Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[Mister Agenda]

I do not find that a series of unconvincing assertions becomes a convincing argument through accumulation. A series of justified probabilistic inferences can support a conclusion, but you don't seem to be presenting that kind of case (like five causally unconnected things reasonably supported to be over 50% likely that all point to the same conclusion, which conclusion can be inferred to be, say, 75% likely to be true based on the fact that multiple lines of evidence show that it is more probable than not).

Well, it is your opinion that many or all of my list of reasons are unconvincing to you. None can be shown to be false (or even more likely to be false) so they are all rational beliefs. If one surveys a series of rational reasons for belief that, in their opinion, range from makes-sense to more-likely-than-not to compelling, then one has a cumulative case that increases the probability of their belief (in this case, belief in God). 

For example, say I tell my daughter than an old army buddy is coming this afternoon for a visit (she has a belief). If a man strange man walks up the drive after lunch, is there more reasons to believe my statement? What about if the man looked to be about my age? What if he had on an army jacket or hat? What if he had all those things and flowers (for my wife)? The original belief can be strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive but fit the framework. Cumulative.

The list of stupid beliefs that cannot be proven false is potentially infinite. I don't think that with a standard that low, crossing the bar of 'not proven to be false' alone would not bring a belief up to a point that it could reasonably be called rational.

That's an interesting story. Too bad your list of dodgy assertions doesn't have that level of credibility going for it. It matches what I suggested for a series of justified probabilistic references, though; but I get you can't tell the difference. Your 'cumulative case' is more like:

Say I tell my daughter Santa Clause is real and he's coming down the chimney at our house on Christmas Eve to leave presents (she has a belief). She hears a noise on the roof that night, a sort of clattering sound. Later she hears some noise downstairs and sees someone messing with boxes around the Christmas tree. The next morning she sees that indeed, presents have been delivered. Her original belief has been strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive, but fit the framework. 'Cumulative'.

---

Are you saying; that I should assume everything from you is B.S. by default...... Done!!!

I wonder if he has connected it in his head that his angry atheists disjointed thoughts are counterproductive to his cause in a thread where a believer is questioning her faith. I'm going to go with "no".

He was probably pretending to believe that you meant it when you indicated that what makes a belief rational is not being able to disprove it.

[RoadRunner79]

Okay, so now I'd distanced myself from the church for a few months now.

Three months ago, my partner asked me if I had faith in the air we breath.

Of course my answer was no, because it is obviously and irrefutably there.

You could guess what that person asked next! 

Next question was: "So why do you have faith in God?"

Thinking about that question for several weeks now, and I'm having a strange feeling. 

Am I overthinking because I can't think of a strong answer? What am I missing?

I think that your problem with the question is that it is an equivocation of the word faith.  The word "faith" can be used in couple of different ways, and some I think particular to Christianity.  To use a sense of the word, which is particular to the religion, and compare it to another sense of the word used in a different way, is not correct thinking?

Do you have faith in science?  Do you have faith in your partner?  Do you have faith in Donald Trump?
None of these in answering yes or no; seem to have anything to do with belief that the object of the declaration is irrefutably there.  Would you agree?

Frankly, I think that question of do you have faith in air; is a rather odd to begin with.  My response would be faith that it will do what?   (thinking that it will not suddenly leave the space I'm in, or quit working, the way that it has always done.  So I don't even think the first question makes sense.

[SteveII]

Where did you get that any of this are my arguments? I said nothing of the kind. When I posted the list, I even said "These are NOT the arguments..." {emphasis in the original}. 

I have defended every one of these at various times here and am willing to do it again. I'm not hijacking this thread. Start a new one.

Steve, you said:

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe:

And then went down the line, which I rebutted above.  You then said:

Well, it is your (possibletarian's) opinion that many or all of my list of reasons are unconvincing to you. None can be shown to be false (or even more likely to be false) so they are all rational beliefs. If one surveys a series of rational reasons for belief that, in their opinion, range from makes-sense to more-likely-than-not to compelling, then one has a cumulative case that increases the probability of their belief (in this case, belief in God).

Which is ridiculous.  Cumulative fallacies - which are the end points of bad arguments - and non sequiturs do not add up to rationality.

I am wholly unimpressed.  And I certainly don't need you to go back down the "popularity = veracity" rabbit hole yet again.

You are confusing my reasons with formal arguments. Don't. 

Thinking I am making formal arguments every time I talk about why I believe something is nonsense. You can't have a conversation about anything if everything has to be a formal argument. You should know by now I am more than happy to talk philosophy if asked.

[brewer]

Yes, you're overthinking. You don't have faith in air because you can feel the wind in your face. You don't apprehend God directly through any of the senses.

As Hebrews puts it:

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen existent.

FTFY

[Brian37]

Okay, so now I'd distanced myself from the church for a few months now.

Three months ago, my partner asked me if I had faith in the air we breath.

Of course my answer was no, because it is obviously and irrefutably there.

You could guess what that person asked next! 

Next question was: "So why do you have faith in God?"

Thinking about that question for several weeks now, and I'm having a strange feeling. 

Am I overthinking because I can't think of a strong answer? What am I missing?

I think that your problem with the question is that it is an equivocation of the word faith.  The word "faith" can be used in couple of different ways, and some I think particular to Christianity.  To use a sense of the word, which is particular to the religion, and compare it to another sense of the word used in a different way, is not correct thinking?

Do you have faith in science?  Do you have faith in your partner?  Do you have faith in Donald Trump?
None of these in answering yes or no; seem to have anything to do with belief that the object of the declaration is irrefutably there.  Would you agree?

Frankly, I think that question of do you have faith in air; is a rather odd to begin with.  My response would be faith that it will do what?   (thinking that it will not suddenly leave the space I'm in, or quit working, the way that it has always done.  So I don't even think the first question makes sense.

No, your flavor of the world is merely fishing for excuses to cling to bad claims.

[SteveII]

Well, it is your opinion that many or all of my list of reasons are unconvincing to you. None can be shown to be false (or even more likely to be false) so they are all rational beliefs. If one surveys a series of rational reasons for belief that, in their opinion, range from makes-sense to more-likely-than-not to compelling, then one has a cumulative case that increases the probability of their belief (in this case, belief in God). 

For example, say I tell my daughter than an old army buddy is coming this afternoon for a visit (she has a belief). If a man strange man walks up the drive after lunch, is there more reasons to believe my statement? What about if the man looked to be about my age? What if he had on an army jacket or hat? What if he had all those things and flowers (for my wife)? The original belief can be strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive but fit the framework. Cumulative.

The list of stupid beliefs that cannot be proven false is potentially infinite. I don't think that with a standard that low, crossing the bar of 'not proven to be false' alone would not bring a belief up to a point that it could reasonably be called rational.

I am not saying this is what makes a rational argument. I am saying that in addition to all the reasons that I have outlined here countless times why I believe that list, you cannot show they are false beliefs (or even likely to be false)--so they remain rationally justified beliefs. To say it another way, if you had a way to show they were false, yet I still believed them to be true, then they would not be rationally justified beliefs. 

That's an interesting story. Too bad your list of dodgy assertions doesn't have that level of credibility going for it. It matches what I suggested for a series of justified probabilistic references, though; but I get you can't tell the difference.

Assertions? Like I told Kevin, it is ridiculous to demand formal arguments every time I mention the reasons for my well-known beliefs. 

Your 'cumulative case' is more like:

Say I tell my daughter Santa Clause is real and he's coming down the chimney at our house on Christmas Eve to leave presents (she has a belief). She hears a noise on the roof that night, a sort of clattering sound. Later she hears some noise downstairs and sees someone messing with boxes around the Christmas tree. The next morning she sees that indeed, presents have been delivered. Her original belief has been strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive, but fit the framework. 'Cumulative'.  :

Bad parody. I can offer a hundred defeaters for Santa Claus existing. So, while a child's belief might be rationally justified in the absence of those, it will not be if I share them.

[possibletarian]

I am not saying this is what makes a rational argument. I am saying that in addition to all the reasons that I have outlined here countless times why I believe that list, you cannot show they are false beliefs (or even likely to be false)--so they remain rationally justified beliefs. To say it another way, if you had a way to show they were false, yet I still believed them to be true, then they would not be rationally justified beliefs.

Define your threshold for likely to be false.

Bad parody. I can offer a hundred defeaters for Santa Claus existing. So, while a child's belief might be rationally justified in the absence of those, it will not be if I share them.

That was not the point, you can make up numerous scenarios for culminate evidence pointing to a completely incorrect result, especially given the person has collected the data themselves to only point in one direction.

Just because you have come to that conclusion, and because you believe that your particular god has properties (like most gods) that cannot be 'unproven' then it must be true.

I am very interested in your definition of 'likely to be false' what on earth does that even mean ?

[drfuzzy]

---

Steve, you said:


And then went down the line, which I rebutted above.  You then said:


Which is ridiculous.  Cumulative fallacies - which are the end points of bad arguments - and non sequiturs do not add up to rationality.

I am wholly unimpressed.  And I certainly don't need you to go back down the "popularity = veracity" rabbit hole yet again.

---

---

You are confusing my reasons with formal arguments. Don't.

---

Thinking I am making formal arguments every time I talk about why I believe something is nonsense.

---

You can't have a conversation about anything if everything has to be a formal argument. You should know by now I am more than happy to talk philosophy if asked.

---

Precisely.  Because "belief" is not rational.  It is deliberate irrationality.  Belief is anti-proof.  "I believe the Great Pumpkin exists and there is no way you can prove he doesn't!!!"

[SteveII]

I am not saying this is what makes a rational argument. I am saying that in addition to all the reasons that I have outlined here countless times why I believe that list, you cannot show they are false beliefs (or even likely to be false)--so they remain rationally justified beliefs. To say it another way, if you had a way to show they were false, yet I still believed them to be true, then they would not be rationally justified beliefs.

Define your threshold for likely to be false.

There exists a competing naturalistic theory that makes sense of the facts that indicates my belief could easily be wrong. 

Bad parody. I can offer a hundred defeaters for Santa Claus existing. So, while a child's belief might be rationally justified in the absence of those, it will not be if I share them.

That was not the point, you can make up numerous scenarios for culminate evidence pointing to a completely incorrect result, especially given the person has collected the data themselves to only point in one direction.

You don't have a cumulative case of anything if there are reasons and evidence not to think the belief is true--but you are simply ignoring them. Most arguments against Christianity are not rebuttal arguments--they are more along the lines of "well...you haven't proved it".  

Just because you have come to that conclusion, and because you believe that your particular god has properties (like most gods) that cannot be 'unproven' then it must be true.

I am very interested in your definition of 'likely to be false' what on earth does that even mean ?

Further to what I was just saying, my cumulative case would break down if evidence was presented that made it clear that any grouping of my beliefs are likely to be false--which is a lower threshold than simply false. 

A good example: I don't think the earth was created in a literal 6 days. Why? Because I think that the evidence (scientific, exegetical, historical, etc.) shows that that belief is likely to be false. I don't think that my list contains beliefs that can be undercut like this.

[Brian37]

---

You are confusing my reasons with formal arguments. Don't.

---

Thinking I am making formal arguments every time I talk about why I believe something is nonsense.

---

You can't have a conversation about anything if everything has to be a formal argument. You should know by now I am more than happy to talk philosophy if asked.

---

Precisely.  Because "belief" is not rational.  It is deliberate irrationality.  Belief is anti-proof.  "I believe the Great Pumpkin exists and there is no way you can prove he doesn't!!!"

WHAT? NOW YOU TELL ME!

What the hell do you mean I am not dating Angelina Jolie?