• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Watch the Richard Dawkins v. John Lennox debate

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

What's that mean?

How does a thing hoped for--only hoped for--have substance? Or is it saying just that faith is hope? If faith is hope, then believers only hope god exists. Which means they aren't believers...only hopers.

How is faith evidence of things not seen? If faith is hope, it isn't evidence of anything.

Lots of ambiguity there. Doesn't appear to really be saying....anything.
 
slingblade said:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

What's that mean?

How does a thing hoped for--only hoped for--have substance? Or is it saying just that faith is hope? If faith is hope, then believers only hope god exists. Which means they aren't believers...only hopers.

How is faith evidence of things not seen? If faith is hope, it isn't evidence of anything.

Lots of ambiguity there. Doesn't appear to really be saying....anything.
Click to expand...

It results in an infinite loop of suck.

A: God exists.
B: How do you know?
A: I have evidence.
B: What's your evidence?
A: My Faith
B: Faith isn't evidence.
A: Faith is evidence of things not seen.
B: I hate you.
 
joobz said:
It results in an infinite loop of suck.

A: God exists.
B: How do you know?
A: I have evidence.
B: What's your evidence?
A: My Faith
B: Faith isn't evidence.
A: Faith is evidence of things not seen.
B: I hate you.
Click to expand...

:egglaugh:

Young's literal translation gives us:

And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction

I think the more familiar translation which Slingblade brings up is somewhat unhelpful. It looks like it might be a definition, but I think the original text was saying something about faith, not outlining what it is. The word "evidence" has a pretty specific meaning, especially to skeptical types, and I'm not sure why that version uses the word.

Faith is mentioned 500+ times in the NT and I think it probably takes a broader reading to get a picture of what is being spoken about.
 
Last edited:
Beth said:
Dawkins is making the argument that religious faith should be discouraged because it leads to the wrong sorts of faith - i.e. blind faith that can be exploited to evil ends. Why should religious faith be treated differently in that regard than any other sort of faith?
Click to expand...
Any faith that is irrational and without evidence or a reasonable basis is exploitable.

Why should the argument that religious moderates be considered as 'providing cover to religious extremists' be given any more credence than the argument that moderate faith in liberal or conservative ideologies provide cover to the political extremists?
Click to expand...
Good question but then I think think they do. I happen to be one who believes that ideology is woo.
 
Egg said:
The point I believe Lennox is making (and which I have been trying to show with citations is not a view unique to Lennox) is that when the religious (or Christians, at least in this case) call "faith" a virtue, they generally mean the confidence/trust/commitment definition and not the definition Dawkins uses.
Click to expand...
"confidence/trust/commitment" is a dance. I'm sorry to be rude but if you had evidence I would believe what you belive. I would have the same confidence/trust/commitment. You are trying to turn a belief in something without evidence into something that you think is tenable but you are simply playing semantics.

Hence the question about having faith in your wife and pointing out that it would be the same reply.
Click to expand...
I know my wife exists. You don't know that god exists. The two can't be equated. To say that I have confidence/trust/commitment to an invisible unicorn doesn't make the confidence/trust/commitment more reasonable than to say I believe that an invisible unicorn exists.
 
Egg said:
I provided links in earlier post to you.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good but it isn't evidence. If there were evidence that could justify trust/confidence/commitment in a thing you call "god" then I would have trust/confidence/commitment in that thing also. There is no evidence for this thing so there is no justification for having this trust.
 
Last edited:
Egg said:
:egglaugh:

Young's literal translation gives us:

And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction

I think the more familiar translation which Slingblade brings up is somewhat unhelpful. It looks like it might be a definition, but I think the original text was saying something about faith, not outlining what it is. The word "evidence" has a pretty specific meaning, especially to skeptical types, and I'm not sure why that version uses the word.

Faith is mentioned 500+ times in the NT and I think it probably takes a broader reading to get a picture of what is being spoken about.
Click to expand...
Except that in the Debate Lennox Spewed out the "Faith is evidence of things unseen". He used it as a counterpoint to Dawkin's statement that Faith is belief without evidence.

So, while you may be right that faith is used in multiple fashions in the bible, we must be exact in regards to what one means in reference to having faith in god's existence.
 
RandFan said:
"confidence/trust/commitment" is a dance. I'm sorry to be rude but if you had evidence I would believe what you belive. I would have the same confidence/trust/commitment. You are trying to turn a belief in something without evidence into something that you think is tenable but you are simply playing semantics.

I know my wife exists. You don't know that god exists. The two can't be equated. To say that I have confidence/trust/commitment to an invisible unicorn doesn't make the confidence/trust/commitment more reasonable than to say I believe that an invisible unicorn exists.
Click to expand...

Ah ok. I misunderstood what you were asking about.

So, you're challenging me to provide evidence of God's existence and trustworthiness and not evidence of what is meant by "pistis"?

Saying that there is no evidence for God is a different argument from saying that "faith", by definition, requires a lack of evidence and saying that it is this definition that the religious defend.

If your point is merely that you believe there is no evidence for God, that's fine, I accept that that is your position. It doesn't change the definition and what is meant by the word "faith". It's a separate argument.

I understand that what you're saying is that it means that, even if not by definition, faith in God must be without evidence because God is without evidence. Lennox and others disagree with you on that point and I don't see the value of turning this thread into a "what is the evidence for God?" discussion.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
Except that in the Debate Lennox Spewed out the "Faith is evidence of things unseen". He used it as a counterpoint to Dawkin's statement that Faith is belief without evidence.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I guess I missed that - not sure what he would have meant in that context, because he also said his faith is based on evidence.
joobz said:
So, while you may be right that faith is used in multiple fashions in the bible, we must be exact in regards to what one means in reference to having faith in god's existence.
Click to expand...
Faith in God's existence or faith in God?
 
They are the same thing so long as you are talking about an invisible immeasurible entity that is indistinguishable from a delusion.

There is nothing to distinguish an entity that actually exists from one that people made up. People don't use faith to dismiss the entities they don't believe in... they seem to employ the word in regards to a specific entity.
 
Egg said:
I understand that what you're saying is that it means that, even if not by definition, faith in God must be without evidence because God is without evidence. Lennox and others disagree with you on that point and I don't see the value of turning this thread into a "what is the evidence for God?" discussion.
Click to expand...
It's critical to the OP. Lennox is wrong and Dawkins is right. You are entitled to your beliefs and I'm sorry that these discussions put you in a position to have your beliefs belittled. In all sincerity, I respect you and I promise you that it's not my intent to denigrate your beliefs simply for the purpose of belittling you. If at the end of the day you have trust in something that is without any basis other than your own personal feelings then that is fine. But to state that Lennox is right is a fundamental error. He is not right. Being committed to something that you have a reasonable basis for the commitment (one's wife) is very different from being committed to something that has no such basis. Regardless of what you mean by "faith". It's irrational.

I was once a true believer. One who made the arguments that you are making right now. Mormons don't have a different slant. I'm not confused and have not been from the beginning I assure you. I know you think we are talking past each other but we are not. When I was on my mission I was asked, "what is faith" at least a hundred times and I say that without exaggeration.

Of what value is it to have confidence in something that we don't know whether it exists? There are people that are confident that the number 13 is unlucky. How should we evaluate such world views?
 
Egg said:
Hmm, I guess I missed that - not sure what he would have meant in that context, because he also said his faith is based on evidence.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It was one of the evasions he allowed himself.
Egg said:
Faith in God's existence or faith in God?
Click to expand...
I stick to existence here since the atheist/thiest debate relies on that point.

The argument typically goes:
there is a universe. It's existence is proof of a creator. That creator is god.

Except that the universe is really only evidence that the universe exists.

Anything more requires faith, belief without evidence.
 
How does "faith in things not thing" different from a delusion?

The things I trust but don't see are all things that are measurable and detectable on some level... I can verify they exist other than in my thoughts-- atoms, magnetism, mental illness, feelings, conscious brains, etc.

But there is nothing to distinguish a belief in god from a fantasy about an invisible friend. Nothing. There just is nothing. And that is what faith is-- it's used to feel good for believing something that is indistinguishable from all the delusions you dismiss.
 
Egg said:
They key point here is if religious are holding up "faith" as a virtue, which definition of "faith" are they referring to? Are religous people really making such a blanket statement as "believing things without evidence is good"?
Click to expand...

It's an authority thing. The Church says: "Believing in what the Church says is good, never mind the lack of evidence."

The point I believe Lennox is making (and which I have been trying to show with citations is not a view unique to Lennox) is that when the religious (or Christians, at least in this case) call "faith" a virtue, they generally mean the confidence/trust/commitment definition and not the definition Dawkins uses. Hence the question about having faith in your wife and pointing out that it would be the same reply.
Click to expand...

Confidence/trust/commitment are evidence neutral: unless they have evidence to support the confidence/trust/commitment, then it is equivilent to blind-faith. In addition, most comparisons to confidence/trust/commitment involve emotional interplay between two people; I don't find it analogous to God at all.

The point wasn't supposed to be pointing out any individual hypocrisy. The point is that all of us have beliefs that aren't supported by empirical evidence, and often we think those beliefs are good. So, if the argument is that because religious people say that certain beliefs (which happen not to be supported by empirical evidence) are good, how is that so different from what everyone else does? If this is the point Dawkins is making, why single out religion?
Click to expand...

Ad Populum is also a fallacy. Dawkins singles out religion because he feels it is the single largest saboteur of critical thought.

Then Dawkins needs to be certain that when he describes what the religious mean by "faith" he is not using his definition instead of theirs.
Click to expand...

It would help if the religious were more explicit with their own uses, too.

Stated like that, yes, it becomes a slippery slope argument. It's not necessarily wrong because of that, but then neither would a belief with no evidence be necessarily wrong.
Click to expand...

The belief itself may not be necessarily wrong, but the methodology is.

There is the assumption here that extremists believe the same things as moderates though, but are just more committed and zealous. I would disagree with this. A Christian who kills abortion doctors clearly has values that differ significantly from most other Christians.
Click to expand...

No. The assumption here is that extremists will invoke the same argument to defend their blind-faith as moderates use to defend theirs. "Because the bible says so" works equally well for those who cherry-pick the peaceful passages and those who cherry-pick the violent ones.

If we're not talking about blind faith in just about anything then surely what is important is what the blind faith is in.
Click to expand...

Yes. How do you objectively determine what is good to have faith in?

My biggest worry about such an approach is the "them and us" perception that it encourages on both sides. The non-religious would seem to me to be foolish to lump extremists and moderates into one bag and distance themselves from a powerful potential ally in the fight against extremism.
Click to expand...

If you can find a way to criticize extremist religion from first principles without criticizing moderate religion, go ahead. I haven't seen such a method.
 
articulett said:
Why should religion be treated differently than any other woo? Why can't we question all religions the way we'd question the extreme ones or the cults or believers in on supposed mystical truths? Why do we question those things? Shouldn't we be allowed to question your preferred belief similarly. What's the harm
Click to expand...

Who is saying that religion should be treated differently? Who says you can't question any and all religions on any or all of their beliefs? It doesn't seem to me that there are any proscriptions against doing such things in the US in the 21st century. Futher, I see plenty of such questioning going on, so Dawkins claim that it is taboo seems rather specious to me. There are no laws that prohibit blasphemy in our society.

If you're complaining about the social costs of publicly doing so, well, there are social costs to be paid when you attempt to change other people's beliefs. Whether you wish to evangelize them to your religion or that women should receive equal pay for equal work, those who advocate for any change must deal with the social costs of doing so.

And how are we to keep people from hearing their god command them to do harmful things unless we are free to criticize faith as a means of knowledge?
Click to expand...
I think this is very close to a very important question. I agree that we should be free to criticize faith. I also think that we are free to do just that. Why do you feel that you and/or Dawkins is not free to do that?

I think the important question is not how we are to keep people from hearing their god command them to do harmful things - we cannot prevent that and I do not think we should try. It is tantamount to thought crime. What we can and should prevent is allowing people to commit harmful acts whether they perform those acts regardless of why they have decided such acts are something they should do. It doesn't matter to me whether their god, their priest, or their dog commanded it.
 
Last edited:
Beth said:
It is tantamount to thought crime.
<snip>
...their priest...
Click to expand...

If the priest says it, it's conspiracy or hate speech.

Children naturally inherit the biases they are surrounded with as they grow up. Public education should include a heavy focus on critical thought early on. But I can image the opposition any such program would have; all the outraged parents complaining that the education system is teaching their children to be doubt god!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom