What does 'having faith' mean to you?

[Kenny]

Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?

I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.

Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.

Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.

Ken

But that's the height of hypocrisy kenny (intentional or otherwise). You certainly don't employ the same logic to a host of other things, one of which you've already commented on, i.e. flying on an airplane for the first time. Yes, you were terrified as anyone would be, but you did it anyway. Why? Because you trust that others have done it and their experience was pretty reliable. In other words, you trusted the historical record of reliable airplane flight to guide your belief.

Perhaps the Airplane was not a good comparison because the ability of an airplane to fly is not contingent on everything else being unable to fly. Airplanes don’t insist they are the only ones able to fly, and everything else such as the Helicopter, Glider, Rocket, Jet, birds, etc. can’t; they have no interest in what all the other flying machines are doing; they only make claims on what THEY do.
With religions, not only do they have to be right, but everybody else has to be wrong. That (along with other things) makes it a bit harder to accept.

You employ the same reasoning with any historical figure or event, The conquests of Alexander the Great and Napoleon, the Gettysburg Address. You take them at face value as historical facts even though you have no way of actually verifying their historical accuracy. And yet you do not extend the same courtesy to the biblical account which is just as much an historical account as the others, if not more. Why is that kenny?

There is an old saying; extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The idea that military leaders did what military leaders do is an ordinary claim; thus the evidence required is ordinary; (Actual documents of war/surrender, Signatures, etc.)
The idea that a religious leader not only did what religious leaders do, but he also preformed acts outside the laws of nature, I find that to be an extra ordinary claim; thus extra ordinary evidence would be required for such a claim.

Ken

You are taking the plane analogy futher than I intended.

The old 'all paths lead to God' mentality...or this case many

But although several flying devices will get you to the same place, the bible says there is only one way to God.

Tho in a sense, all paths do lead to God..... judgement day.

Perhaps you were reading a little too much into what I was saying. I wasn't making a case for all paths leading to God, I was just trying to explain from my perspective why having faith the Airplane won't crash is not the same as having faith that everything in the Bible is true.

Ken

[Nessa]

Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?

I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.

Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.

Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.

Ken

But that's the height of hypocrisy kenny (intentional or otherwise). You certainly don't employ the same logic to a host of other things, one of which you've already commented on, i.e. flying on an airplane for the first time. Yes, you were terrified as anyone would be, but you did it anyway. Why? Because you trust that others have done it and their experience was pretty reliable. In other words, you trusted the historical record of reliable airplane flight to guide your belief.

Perhaps the Airplane was not a good comparison because the ability of an airplane to fly is not contingent on everything else being unable to fly. Airplanes don’t insist they are the only ones able to fly, and everything else such as the Helicopter, Glider, Rocket, Jet, birds, etc. can’t; they have no interest in what all the other flying machines are doing; they only make claims on what THEY do.
With religions, not only do they have to be right, but everybody else has to be wrong. That (along with other things) makes it a bit harder to accept.

You employ the same reasoning with any historical figure or event, The conquests of Alexander the Great and Napoleon, the Gettysburg Address. You take them at face value as historical facts even though you have no way of actually verifying their historical accuracy. And yet you do not extend the same courtesy to the biblical account which is just as much an historical account as the others, if not more. Why is that kenny?

There is an old saying; extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The idea that military leaders did what military leaders do is an ordinary claim; thus the evidence required is ordinary; (Actual documents of war/surrender, Signatures, etc.)
The idea that a religious leader not only did what religious leaders do, but he also preformed acts outside the laws of nature, I find that to be an extra ordinary claim; thus extra ordinary evidence would be required for such a claim.

Ken

You are taking the plane analogy futher than I intended.

The old 'all paths lead to God' mentality...or this case many

But although several flying devices will get you to the same place, the bible says there is only one way to God.

Tho in a sense, all paths do lead to God..... judgement day.

Perhaps you were reading a little too much into what I was saying. I wasn't making a case for all paths leading to God, I was just trying to explain from my perspective why having faith the Airplane won't crash is not the same as having faith that everything in the Bible is true.

Ken

My analogy was an attempt to show that you can have faith without a personal experience if there is evidence. Because theres a first time for everything... even sitting in a chair. And you are right about testing being apart of our faith. But Christianity is not purely based on personal experience or just the experience of others.

[Kenny]

I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.

Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.

Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.

Ken

But that's the height of hypocrisy kenny (intentional or otherwise). You certainly don't employ the same logic to a host of other things, one of which you've already commented on, i.e. flying on an airplane for the first time. Yes, you were terrified as anyone would be, but you did it anyway. Why? Because you trust that others have done it and their experience was pretty reliable. In other words, you trusted the historical record of reliable airplane flight to guide your belief.

Perhaps the Airplane was not a good comparison because the ability of an airplane to fly is not contingent on everything else being unable to fly. Airplanes don’t insist they are the only ones able to fly, and everything else such as the Helicopter, Glider, Rocket, Jet, birds, etc. can’t; they have no interest in what all the other flying machines are doing; they only make claims on what THEY do.
With religions, not only do they have to be right, but everybody else has to be wrong. That (along with other things) makes it a bit harder to accept.

You employ the same reasoning with any historical figure or event, The conquests of Alexander the Great and Napoleon, the Gettysburg Address. You take them at face value as historical facts even though you have no way of actually verifying their historical accuracy. And yet you do not extend the same courtesy to the biblical account which is just as much an historical account as the others, if not more. Why is that kenny?

There is an old saying; extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The idea that military leaders did what military leaders do is an ordinary claim; thus the evidence required is ordinary; (Actual documents of war/surrender, Signatures, etc.)
The idea that a religious leader not only did what religious leaders do, but he also preformed acts outside the laws of nature, I find that to be an extra ordinary claim; thus extra ordinary evidence would be required for such a claim.

Ken

You are taking the plane analogy futher than I intended.

The old 'all paths lead to God' mentality...or this case many

But although several flying devices will get you to the same place, the bible says there is only one way to God.

Tho in a sense, all paths do lead to God..... judgement day.

Perhaps you were reading a little too much into what I was saying. I wasn't making a case for all paths leading to God, I was just trying to explain from my perspective why having faith the Airplane won't crash is not the same as having faith that everything in the Bible is true.

Ken

My analogy was an attempt to show that you can have faith without a personal experience if there is evidence.

But once empirical evidence is presented, is it really faith at that point?

Because theres a first time for everything... even sitting in a chair. And you are right about testing being apart of our faith.

It was not my intent to suggest faith should be backed up by testing; which leads to empirical evidence and physical proof. Because once that is accomplished, what good is it to employ faith at that point? It seems faith is a bit of a loaded term; usually meaning to believe in spite of empirical evidence or physical proof, which is why I don’t use the term faith when describing what I believe.

Ken

[Mallz]

But once empirical evidence is presented, is it really faith at that point?

I like this question, it gets at what faith is. Yes, it would be faith after having empirical evidence. Faith, at least defined by the bible, is: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Think of gravity or wisdom or love. Just because people have blind faith, doesn't mean the definition of faith is 'blind faith' (two words there). In my instance, I can't not believe because I do have empirical evidence, and that only came after forming a relationship with Him (that continues) which the pre-requisite of that is faith. How can you sit in that chair if you don't have faith it exists? It would be a preposterous idea for you. Which I think spells out your rational dilemma, no?

*Edit: For the record, I think any sort of faith needs to be backed up, or its empty/blind and useless.

[Nessa]

It was not my intent to suggest faith should be backed up by testing; which leads to empirical evidence and physical proof. Because once that is accomplished, what good is it to employ faith at that point? It seems faith is a bit of a loaded term; usually meaning to believe in spite of empirical evidence or physical proof, which is why I don’t use the term faith when describing what I believe.

Ken

[Philip]

What does Richard Dawkins have to do with the price of tea in China?

K

Only that Byblos referenced him, and that Dawkins believes what he does - not on empirical evidence, but upon faith in unseen things.

[Byblos]

What does Richard Dawkins have to do with the price of tea in China?

K

Only that Byblos referenced him, and that Dawkins believes what he does - not on empirical evidence, but upon faith in unseen things.

And that one of Dawkins' favorite quotes that Ken used, i.e. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". One of the most meaningless phrases ever uttered, a self-refuting contradiction requiring an extraordinary amount of evidence to support.

[Kenny]

But once empirical evidence is presented, is it really faith at that point?

I like this question, it gets at what faith is. Yes, it would be faith after having empirical evidence. Faith, at least defined by the bible, is: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

Evidence of things NOT seen. If it is not seen, how can you call that empirical? Empirical is that which has been repeatedly tested and verified. Evidence of things not seen sounds like something that lacks physical verification aka blind faith. Do you agree?

Ken

[Kenny]

It was not my intent to suggest faith should be backed up by testing; which leads to empirical evidence and physical proof. Because once that is accomplished, what good is it to employ faith at that point? It seems faith is a bit of a loaded term; usually meaning to believe in spite of empirical evidence or physical proof, which is why I don’t use the term faith when describing what I believe.

Ken

Humm... Sounds like Richard Dawkins agrees with me.

Ken

[Kenny]

What does Richard Dawkins have to do with the price of tea in China?

K

Only that Byblos referenced him, and that Dawkins believes what he does - not on empirical evidence, but upon faith in unseen things.

And that one of Dawkins' favorite quotes that Ken used, i.e. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". One of the most meaningless phrases ever uttered, a self-refuting contradiction requiring an extraordinary amount of evidence to support.

Why do you consider it a meaningless phrase, that is contridiction?

Ken

[thatkidakayoungguy]

But once empirical evidence is presented, is it really faith at that point?

I like this question, it gets at what faith is. Yes, it would be faith after having empirical evidence. Faith, at least defined by the bible, is: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

Evidence of things NOT seen. If it is not seen, how can you call that empirical? Empirical is that which has been repeatedly tested and verified. Evidence of things not seen sounds like something that lacks physical verification aka blind faith. Do you agree?

Ken

I suppose in some cases one can delve into metaphysics and the like, yes?

[Kenny]

But once empirical evidence is presented, is it really faith at that point?

I like this question, it gets at what faith is. Yes, it would be faith after having empirical evidence. Faith, at least defined by the bible, is: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

Evidence of things NOT seen. If it is not seen, how can you call that empirical? Empirical is that which has been repeatedly tested and verified. Evidence of things not seen sounds like something that lacks physical verification aka blind faith. Do you agree?

Ken

I suppose in some cases one can delve into metaphysics and the like, yes?

But Metaphysics is not empirical.

K

[Kurieuo]

What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Different things depending upon the context.

The faith we Christians understand as having in Christ that saves us from our sin, such is something that is ultimately given to us by God (Eph 2:8), and then sealed and secured within us by the working of the Holy Spirit. (2 Cor 1:22; Romans 8:28-39)

Then there is a quantitative faith that we have. Evidently, some Christians have this more than others. It may/may not be blind, yet nonetheless inspired. Some people have little to no knowledge of arguments for God, Christ and the like, and yet they strongly believe. Why? Because they just know. I think such is unsafe, to not love God with one's mind, but nonetheless some do have a very strong faith without much evidence at all. This is identified as a gift (1 Cor 12:9). Others however, need/want God to appear before them, feel God at every turn in their life and the like.

• Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

Then there is just a general faith, as mentioned here, the faith we have that a chair won't collapse below us. We believe this even without evidence, because we understand and have experiences seats are made to be sat on. So we implicitly trust that they won't fail. Even if, we know, on occasion seats to fail and a leg drops off -- chances are 99.99% of the time it won't fail. So without signs to the contrary, we believe that chairs won't break even without checking each time that they are sturdy or what-have-you.

[Nessa]

Then there is just a general faith, as mentioned here, the faith we have that a chair won't collapse below us. We believe this even without evidence, because we understand and have experiences seats are made to be sat on. So we implicitly trust that they won't fail. Even if, we know, on occasion seats to fail and a leg drops off -- chances are 99.99% of the time it won't fail. So without signs to the contrary, we believe that chairs won't break even without checking each time that they are sturdy or what-have-you.

Poor Goldilocks

images (6).jpg (8.38 KiB) Viewed 5583 times

[Kurieuo]

Then there is just a general faith, as mentioned here, the faith we have that a chair won't collapse below us. We believe this even without evidence, because we understand and have experiences seats are made to be sat on. So we implicitly trust that they won't fail. Even if, we know, on occasion seats to fail and a leg drops off -- chances are 99.99% of the time it won't fail. So without signs to the contrary, we believe that chairs won't break even without checking each time that they are sturdy or what-have-you.

Poor Goldilocks

images (6).jpg

She had it coming.