What is faith? If you talk very long to an atheist, you'll likely get a limited response. Archie Bunker suggests "Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." One of the most common definitions of faith is "Believing something you know isn't true." Of course, both of these are inaccurate. Everyone knows that faith is really defined as "firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof." That's where it is left. That's where most people will go. That's even where most Christians will go. For many people "Faith is believing what you want to believe, yet cannot prove." It's a nice place for them to be. They don't have to give a reason for what they believe because there is no reason by definition. (Oddly, although they define faith as lacking reason, they will still try to use reason to defend their faith.) Of course, to a thinking person it would mean the death of the intellect, an act of mental suicide. So some reject faith out of hand.
To me, these are quite inadequate methods of defining or describing faith. For some reason, it seems, faith must be defined differently when it comes to religion than in other places in life. Religion tends to require "lack of evidence" but the rest of life has no such demand. If I tell my wife, "I have faith in you," I'm expressing trust. It would be foolish to trust someone without reason. I've spent sufficient time to know that she's trustworthy and, so, I trust her. That's evidence that produces faith. Faith says, "I know this up to here so I can expect this in the future."
There is a well-known story of a French tight-rope walker named Blondin. He made his name by walking across Niagara Falls on a rope. The story is told of a time when walked across and the crowd gathered to watch. Then he walked back and picked up a wheelbarrow. "Who believes I can walk across with this wheelbarrow?" he asked. Some raised their hands. And he walked across with the wheelbarrow. On the other side he picked up several large sacks of flour and made the return trip. Everyone applauded. So he asked, "Who thinks I could walk across with a man in this wheelbarrow?" Most raised their hands. "Who will get in the wheelbarrow and go across with me?" The story is told that only Harry Colcord, Blondin's manager, would ever consent to go across with him.
The story is told to illustrate biblical faith. It is an accurate illustration. What is biblical faith? It is not "that you believe what nobody in his right mind would believe." It is not believing something for which there is no evidence. Despite the popularity of such an answer, even among Christians, it is not accurate. In the illustration, the crowd had sufficient evidence. They saw him walk the rope without a problem. They saw him walk the rope with a wheelbarrow. They saw him walk the rope with weight in the wheelbarrow. There was sufficient evidence to convince them that it could be done. There was not absolute proof, but there was sufficient evidence.
Biblical faith is like that. It is not belief in a vacuum. It is belief with evidence. There are reasons for believing. Reasons do not negate faith. The only difference between biblical faith and the faith of that crowd is that biblical faith takes that final step -- it gets in the wheelbarrow. There are reasons to believe what we believe. Without such reasons -- without evidence at all -- the whole concept of apologetics is nonsense. Atheists demonstrate faith when they assert there is no god. They don't have proof. They follow their own line of reasoning and, believing this much is so, they conclude there is no god. They can't prove it; they believe it ... and place their weight on that wheelbarrow. But it is still unproven.
I'm tired of being told that faith is anti-intellectual. I'm tired of being told that faith and reason are incompatible. I'm tired of having my terms defined for me. "Here ... 'faith means belief without evidence' ... okay, now you work with that." It leads to the wrong questions and the wrong problems and the wrong answers. We who believe God should not allow those who do not define for us what we mean. It terminates any chance of explanation, of "being prepared to make a defense" (1 Peter 3:15).
It is true that we do not play on the field of physical evidence alone. It is true that we will run into things that are beyond our understanding. If there is a God, it is required. The finite cannot grasp the infinite. True Christians will always live in a world guided by faith. However, that faith is shaped and directed by evidence. It holds to reason, but doesn't allow reason to pass judgment on the content of faith. Instead, it allows reason to offer meaning and means for ways to pass on understanding of its content. Like Blondin, we walk a careful tightrope of faith. It is not devoid of reason, but it is not solely based on reason. When we subject faith to evidence, then evidence becomes our sole source. When we divorce faith from evidence, then the defense we are called to make for faith becomes meaningless. Reason will, at times, confront the incomprehensible. That doesn't damage faith because faith is the basis, with reason as its support. This type of faith has sustained theism for all time and despite the best efforts of the skeptic, it remains intact. So, what are you going to believe -- the anti-Christian's definition of your faith or the truth?
18 comments:
Thank you, thank you, thank you. A thousand times, thank you!
I feel as if I have dents in my forehead from the numbers of times I have tried to explain to confused people this very point.
Must copy and print this so as to be able to pull it out and make use of it in the future.
Glad to be of service. Maybe we could compare dents sometime. I have the same problem ... obviously.
Superlative post, Stan. Hope you don't mind if I highlight it at my blog. We just happened to be discussing this very point.
Feel free, Jim.
What is faith? "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Have a wonderful weekend! ~10km
Stumbled across your blog today and enjoyed it. I am SOO on the same track with you on this post. My wife and I have debated/discussed with many skeptics and, yep, one of the most frequent bashes we get goes eomething like "faith = belief in spite of the evidence." I know too many Christians who actually agree with that def. and even think it's a virtue to have that kind of faith.
stan:"If I tell my wife, "I have faith in you," I'm expressing trust."
I love this, it is exactly the example I use when "faith" is questioned. I have faith in my wife BECAUSE of the evidence.
My wife and I are putting together a 12 week course for our church to teach things like this -- the flawed arguments of skeptics and to demonstrate that the Christian faith is indeed a very reasonable faith.
Encouraged,
Stephen
Glad to be of encouragement, Stephen. Feel free to look through other topics in my blog on the same line -- apologetics and the like -- and use whatever you like. If I can be of aid, I'm blessed. (Of course, there are a whole host of resources better than mine, but, hey, whatever I can do, right?)
Perhaps I can clarify where the skeptic is coming from regarding the definition of faith.
But first, a minor point of clarification. By happy coincidence I was vacationing in Niagara Falls when you wrote this! There are many tales recounting the daredevil acts both around and over the falls. This particular story about Blondin appears to be urban legend, developed from some actual events. Blondin did take over a wheelbarrow with a stove in it, and actually cooked an omelet, lowering the food to people in a boat below!
Further, Blondin offered to carry a person over on his back, and no one volunteered. (His manager was drafted by Blondin—the tale is far more harrowing than merely going over in a wheelbarrow.) And, according to one news article, people were willing to be taken over by wheelbarrow—if Blondin paid them to do it.
I will continue to use the analogy the way you have written it for two reasons, though. Hope you don’t mind.
What many of us see is a blurring, a failing to differentiate between the definition of “trust based upon reasonable observation” and “faith.” When there are facts in support of a statement, the Christian often uses a definition of “faith” which includes “trust”—what appears to be an attempt to bolster “faith” into a far more reasonable proposition. When the facts fail to support the contention, however, “faith” becomes this belief that we (as non-believers) are required to give it some sort of credence—as if the Christian is to be commended for believing contrary to what is apparent.
Take this myth of Blondin, as written. People observed Blondin go over the tightrope on his own—obviously it could be done, because he was standing there. They observed him use a wheelbarrow. They observed him use a wheelbarrow with appropriate weight. They observed him do feats (like lying down, and going backward, etc.) on the rope.
Would riding over in a wheelbarrow be trust based upon reasonable observation? Or faith? Where does that line cross?
Imagine I put two planks across a ditch. I observe a 250-pound man walk across. I observe a 300-pound man walk across. I observe 10 more 200-pound people walk across. I observe 100…then 1,000…then 10,000…then 100,000 200-pound people walk across. At what point does my “faith” that I, a 155-pound person will safely cross switch to “trust based upon what I observed”?
Certainly there is no absolute proof. Perhaps some unseen crack was missed by all 100,000 people, and I, in my unlucky state, happen to step on this crack and fall. But outside of mathematics, there is little absolute proof of anything.
We further see such blurring when the common vernacular of “I have faith in my spouse” is utilized in attempting to define faith this way. Languages modify over time. In fact, “faith” in First Century Palestine meant loyalty, typically to a patron or governor. It had nothing whatsoever to do with a basis to believe. That is a development over the course of Christian doctrine.
But back to the spouse thing—in modern times a “Faithful spouse” is one who has not had sex with another person. It was what we mean when we say and hear such a term. (A wife who cooked supper for her husband every single night could be termed “faithful” but is that what you think of when I say, “My wife is faithful?” Of course not. It has been reduced to remaining monogamous.)
What is that “faith” based upon, though? I had observed my wife, as a friend, dating others long before we started to date. We dated for a long period of time. We were engaged for a year. We have been married over 17 years. Over that course of time, I have watched her interact with others on 10’s of 1000’s of situations. Those observations have led me to the conclusion I can trust her to not have sex with another man.
It is not in a vacuum. I don’t have “faith” based upon some gut feeling or even a desire for it to be true—I have it on some very reliable data.
Now let’s go to the other end of the spectrum. We all know some spouses DO cheat. We all know it is a real possibility based upon our cultures. Think of your closest living relative. Now think of their closest married neighbor. Would that wife cheat?
See—you don’t know. You don’t know how many times she has been married, whether she has cheated before, what her dating experience was like prior to marriage, what he is like, what their relationship is like—nothing!
So where, on the spectrum from your relative’s neighbor to yourself, do you go from “faith” to “trust”—how much information do you gain? And do you see the difference?—it is the obtaining of data: observation points.
I was originally thinking of saying I don’t know whether knetknight’s wife is faithful, ‘cause I don’t know her. And what would he say? He would start to do exactly what I did—give me bullet points and factoids about his wife to prove her faithfulness.
That is what we do. We try to go from “I don’t know” to “I have enough information to make an observation.” Where does that switch between “faith” and “trust”?
Let’s take it a step further. Looking back in history we see ancient cultures attempt to make rational sense of nature. They thought the sun went around the earth because it looked like it went around the earth. They thought the stars were smaller points of light, because they looked smaller. They thought the moon generated its own light, thought demons made people sick, thought sacrifices made the sun move, and so on.
Of course, greater knowledge and ability to observe has proven those things incorrect. We realize the ancient cultures did the best they could with what they had, but were wrong. We observe both their limitations and our greater information.
But what happens with the Christian belief? All of a sudden, despite our mutual agreement the Babylonians and Aztecs were incorrect—the Christian insists the Jews were right? We have Young Earth Creationists contorting evidence to attempt to make the earth only 6-10,000 years old in order to support the book of Genesis?
Isn’t that a belief contrary to the evidence? Why should I agree the Native Americans were incorrect, the Mormons are incorrect, and the Chinese mythologies are incorrect, based upon our new information—but by “faith” must believe the Tanakh is correct?
It is here where the skeptic starts to say, “This appears to be a belief contrary to the evidence” and in every other ancient culture belief the Christian utilizes trust based upon observation—yet abandons it upon their own belief by virtue of “faith.”
Or let’s take it back to Blondin. (I told you I would use this analogy twice. *grin*) If you were like me, by now you have googled this story and discovered it is myth. Sure, myth based on some actual events—he did use a wheelbarrow, he did offer to carry over a person, and there were offers by people to be paid to be in a wheelbarrow—but the story as recounted did not happen.
And, if you are like me, you are willing to accept this is a legendary tale, developed over time—as tales do.
But now look at the tale of Jesus. We see the same legendary development from the Pauline Epistles, to Mark, to Matthew, to Luke, to John, to Gospel of Thomas, to Infancy Gospel of Thomas, to Gospel of Peter, to Gospel of Judas, to Gospel of Magdalene, etc.
Yet here the Christian says the legends happened after John, without providing any methodology for doing so. Other than “faith.”
When we skeptics say “faith is contrary to evidence” it is from the fact the Christian is willing to accept Blondin’s tale as legend (based upon observation and data) but is not willing to accept Jesus’ tale as legend, when we have similar observation and data.
Ah, dagoods ... one of the people that prompted me to write the post. Nice that you would visit.
A couple of points in response. First, I told the Blondin story as a story, not a historical fact. "The story is told to illustrate faith" not because it's historical fact, but because it illustrates biblical faith. Second, while you contend, "In fact, 'faith' in First Century Palestine meant loyalty, typically to a patron or governor." I am going off the Greek term used repeatedly in the New Testament that is translated "faith" or "to believe". According to the Greek dictionary, it means, "to be convinced". One Greek dictionary added "(by evidence)". The word the New Testament authors used didn't refer to loyalty; it referred to being convinced by something.
Of course, your main point is that Christians believe when the evidence doesn't support it. The problem I have is this. I don't yet see where reliable facts contradict what we see in the Bible. Sometimes there is no evidence. That isn't a contradiction. A lack of evidence that, say, Abraham existed doesn't prove or even suggest that he didn't. Archaeology disputed the existence of the biblical Hittites because there was no evidence ... until, of course, they found it. And surely sometimes information that becomes available refines our understanding. Nothing in the Bible requires me to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, for instance, even though there was a time when some argued that it was required biblically. Your argument that the Flood and the Exodus didn't occur is an argument from missing facts, not evidence. You could rightly say, "The evidence doesn't support it", but you cannot say, "It didn't happen" with any proof.
We people of faith understand that part of what we believe may be wrong. Give me information that proves it, and I'll adjust. (I watched the movie, Inherit the Wind, yesterday. That Christian had a host of faulty beliefs that I would have loved to adjusted.) But there haven't been any adjustments that require that we eliminate the Bible as a valid source of Christian faith. So the skeptic will always choose to disbelieve until "proof" (as elusive as that might be) arrives while the true believer will admit to the possibility of interpretive errors while believing according to the present information. But it does not require "credulity" over "faith" or a fundamental difference between "faith" and "trust". It remains that "faith" and "trust" are synonyms.
Stan,
Glad I could be of inspiration!
I appreciate the story of Blondin was just that—a story. And as an analogy it was quite appropriate. However, I do think it important for readers to understand the difference between a story and a claimed historical event. My concern is that the next reader will assume it is true, quote it, and then his/her reader will assume it is true, quote it and so on until it is perpetuated throughout the internet as an actual historical event when it is not.
You provide a good example for why I do that when you stated, “Archaeology disputed the existence of the biblical Hittites because there was no evidence ... until, of course, they found it.”
See…That is not true. A Christian once claimed “Hittites were disputed by skeptics” and then another Christian quoted him, and another and another and another, until we had a round-robin of Christians quoting Christians, all saying, “Hittites were disputed by skeptics,” yet no one can ever find a quote by a skeptic saying that!! For an article on the origin, you can read Peter Kirby on Hittites.
Stan, we very rarely do things in a complete absence of evidence. Consider the following three statements:
1) There is a street named “First” in Houston, Texas.
2) There is a street named “Elmstead” in Topeka, Kansas.
3) There is a street named “Szkz7” in New York, New York.
You may not be an expert on street names. You may not know much about geography. However, your general knowledge of street names and general knowledge regarding the size of cities would lead you to believe the First statement is true. The same knowledge, coupled with understanding the English language, would lead you to believe the Third statement is false—despite the size of New York City.
The harder question would be the Second statement, given the name in relation to the size of the city. We may say we take it on faith that the second statement is true—but I would hope you agree with me it is not the same amount of faith as saying the first statement is true. Or that the third statement is false! See—the amount of evidence available gives us varying degrees of confidence within claims. Not all claims are equal, nor do they require the same “faith” to believe.
Now let’s use another example. I claim the Statute of Liberty in New York Harbor was blown up by terrorists on May 15, 2005. Here is what we know:
1) The Statute was there on May 14, 2005.
2) The Statute was there on May 16, 2005.
3) No newspaper reported the Statute being blown up.
4) There are no pieces of the Statue in the harbor, no pictures of it missing, no terrorist claims of it happening.
In fact the ONLY evidence we have of the Statute being blown up is my claim! Is it possible terrorists blew it up, it was completely replaced, and no one bothered to mention it? Possible—but not very likely. How persuasive is it for me to argue, “Your argument it didn’t occur is from missing facts”? Yet that is exactly what Christians do with Ten Plagues/Exodus/Joshua’s Genocide!
In fact, no one would ever believe my claim of the Statute blowing up—why should I, on the same lack of evidence, believe these events occurred. The ONLY evidence we have is the Tanakh—the claim itself.
The Tanakh puts the events in a certain time. (1 Kings 6:1). It makes certain claims as to outstanding, country-shaping events. Yet no record is made of these events by Egypt or its surrounding countries. The Tanakh claims cities were destroyed, yet archeology shows the cities continuing as they were. These are not “missing facts.” These are facts in existence that contradict the Tanakh.
Let’s do another. The Mormons claim Mesoamerica consisted of an advanced civilization with coins, roads and industrialization. Unfortunately, the Mormons have yet to present a scrap of archeological proof to demonstrate this to be true.
I have yet to see a Christian grant the same likelihood to the Mormon belief as they do to the claim the Ten Plagues/Exodus/Joshua’s Genocide occurred. Yet both have an equal lack of archeological proof! Why is the Mormon wrong? Can’t they claim, “Your argument it didn’t occur is from missing facts”?
As to my definition of “faith” in First Century Palestine, I get it from Bruce Malina’s Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels pg. 359. An excerpt—
“In the social system that controls the way we use English, faith or belief usually means a psychological, internal, cognitive and affective state of mind to something that is true…This dimension of faith, assent to something or to something somebody says, is not common in the New Testament, though it is found in Mark in 13:21…
“In the New Testament, the words, ‘faith,’ ‘have faith,’ and ‘believe’ much more frequently refer to the social glue that binds one person to another. They point to the social, externally manifested, emotional behavior of loyalty, commitment and solidarity. As a faction founder, Jesus requires such loyalty and commitment to himself and his project. (Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42)…
“In sum, the term ‘faith’ primarily means personal loyalty, personal commitment, fidelity and the solidarity that comes from such faithfulness. Secondarily, the word can mean to give credence or find believable.”
In conclusion, I don’t expect you to find what you would consider “reliable evidence” to contradict the Bible. It is your journey, and people are persuaded differently. The only reason I commented was to hope to facilitate an iota of understanding as to why skeptics view some faith beliefs as contrary to evidence. For much the same reason you might question my faith belief the Statute of Liberty blew up, or you might question the Mormon belief of an advanced civilization in Mesoamerica.
Okay, some necessary points.
1. You're only one of my inspirations on the topic. :)
2. I deeply appreciate the new information on the Hittites. I'm usually pretty good at not repeating legends as fact. I missed that one. I'll correct that one in my memory banks. On the other hand ... I hope the point wasn't missed. Lots of things were without evidence until the evidence was discovered.
3. I'm wondering ... exactly what evidence would you expect to find for a localized event thousands of years ago? "This tribe wiped out that tribe 4000 years ago." What evidence would you expect to find? A 4000-year-old newspaper? (I don't mean that at all as sarcastic as I'm sure it sounds.) Why is it, for instance, that the historical accounts from the Bible are not considered historical data while other ancient texts are? Why is it that evidence that is offered is typically summarily dismissed? Why is it that the evidence for biblical accounts are scrutinized with an undeniable bias while evidence that might disagree is accepted without a thought?
4. I don't suppose you've ever seen ME argue that Mormons are wrong because they lack the evidence. The simple fact that there are people who make stupid arguments (Oh, and there are far too many of those) doesn't mean that there aren't people who are thinking Christians.
5. But, the primary point is this. I don't question why a skeptic is skeptical. I don't wonder why you might not believe what I believe. No problem. My point wasn't "Everyone ought to agree with my beliefs." My point was, "Faith is not defined as 'without evidence'." I think that you believe what you believe for a variety of reasons (yes, reasons), not because you arbitrarily dismiss it. You believe, on the other hand, that I believe what I believe for no reason at all. I just believe. That isn't accurate. You hoped to explain why a skeptic might no believe. I hoped to explain that faith doesn't have to be without reason or evidence.
Stan,
You asked a coupla questions that deserve answers:
1) What evidence would we expect to find?
For 600,000+ people crossing a wilderness? Shards, metal implements from battles, encampments, wells. We have them from far smaller Bedouin groups who crossed the same area.
For a community developing and then re-locating out of Egypt? Egyptian influence on its language, culture, belongings and society. Hebrew has Phoenician origins. Can you explain how Phoenicia (a country north of Canaan) created the language for a slave group in Egypt with no Egyptian influence on the language?
For the Ten Plagues? An outpouring of Egyptian goods to other countries. A complete upheaval of the society. An influx of mummies. A take-over (by elimination of the army) from neighboring countries. Massive amounts of deaths. Records from adjoining countries.
For Joshua’s genocide? A burning of the cities at the appropriate time period. Not 100 years or 1000 years previously. A differentiation of the invading society in the culture, religion, etc. Building and establishment for Joshua’s peace.
And we have none of it…
Why is evidence for Biblical accounts over-scrutinized?
No one is attempting to change my school’s curriculum based upon Sumerian myths. No court cases are pending because of the Aztec religion. 1000’s of court cases are pending as a result of people who believe the Bible is inspired.
My wife has not threatened divorce because of the viability of the Norse mythology. I haven’t lost all but one of my friends over Zeus’ ability to throw lightening bolts. I haven’t lost my family over whether Gilgamesh got in a boat to avoid a flood.
If I am to lose my kids, my wife, my family, my friends and my country over an ancient myth—I am going to focus some of my attention upon it.
Plus it happens to be an area I have studied with some depth. *grin*
Reviewing the basic premise of my post, I have to ask: Is it your premise that in order for anyone to believe in the Bible, they have to eject intelligence, remove reason, and believe solely on the basis of credulity without evidence? Or did you get my point?
(Small note: I am fascinated by the claim not only from you but from so many -- including those on my side of the equation -- that think in terms of "not 100 years or 1000 years previously". Bishop Usher notwithstanding, I have never figured out how anyone can dogmatically decide "6000 years" or whatever. It just doesn't seem like it's there, required, or even intended.)
Stan: Is it your premise that in order for anyone to believe in the Bible, they have to eject intelligence, remove reason, and believe solely on the basis of credulity without evidence?
No—never “solely.” Evidence…simply is. P52 being dated to 150 CE +/- 50 years is evidence the Gospel of John was written prior to that time. Quotes from Early Church fathers give us evidence of the existence of the Bible. Historical markers from other societies give us evidence.
But what is meant by “believe in the Bible”? To believe the 66 books which constitute the Protestant Bible are inerrant requires the removal of reason. To believe certain words are “inspired” yet others are not requires a method which I have yet to see consistently applied. If such inconsistency is considered unintelligent or unreasonable—then, yes—inspiration eventually rests on lack of evidence.
It isn’t that there is no evidence—it is that the evidence we have is inconsistently applied, or what little is there fails to persuade.
As to the “100 years previously”—history takes place within…well…history. If I say an event occurred during the reign of King George the III of England—this limits the scope of time in which it could occur. Or if I refer to World War 2, this indicates there was a World War One. Napoleon had to become the commander of the French army to reach his waterloo.
In the same way, Genesis, Exodus and Joshua put the events within a certain time frame. Exodus refers to the Pharaoh of Egypt. Who is this Pharaoh? Knowing this would put it within a certain time. Exodus 12:40 says the Hebrews were in Israel for exactly 430 years. To the day. 1 Kings 6:1 says the fourth year of Solomon’s reign was the 480th year anniversary of the Hebrews leaving Egypt. The Israelites wandered for 40 years in the wilderness. Ex. 16:35.
Further, the books of Joshua, 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles put certain events interacting with other nations. Some of which are recorded within their histories.
Does it make any sense to claim the Battle of Gettysburg happened before the start of the Civil war? Of course not! Then how could the destruction of Jericho happen before Joshua’s invasion? Or how could the Ten Plagues happen in 23rd Century BCE, yet the Exodus not occur until the 15th Century BCE?
It’s there. It’s intended. (The Jewish Calendar is even based upon the extrapolation of the dates, utilizing the Torah.) Hence people start changing what is meant. It becomes years of jubilee, or prophetic years or some other such nonsense in an attempt to align what the Tanakh clearly states with what we actually observe.
It is there I start to question the viability of “faith.”
"It isn’t that there is no evidence—it is that the evidence we have is inconsistently applied, or what little is there fails to persuade."
Without commenting on "inconsistently applied" (because we don't like that concept), I will certainly agree with "fails to persuade." That, in fact, is the definition of "proof." But that is precisely the difference between "evidence" and "proof". And it also constitutes the difference between "credulity" and "faith."
You'll never see me arguing that we can prove the Bible or prove the existence of God. That requires "persuade." That requires "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true." That's not my claim. I have only intended to suggest that faith is not without evidence when so many (on both sides) argue that it must be without evidence.
Here's the idea. (If you wish, view the Exodus story as a myth. I'll still use it to illustrate the idea, okay?) Let's say that the people of Israel lacked the confidence to walk across a sea bed with an army behind them. So God performs 10 supernatural events that defy any of their natural explanations. Now they get to the Red Sea. At this point there is no proof that they will be safe crossing that bizarre place. However, they have seen a series of events that provide evidence that it would be safe for them. Now they have "faith" to cross without "proof" ... but not without reason.
That's all I'm saying. Faith does not require a total lack of evidence or a total lack of reason. If we can agree on that, I've satisfied my goal. My aim was not to persuade anyone that my beliefs are correct. It was simply to say that faith doesn't have to be (indeed, should not be) devoid of evidence or reason.
One very small point. I suppose you read Exo. 12:41 ("At the end of 430 years, on that very day, all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.") to read "430 years to the day." I don't. I read it to say that they left on the very day being described. Now, I don't intend this very small point to persuade. I simply use it to point out that a large number of disagreements and differences occur not in the biblical texts, but in the interpretations of those texts (such as the Jewish calendar, etc.).
Stan: Faith does not require a total lack of evidence or a total lack of reason. If we can agree on that, I've satisfied my goal.
I can agree with that.
Isn't it great when people with disparate viewpoints on life can agree? I always enjoy a friendly discussion, even when it's not because we agree. Thanks for that.
Post a Comment