1984 & A/S/K revisited

[Undeceived]

What is your definition of "faith"? It seems you put faith and reason in conflict with one another. They work in partnership. Faith goes beyond reason.

I would think "faith" is a sort of "trust". The question here seems to be if it is justified trust, like when I get on a bus and I trust the driver not to crash. I would use some simple reasoning that would lead me to think it's rational to trust him/her, such as think to myself when was the last time a bus driver crashed in my city (dealing with probabilities), assuming he/she has been doing the job for years and therefore has the experience (dealing with an understanding of the nature of employment) etc etc. I would assume you think your faith in e.g. the A/S/K method is justified, but how exactly? You have no prior evidence that it works, which means it's literally a blind leap of faith into the unknown. Why not also believe 2 + 2 is 5?

Now we're just throwing apples and oranges at each other. You say God has no evidence, I say He does. God made us in His image and gave us a conscience. His entire creation is evidence. "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Rom 1:20). I think we agreed that these are evidence a long time ago. The question is whether the evidence is good enough for the beholder. That's where faith comes in. If you like God, the evidence will be sufficient. If you detest God, you will find whatever reasons within your grasp to deny the evidence.

At some point the senses have to give up their quest for knowledge.

Why, so that we can believe the snake oil salesman? It doesn't sound rational in the least to say that we have to let go of the senses in order to believe something. Would it be sensible for me to have faith that when I get on the bus, it will take off and fly? No, because my senses tell me the bus doesn't hold such an ability to do that.

Let's think of an example closer to A/S/K: an organisation tells people that if they give them $10 a day, eventually the CEO will give them 1 million dollars. I could do background checks on this organisation and talk to people about it and come to the conclusion that they are a fraud OR I could have faith that they will follow through and give me 1 million dollars. Do I trust my senses/reasoning or am I justified in simply putting trust into them?

A Christian is one who journeys on past the natural epistemic boundaries. God is, by definition, not of this world. So one needs faith to "see" Him.

Ah, so now it's all about 66 seeing 99, is it? Why the jump from literally experiencing him to a metaphorical experience? I have the feeling I might have gotten to you and you're having to readjust to your new-found cognitive dissonance... this is always the way; salvage the belief and adapt the view to somehow still harmonize with the belief.

I think you misread these lines. My point was that, epistemically, one cannot directly experience God. He is not a natural being. Therefore, any truths about God or morality or purpose cannot be known through the senses. They can be believed, sure. But that's what faith is--believing what the senses cannot confirm. My point is that if we stopped at the senses, we could not pursue metaphysical questions such as "Why am I here?" or "What should I love?" or "What should I live for?" The answers to these are of the highest importance to us. Yet they lie outside of science. Faith is an attempt to reach beyond the empirical realm and illuminate those questions. The believer uses faith to gain access to a new domain, that of revelation. There is no other option--reason has come to the edge of a cliff. The believer hopes that revelation will expose the truths he seeks. Faith is embraced not "blindly" but with "eyes wide open." Faith is not meant to suppress our intellectual abilities, but to guide them--like the way infrared goggles help us to see heat. The idea is to put faith into someone with access--into Jesus/God--who will respond to our faith by providing us with revelation. But in order for it to do any good, we need to keep the goggles on. We need faith to continue to see God. So if we do not want Him in our life, we ignore him by withdrawing our faith.

I know this may make little sense to you. But that fact complies with the mantra: you need to believe in order to see. God will not reveal Himself to someone who does not want God to reveal Himself. Be honest-- do you want God to reveal Himself to you, in all His power and glory and judgment? The way you answer that question will tell you if you are a Christian or an atheist. You see, it is the agent's desire, or faith, that matters.