RE: Credible/Honest Apologetics?
July 13, 2022 at 10:59 am
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2022 at 11:06 am by Simon Moon.)
(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.
So then, why not just use the word trust?
When I sit in a chair, I would never use the word faith to describe the trust I have that the chair will hold me up.
Quote: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.
Faith, in the religious sense (not a synonym for trust) is not belief, it is the reason people give for their justification for belief.
The Hebrews 11:1 definition of faith sure doesn't seem like it describing "trust":
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
I sense a bit of an equivocation fallacy here. Claim that faith and trust are the same, until a theist has to justify their belief in an unevidenced claim, then switch to the Hebrews 11.1 definition. I can't remember how many times I've been involved in discussions with theists, where this exact thing happens.
The only first principles an atheist has to accept, is that: the outside world exists, and other minds exist, and we are not a brain in a vat being fed false information. But again, I don't think this is a faith based position, since I have evidence. Also, it is the only world I am presented with, so from pragmatically I have to at least act as if it exists, or I will die within this false world. Until someone shows me a way out of the Matrix, I am stuck here, having to obey the rules, or risk dying within it.
Funny thing is, theists have to accept all of the above, too. You and I both wake up in the morning, coming to the conclusion that the universe exists, and other minds exist. Difference is, you are the one adding a whole bunch of other, unevidenced stuff to it.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.