Well, Well, JD.... I thought you said you would never post with me again and yet these post are continually popping up. Let's keep this a friendly, calm, yet intellectual argument. I enjoy posting with you (most of the time) and hope to keep it this way. I’ll respond to your concerns simply because you keep posting to me over and over again and I want to be fair.
You are misrepresenting me, drat. I told you I was tired of discussing a particular topic because you were just calling upon old, tired rhetoric, making any such discussion pointless. But I can choose to post any time I want. Another reason why I got tired of exchanges with you is that you A) tend to post book-length posts, and B) try to cover too many topics in a single post.
Here we are with this issue of reasonable faith again. I find it very interesting that the atheists are attempting to define faith for the Christian community. This is especially interesting considering the fact that for 2,000 years the vast majority of the church has advocated a reasonable faith. Consider the church in its very infancy- the early apologists. These men certainly advocated for the primacy of reason and felt that not only were faith and reason mutually compatible, but that faith was actually the most reasonable position one could take. They were very concerned with offering evidences and arguments to demonstrate why this was the case. This notion of reasonable faith is nothing new and it is very ironic that the church was concerned with reason long before the "modern world" emerged and began to advocate the importance of reason. Some of history’s greatest philosophers have been Christians, and if not Christians then certainly theists, so obviously reason was discussed long before Huxley, Dawkins, or Darrow.
OK, for the record, you can have any belief you choose; I can't stop you and wouldn't try if I could. And I'm not trying to define "faith" for you. Your own category of "Theists" have a hard enough time with that. There are as many versions of "faith" as there are religious sects. I encounter theists all the time that differ in their defintion of "faith". So, it isn't the athiests that need concern you, it's the theists. My own personal favorite definition of "faith" comes from the Bible:
Hebrews 11:
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
Now, you can criticize me for quote mining if you like, but these passages are the ones I was raised with in a Southern Baptist church to define "faith". They speak of the kind of faith that is not buttressed by evidence, but by a blind reverence for the unknown, the unseen, the unknowable. They speak of something that humans cannot understand, yet must fear in order to follow if they seek redemption. I have no problem with someone who seeks to believe in god for reasons other than this; in fact I applaud it. But anything more than this kind of "faith" is, in my opinion, not faith at all, but rather evidence. And any evidence of god or Jesus that may eventually arise will undoubtedly dispel the notions of this myth. So this is my definition, forged by over 20 years of Baptist indoctrination and family reinforcement. It may not agree with your definition, but I would ask that you not disregard my family traditions if you don't want me to disregard yours. I exist; these traditions exist. Faith is not all you seem to think it is.
And please go easy on the history lessons. I'm aware of most of what you think I'm not aware of. That I have a different take on it isn't going to be changed by your insisting on teaching me history.
I have read Dawkins’ handling of faith (he calls it ‘blind’ and I cringe).
Maybe he's specifically addressing one theistic version of "faith". Did you consider that? Did you also consider that there are various versions of "faith" that theists hold valid? I know I have encountered many. (as mentioned above)
I have also read works by his fellow faculty member at Oxford, Allister McGrath (who has Phd’s in science as well as religion). McGrath many times demonstrates both Biblically and historically Christianity’s concern with reason and faith. Unfortunately Dawkins mentions never a word of any of this in his latest book though McGrath's works are written to Dawkins specifically and Dawkins himself admits in the God Delusion he has read it (though he actually gets the title of one of the books wrong he claims he has read it). The issue here is not if McGrath successfully answers Dawkins at every point or if McGrath is right in his advocating of theism, the point is simply this: considering one of the leading experts in church theology at Oxford writes you specifically to tell you that your blind faith hypothesis is wrong and then demonstrates conclusively from history and theology that this is so, don't you think you should at least answer this in your book when you start to argue for blind faith (especially considering that you admit that you have read these works). Doesn't McGrath at least deserve an intelligent response- that’s what healthy scholarship is about answering your critics and demonstrating that you are write. Yet Dawkins does not do the heavy lifting. He continues to use his false definition of faith as something ‘blind’ and unreasonable (while offering no evidence from church history or theology to back him up- we are to simply take him at his word I guess) and ignores all the theologians who offer evidence to the contrary.
Again, is Dawkins specificall targetting McGrath's theology or something else?
Perhaps you would like to do the heavy lifting JD. Here are two quotes. The first comes from a standard textbook used in undergraduate courses in philosophy at Christian universities. It reads: "What should matter in matters of faith is knowledge, not merely sincere belief; good reasons for faith, not mere hunches; truth, not feelings. We can rightly say that Christianity is a knowledge tradition, meaning it is more than ritual and emotions. Christianity claims certain things can be known." (Moreland and Garrett, 54)
The next quote comes for a widely used dictionary of theology meant to be read at the popular level. Concerning faith it states, "A biblical word that refers both to intellectual belief and to relational trust or commitment. The biblical authors generally do not make a distinction between faith as belief and faith as trust, but tend to see true faith as consisting of both what is believed." Notice this lines up with what I have written to you previously- faith involves intellectual assent (reasons for belief) and then personal trust in the one who is justified to be believed in. Considering both theology and philosophy departments at Christian schools advocate a reasonable faith, why do you continue to argue that we do not?
Simple, drat. Because all of you Christians are not in agreement on this. Why you keep asserting that you are is amazing to me. Have you ever set foot inside a Baptist chruch? What about an Assembly of God, or Pentecost, or Calvinist, Church of Christ, or any of the other legion of churches that advocate such beliefs? It amazes me that you seem ignorant of this, or are you just blissfully ignoring them? I don't argue for one minute that "some" of you Christians believe in this "reasonable faith" thing. Not at all. In fact, I could find a group of Christians who believe in just about anything if I look hard enough. I don't really know, in terms of numbers of followers, who is actually leading the way on this. But I do know that your version is not the only one, not by a long shot, and I'm not going to concede this point. You are
dead wrong if you think that all Christians agree on this point.
Considering that it was a Christian institution that first introduced me to reasonable thinking and the rules of logic while I was a college freshman years ago, and considering that EVERY major Christian theological work and philosophical work being published today advocates reasonable faith, and considering the long heritage of reasonable faith in the church, AND considering that Dawkins offers no evidence of Christian theologians who advocate a blind faith, and considering that history’s greatest thinkers who did work on reasonable and the rules of logic were theists (Aristotle on down)…. I think I am justified in arguing for reasonable faith. Not only that, I think I am justified in arguing that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.
Well, you make a good argument, drat. You actually sound genuine, until that is, you begin to support your arguments with what ammounts to apologetics rhetoric. Basically stuff I can get from Dwayne Gish. This kind of stuff is not intelligent and does not support your assertion of reason and intellectualism. And I don't care what you think of Dawkins, there are plenty of Christian theologians who advocate blind faith. All I have to do is turn on the TV and I can find a handful in just a matter of minutes.
Perhaps I could define atheism any way I would like and then blast it, that would certainly be easy and it would probably draw a crowd form those who like that sort of thing.
Well, drat, you've already done that; you mischaracterized me and my values several times. You've burdoned me with beliefs and philosophies that I know nothing about. You're not alone; most thiests do it. I've come to expect it. In fact, the only reason I continue to post on forums like this is to hopefully try to correct a few of those misundertandings. But you guys are usually too embeded in your beliefs to change.
Now, atheists should do the same with theists: if they want to prove a point that is fine- but at least deal with what we are saying. Atheists cannot come in and suddenly redefine Christianity theology and the doctrine of faith in order to score points and suit their needs. It is bad history, bad theology, and in bad taste. Dawkins takes the easy road out and JD I hope you will have the integrity to not do this. We believe in reasonable faith- raise concerns as you wish but it isn’t right to attack straw men, especially when you are the one claiming that we are irrational.
First you have to define "WE" (your sect?) and then you have to consider just who Dawkins is talking about. He makes it clear that he's not talking about all of Christianity. Christianity is not a singlular "thing". If it were, I would likely be more convinced of its validity. Have you ever spent any time talking with Calvinists? I think you might enjoy it. They also never give up no matter how hopelessly wrong they are.
Author
