think would cause the archaeologist to reject its accounts as evidence of actual events?I'm frankly surprised that you share Faith's belief that faith requires evidence. I know I've already said this too many times, but faith doesn't require evidence. Requiring evidence is the opposite of faith. If you believe it because you think you have evidence, your belief has nothing to do with faith. Let me respond by asking you a question: How many people on Facebook who last year shared Russian-produced fake news believed they were sharing fiction? Very few, right? So it is very likely that John (whoever he was) believed the message of Paul and believed what he wrote, but how does believing something and writing it down turn it into evidence, particularly the accounts of impossible events. Plus there's the obvious evidence that John is a religious text, e.g.:

quote:

---

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was with God in the beginning. ³ Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ⁴ In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. ⁵ The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

---

Our future archaeologist will read this introductory passage and instantly recognize it is an ancient religious text. He's not going to interpret its more fantastical accounts as evidence of actual events. Take John 2, for instance. The archaeologist will have no problem accepting that a man named Jesus may indeed have instructed servants to fill jars with water, but he's going to reject the part about turning the water to wine as religious mumbo jumbo, not evidence of a miracle. The same is true of believers of all religions. They all think their beliefs true, and they can't all be right. Likely all are wrong. Regarding the claim of evidence, it makes very good sense to compare Harry Potter with the Bible. They both even refer to real places (e.g., London and Jerusalem respectively). Again, all religions can't be true. At most, one religion is not fiction. What evidence have you that you've chanced across the one, right and true religion? Science relies upon rigorous methods of evaluating evidence, so in a science thread would you argue that inconsistency and unlikelihood are good reasons for reasonably concluding that claims are true? No, of course not. So why are your standards for evaluating evidence different here? Why, in a thread about faith, are you discussing evidence at all? Just to be clear, we're talking about historians now? If so, you couldn't be more wrong, though it depends upon the document. A trove of receipts for goats and figs and so forth? Why doubt them? An account of a victorious battle? Lots of doubt, especially since political leaders are known to be prone to declaring victory no matter the actual outcome. We even have examples of texts from both sides declaring victory in ancient battles. That historical documents are accepted as accurate based upon faith is so wrong it shouldn't be necessary to argue the point further. Even if I really believed that a man was a real sorcerer and that he disappeared into thin air, describing this in real words is not evidence. I described no evidence for anyone to consider. And so it is with the Gospel of John, and all the other books of the Bible. The Gospels are just four people copying copiously from one another and/or from other documents no longer extant like Q. We know today that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. What would be strange and suspicious is if all eyewitness accounts agreed.You don't say which Gospel accounts you mean, but the ones I can think of now just say, in essence, "Lots of people saw it." The Gospel writers wrote that way to be convincing, not because they'd interviewed the eyewitnesses 40-100 years after the fact. Take just the Gospel of Mark, probably written around 66-70 AD. How would Mark know who the eyewitnesses were? Was there a reporter in the crowd taking statements from eyewitnesses and writing in the next day's "paper", "Rebecca of Bethany, who was returning from the market in Jerusalem, said..." How would the "paper" survive all those years? It wouldn't, of course, because there was no "paper". So how would Mark know who all the eyewitnesses were and track them all down after the passage of so much time?Obviously Mark couldn't and didn't track down eyewitnesses. He was passing on the story as it was provided to him, either by people and/or by earlier accounts like Q. And the same was even more true of the later Gospel writers.--Percy

You didn't address the part where Modulous said, "We definitely don't have faith that they are accurate without further evidence." Likely Modulous has a different opinion on what constitutes evidence than me. I don't believe that whatever anyone scribbles becomes evidence of the truth of what they scribble about. Some of what people scribble describes evidence, some does not. In my view the Bible describes very little that could be considered evidence. It does describe some places and people we know existed, such as Jericho, Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate, Herod, and this *does* represent evidence for the historicity of these places and people. Because the Bible, mostly the Old Testament, contains so much history, it does represent evidence of some people and some events. But the Old Testament also describes many obviously impossible events. The New Testament contains very little of the type of history contained in the Old Testament, being mostly accounts about individuals, and it too describes many obviously impossible events.An example of where the Bible combines both the historical and the fantastical is the siege of Jerusalem under Hezekiah by Sennacherib's Assyrian army (I'm familiar with this already, but am verifying my recollection with the Wikipedia article on Hezekiah). The Biblical and Assyrian accounts largely agree that the Assyrians eventually abandoned the siege, but the Bible says an angel of the Lord struck down most of the Assyrian army and they then departed, while the Assyrian account says Hezekiah agreed to pay tribute to the Assyrians and become a vassal king, after which Sennacherib ended the siege.The Bible does state that Hezekiah paid tribute to the Assyrians (2 Kings 18:14), but immediately follows that passage with a description of how Sennacherib came to lay siege to Jerusalem, which seems to confuse the order of events, but no matter, that's not the main issue here. The Assyrian account mentions a different amount than the Bible, but the important detail in the Bible is where it claims an angel of the Lord wiped out most of the Assyrian army (Herodotus does say the Assyrian army suffered many deaths).The important fact here is that the Bible presents no evidence that an angel of the Lord did anything, and there's certainly no extra-Biblical evidence. There's no evidence of the existence of angels, and no evidence of the existence of God, and no evidence that whatever befell the Assyrian army (if anything) was caused by an angel of the Lord. This evidence of supernatural claims is absent throughout the Bible, and no evidence from other sources has ever come to light.The Bible describing a supernatural event does not represent evidence, but if you do want to insist that that it *is* evidence then consistency demands that you give equal credence to similarly flimsy claims of supernatural events from other religions. Given when Luke was written, and given the difficulty of identifying and finding eyewitnesses after so much time had passed, at least 50 years, Luke could not likely have had any original eyewitnesses as sources. There is no evidence provided that the accounts were really from eyewitnesses, and in fact much of Luke obviously drew upon earlier written material, a fact he fails to mention. Yes, but again, the followers of any religion accept some tenets as basic. Agreement about such things isn't evidence that they're true. The Testimonium Flavianum contains unlikely language for Josephus (e.g., "He was the Messiah") and is widely regarded as highly altered. There seems to be some scholarly consensus of what it originally said, but I couldn't find anything specific. The reference to the stoning of James brother of Jesus is disputed because, again, it includes unlikely language for Josephus, specifically the reference to the "Jesus, who was called Christ."--Percy

We're pretty much disagreeing about what constitutes evidence. For you evidence has a spectrum of strength from weak to strong, and for Paboss and me it is facts. Thomas's direct observation of Jesus and his wound made it a fact for him. For you the assertion by the other disciples that Jesus was alive is also evidence for Thomas, just weaker evidence than actually observing Jesus himself.For me and Paboss what people say or write is not evidence (assuming they're not writing a mathematical proof or some such). Actual evidence is a direct result of something that happened. It is not someone writing about something that happened. The broken window and the baseball on the floor is evidence. A picture with a timestamp is evidence. Boys with bats and gloves running away is evidence. Someone telling me that boys playing baseball broke the window is evidence, given the corroboration of the broken window and the baseball on the floor. But someone just writing that there's a broken window with a baseball on the floor is not evidence. The raising of the saints which was supposed to happen at the end of time is both fact and metaphor, and was intended to explain to 1st century Jews what had happened, even though time did not end? My word!--Percy

And that evidence would be? Would it happen to be words in a book?What happened to faith? I'll use myself as an example. I have faith that God exists and that the universe has purpose. I have no evidence. It is what I feel deeply inside. It's called faith. Have some. I wouldn't compare your "evidence" for your faith to climate change. I'd compare it to the flat-earthers.--Percy

But I'm an equal opportunity denier. I deny the "truth" of the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, the Sutras, etc.Evidence isn't something perceivable only by believers. What you're describing is faith, not evidence and certainly not truth. You make this point frequently, and the answer hasn't changed. Christianity is not the yardstick by which all religions are measured. Qualities possessed by Christianity but missing from other religions tells you nothing, because it's only comparing one made-up thing to another made-up thing. It is not evidence. I think you're confusing information with evidence. What the Bible provides is information. Some of it is true, some of it is false, some of it is internally or externally contradictory (or both), and some of it is unverifiable. None of it is evidence. No, it's not evidence. It's a claim that has no evidence. But it's a claim of Christ's deity with no evidence, and to save us from something else that also has no evidence. Well, if you're going to repeat this fallacy again then I'll rebut it again. Evidence is not something you have to believe before you can see it. There's no evidence that Jesus or John were even real people, let alone that they were trustworthy. Given the supernatural claims, I would vote against their trustworthiness. Stories about miracles and supernatural powers are not evidence of miracles and supernatural powers. Well, if you're going to repeat this fallacy yet again then I'll rebut it yet again. Evidence is not something you have to believe before you can see it. You've said this before, and it's just as untrue now as it was then. For example, we actually know the author of the Book of Mormon and how it came to be. We have the testimony of Joseph Smith of how a God named Maroni appeared to him and told him where to find golden plates which many people saw and that Smith translated. That's a heck of a lot more evidence than anything we have about where the words in the Bible came from. You just don't see the evidence for Mormonism because you deny the truth of Smith's visions and of the Book of Mormon.Please don't take what I just wrote as something I seriously believe. I'm just mimicking you now. Your claim of "you can only see the evidence if you believe" is silly. If this is saying that the Koran only describes one event, that is clearly incorrect. According to the Wikipedia article on the Koran:

quote:

---

It sometimes offers detailed accounts of specific historical events,...
...
Quran recounts stories of many of the people and events recounted in Jewish and Christian sacred books (Tanakh, Bible) and devotional literature (Apocrypha, Midrash), although it differs in many details.

---

Wrong again. Much of the Koran is about the character of God. From the same Wikipedia article:

quote:

---

The central theme of the Quran is monotheism. God is depicted as living, eternal, omniscient and omnipotent (see, e.g., Quran 2:20, 2:29, 2:255). God's omnipotence appears above all in his power to create. He is the creator of everything, of the heavens and the earth and what is between them (see, e.g., Quran 13:16, 50:38, etc.). All human beings are equal in their utter dependence upon God,[better source needed] and their well-being depends upon their acknowledging that fact and living accordingly.

​

The Quran uses cosmological and contingency arguments in various verses without referring to the terms to prove the existence of God.

---

Gee, how about that, the Koran proves the existence of God! Not even the Bible does that. Wow! This is only true of the Old Testament, a history of the Jewish people up until the Maccabbees, whose books are apparently not part of all Christian canons. The New Testament is not historical. It's about Jesus and Paul's missionary work with a bit of revelation thrown in. No, it is not true only of the Bible. The Koran does the same thing. The Koran doesn't recount as much history, but it does incorporate much of the Bible, though differing on some amount of details. See Wikipedia excerpt above. The point is that if it is true then it is accurate information, not evidence. You believe the Bible's information is true because of your faith, not because there's any evidence that the information is true. I don't think Paboss was saying that we "have to accept all the religions as equal." I think he was more saying that there was nothing to judge any as being more or less true than the others. The Bible is not the only religious book of impeccable character and regarded as a completely trustworthy source that has thousands of commentaries. There's a lot of fiction out there - claiming that "no fiction reads like that" is a very unlikely claim. I haven't seen anyone claim that the Gospel stories were the invention of the disciples. Maybe I missed where someone has said that, but the claim I have seen is that Christianity is the invention of Paul. I don't think anyone knows the origin of the stories in the Gospels - they seem to have been invented post-Paul. Doesn't seem unlikely to me. In fact, it seems pretty much what most preachers try to do, persuade parishioners. You might look up, to rebut with something specific, what the Buddhists accomplished in Viet Nam to change their government. And this by peaceful means, a quality absent in much of Christian history. More accurately, this is your somewhat misinformed and ignorant Christian understanding. If John is true then it is accurate information, not evidence. There is no evidence that it is true. Why do you have the conceit that what makes you happy is the formula for happiness for everyone else? I might also add that you don't seem very happy. You're usually in a bad and intolerant mood. Yeah, like you I read the Book of Mormon but could only get so far. "Laughable and stupid and boring" sounds like an accurate description. Why the Mormons don't see it I have no idea.But except that it reads much more poetically (as long as you read the KJV or a similar translation and stay away from the more modern but more literal translations), the Bible has the same qualities as the Book or Mormon, and also the Bhagavad Gita and the Koran. Evidence isn't something you see only if you believe. The Bible contains information, not evidence. If the information is true then it is accurate information, not evidence. There is no evidence supporting the supernatural accounts in the Bible. Wow, what a collection of insupportable claims. There are no rules for objectively judging religions. In particular there is no rule that Christianity is the religion by which all other religions must be judged. Even more millions believe that some other religion is true, or that no religion is true. If you want to make millions your criteria, you're outnumbered. Unlike you I have been constant in my beliefs since I was a kid. They come from inside and they are held on faith, not evidence. But I would of course change my beliefs if presented with evidence that is actually evidence rather than stories.--Percy

Gee, I don't know, how could someone keep ignoring the true definition of the word faith: not having evidence or reasons for what you believe. Faith in God is not a matter of knowledge. It comes from the heart, not the head and not history and not family. Anyone who believes what their family believes or what most people around them believe or what a book tells them is not following their heart. Faith comes from within. Your kind of faith is unnecessarily complicated.-Percy

Gee, I'm on vacation, too, and having the time of my life today. We overdid it yesterday and so we're taking a day to recover. Just sitting around has been wonderful. Oh, okay. When you responded to Paboss's Message 492 that was a reply to Faith's Message 491 about evidence I just assumed you were supporting her position. I'm definitely sure I'm not getting this. Are you saying that the fact that the NT exists means it contains evidence? Or something else? Okay, I think you mean that the NT's existence means it contains evidence. I disagree, of course. The NT contains information, some true, some false, some internally or externally contradictory (or both), and some unverifiable. The NT does not contain evidence. I would phrase this differently. We can discuss how well supported the NT stories are supported by evidence, but the NT itself is not evidence. Obviously the backdrop of 1st century Judah is factual information, but there's no evidence of the supernatural stuff, no evidence for the Jesus stories themselves, and certainly no evidence for the wilder stuff, like the Book of Revelation.--Percy