(July 12, 2022 at 11:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(July 12, 2022 at 8:04 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Since when does "suspending judgment" require faith?
Indeed. I promote the connotation of "faith" that is more akin to trust than belief. For example, trust is more closely aligned with the will. Belief is more closely aligned with thought. At the same time I know there are Christians, such as Kierkegaard, who consider the irrational acceptance of some first principles as an inescapable part of the human condition. Hence the assertion of these types of Christians is that being an atheist requires "faith" in different first principles... first principles that do not entail theism, but must be accepted on "faith" nonetheless. My guess, not having read the book would be, the Christian writer finds the first princples of an atheistic philosophy to be lacking, a position the existentialist part of me finds agreeable.
The principles that we, as atheists, accept "on faith" are falsifiable, which means that we do not really accept them on "faith", do we? In mentioning the "atheistic first principles" you, of course, neglected to give any examples of such.
I believe and am convinced that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical individual, but, that he was crazy, a David Koresh or Jim Jones of his day. That's why, I believe, that the Romans crucified him without so much as a historical footnote. In short, they, and no one else mentioned him, because, he was not worth mentioning.
