What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[Drich]

Faith is not defined in such a way.

Faith is belief without complete knowledge. it does not say faith is belief in something you can not know.

Interesting point.  I agree with the good doctor that it is insulting to suggest that belief in the conclusions of science is on par with having faith in the articles of faith subscribed to by a religion.

But I agree with Drich that faith isn't well described as any kind of claim regarding knowledge.  I personally think of faith as trust in or reliance on that which you cannot demonstrate or completely justify.  I believe we all have articles of faith in that sense.  But that doesn't mean there is nothing at all that one can demonstrate or fully justify.  Not everything is on the same epistemic footing as religious faith, but some things are.  Science just isn't one of them.

why not?

can you explain every scientific aspect in which you believe?

or is there a measure of faith involved to accept that the whole universe was condensed down to the size of a basket ball before the big bang?

Faith is faith when it comes to God/not religion. (The faith religion calls for is bunk.) God said all we need is the smallest amount and we can move mountains of doubt with what He will show/do for us.

---

Faith is not defined in such a way.

Faith is belief without complete knowledge. it does not say faith is belief in something you can not know.

That is a lie and foolish belief in order to try and ground science and put god out of reach.

In truth for both science and belief in God one starts out without complete knowledge of both. however with both if you properly emerse yourself you will find proof to support your beliefs. now the only difference is that when you find proof of God those 'facts' never change. however in this very case belief in something as foolish as the idea that time is a dimensional form of measurement is based on which group of 'scientists you want to believe in. are you with enstien or are you with the list of people you listed which if I remember correctly included carl sagen and steven hawkin...

How can you be so foolish or blind as to see your beliefs are based on what the most popular in a given field believes.... 

I wish you could ask old "speak and spell" what he believes now about God. I'm sure it would not make a difference because you would simply find another group of like minded people to blindly follow.

I accept current facts and findings.  I do not "believe" in anything that cannot be measured, seen, touched, and defined.  It's that simple.  If the time should come when someone proves that a soul, or any spirit of any type exists, then I will accept that as true and change my stance.  My definition of faith comes from Peter Boghossian, I like his books.  "In truth for both science and belief in God one starts out without complete knowledge of both."  True . . . but science is generally gathering information on something that exists, and "studying" god is simply indulging in fantasy.

so big bang... evolution... black holes (as gravity wells) and a whole host of other theoretical science... you don't believe in any of it?