As all good Gusties know, our five core values are Excellence, Community, Justice, Service and Faith. The first four are real values and are appropriate for an educational institution. Faith, however, is not a virtue and is subversive to the process of education.
I want to make it clear right away that I am not arguing against the study of religion or the value of the Gustavus religion department. The target of this argument is faith. The definition which I will use is defined by Merriam-Webster as a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” For proof, I require verifiable or scientific evidence. Incidental or anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. One could say that I treat the idea of god(s) as a hypothesis.
The case for faith according to the Gustavus website is as follows: “The conviction that religious faith enriches and completes learning is the bedrock of community, ethics and service, and compels one to excellence in a divinely ordered world that informs our whole enterprise. Without expecting conformity to a specific religious tradition, we encourage an honest exploration of religious faith and seek to foster a mature understanding of Christian perspectives on life.”
The claim that faith “enriches and completes learning” is absurd. The truth of an idea cannot be challenged if its basis is not founded on any evidence. Nothing is more subversive to learning than knowing the answers and placing them in a magesterium which excludes evidence. As Dawkins said, “Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.”
An example of an evil that resulted from faith in God and country is the idea of Manifest Destiny. This term was used to justify American “expansionism” and the war with Mexico. Of course, expansionism was a euphemism for ethnocentrism and genocide. Another example is the suicide attacks of September 11. Presumably the attackers had faith that their actions were just. From their faith perspective they were “striving in the way of Allah.” One may object at this point by asserting that their faith was a distortion or that it was fundamentalist.
How does one judge whether a specific faith is a distortion? One method is to count the number of instances a topic is mentioned in a holy book. For example, it is quite clear that the Bible preaches social justice (contrary to what Glenn Beck thinks) because it mentions the poor or topics of social justice over 300 times. It is less clear what the Bible says about homosexual acts, since the topic is largely ignored.
On topics of ambiguity or contradiction, non-fundamentalists use criteria independent of their holy book for clarification of ideas. For me, as a non-religious person, it is blindingly obvious that homosexual acts are not evil. Neither are people who are sexually inclined in a way that does not fit the false ideal of strict heterosexuality.
I naively thought that my former synod, the ELCA, would be united in this view. How wrong I was. Friendships and communities are being torn apart because of a single difference in the interpretation of a so-called holy book. Many of the good people that I knew from my former church have left the synod because they cannot tolerate homosexuality. Steven Weinberg was correct when he said, “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”
Allow me to go back to Gustavus’ stance on faith. The claim of faith as “the bedrock of community, ethics and justice” is simply untrue. For some communities it may be, but for many, including Gustavus, it most certainly is not. The small number of people who attend church is appalling for some. For me it is comforting in a small way. Whatever common community we have at Gustavus, it is more likely founded on academics or possibly on defeating other MIAC schools.
As for ethics and service, many philosophers and scientists have provided sound foundations that do not require faith. Frans de Waal, a noted primatologist and recent speaker at Gustavus, has written with much insight on the ethics and politics of various ape species (including Homo sapiens).
The argument that Gustavus provides for faith as a core value is fatuous. Faith in no way completes learning. It is diametrically opposed to learning. Equally clear is that faith is not necessary for the foundation of community, ethics or service.
I would even go so far as to say that it provides a weak foundation at best. For these reasons, faith should not be included as a core value. I hope that this article will spark serious examination and discussion of faith for members of the Gustavus community.
I’m going to take this opportunity for those who have finished the article to give some unsolicited advice, since I am assuming you are interested in the topic. For any individuals that are interested in further discussion, there is an Atheist and Freethinkers group on campus that would be delighted to talk with you. For anyone interested in atheism, The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, is an informative and humorous introduction. And of course, the Religion department offers many great classes, such as “The Bible.”
“To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul.”—Thomas Jefferson
The claim that faith “enriches and completes learning” is absurd.
Do you have any evidence to back this assertion. The Christian tradition and those who adhere to and participate in it are responsible for most of the great things this world has seen. America would have very very few colleges at all if it weren’t for Christians who were dedicated to learning and loving God with their mind. You are being very short-sighted and ignoring most of world history to thing that faith, and especially christianity are opposed to knowledge and truth. Many of the strongest advocates of education, learning, knowledge, literacy, truth, etc have been part of the Christian tradition.
Can you “imagine a world without Christians?” We’d be screwed.
My argument is that faith is in principle opposed to learning. For this reason, I did not provide evidence in my article.
I do not ignore world history. I know that Christians have done both great and terrible things. As Michael pointed out, some of these things are a result of Christianity, but some are not. This needs to be considered.
The question I ask you is, do you have evidence for your arrogant claims about the greatness of Christianity?
“Many of the strongest advocates of education, learning, knowledge, literacy, truth, etc have been part of the Christian tradition.”
Galileowned?
@ Jeff M.
I think we understand that Christians founded these colleges, but did the academics do so because they were Christian? You say, “Can you ‘imagine a world without Christians?’ We’d be screwed.” But really, is it BECAUSE these university founders were Christian that so much has been accomplished? I think religion is not the main point or driving force; in America today, nearly 90% of people are Christian, so if someone does ANYTHING – found a school, kill a person, host a barbecue – chances are that the person is Christian. Do we owe our thanks to Christianity, or to the motivated people who happened to be Christians?
This author demonstrates a stunning level of creativity and original thought.
But not really. A student from Emory college wrote essentially the exact same argument months ago; which was later addressed and destroyed by the school’s vice-president.
I’d say it would be cool to see our administrator’s come to the defense of Gustavus as a college-of-the-church, but I do also realize that something like this doesn’t really demand such a dignified response. The student’s argument that you follow play by play can be found at the first link. The VP’s defense of theology as the queen of the sciences and the importance of the Trivium and Quadriviam in a liberal arts education can be found second.
http://emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=26773
http://emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=26803
You seem to be suggesting that my article was derivative of the article in your link. Although there are some similarities (the beginning of paragraph two is strikingly similar), I did not even know of the existence of Emory college, let alone follow the student press. I did not read this article until I saw your post.
You have also stated that my article is “essentially the exact same argument” as Ryan Seals’ argument. We do seem to be in agreement on the ideas of revealed truth and dogma. However, the similarities end there.
Mr. Seals argued for the removal of a theology department. He argued that the courses taught in the school seminary are taught dogmatically. I argued against the idea of faith being a virtue and a core value. I specifically stated that I was not arguing against the Gustavus religion department. In the three courses I took from our religion department, dogmatic teaching was completely absent. I am in full support of the maintenance of our religion department.
“This author demonstrates a stunning level of creativity and original thought. But not really.”
This is pretty hypocritical Phil. You accuse him (falsely) of plagiarism; then make your argument against him by internet-linking what others have said… on a different matter entirely. You couldn’t even respond to anything he said. Where is your originality?
Although! I do have to thank you for one EXCELLENT laugh in referring to theology as: “the queen of the sciences.”
😀
Yeah? Maybe drag queen? Pretending to be something it’s not, for good show and laughs.
But I don’t think anyone who is a communications/history double major is qualified to say diddly about Science. Just my opinion…
VP of Emory college says: “To suggest that the rest of the University has nothing to learn from any of these ways of knowing is its own form of intellectual smugness that has no place in a university.”
…LOL at you!
Mr. C.
You appear to be aiming your ridicule at a different article. While the state of Emory is at the forefront of everyone’s mind, let us try to maintain our focus on Gustavus and the article presented here.
Mr. Weeks does not call into question the teaching style of the Gustavus religion department. The matter at hand is the identification of “faith” as a core value of Gustavus and the definition of the word as outlined by the college. He states “faith in no way completes learning. It is diametrically opposed to learning. Equally clear is that faith is not necessary for the foundation of community, ethics or service.” This outlines his thesis very well, at least what I have interpreted as the thesis after reading the article. He in no way says the religion department at Gustavus has nothing to offer the college which appears to be the fictitious point countered by Emory’s VP’s statement.
“I want to make it clear right away that I am not arguing against the study of religion or the value of the Gustavus religion department.”
“The Religion department offers many great classes, such as ‘The Bible.'”
These excerpts make that abundantly clear.
As a Christian I do not agree with everything that is said in the article, but I believe Mr. Weeks has done an excellent job sparking discussion on an issue that NEEDS to be discussed. He has presented a side not often seen at an institution like Gustavus and it is exciting to see the debate that has unfolded/will unfold, save for comments comparable to those on youtube.
As for Mr. C., if you are to post a comment on an article meant to instigate debate, I suggest to adjust your aim. Emory University and Mr. Seals are a few miles southeast of Gustavus.
To write a comment like this on an article with such maturity and blatant disregard for the content shows a willful ignorance that has no place in an intellectual discussion.
Seeing is believing.
And believing is seeing.
I give thanks for the first, science. We look for evidence. We test. We imagine, creating explanations. Then examine again.
I also give thanks for the second, faith. There is beauty. I trust in beauty. Then I see it. There is love. I look for it. Then I see it. I trust that beauty and love might be found in humanity. For me, I see this beauty, love, and even divinity in Jesus. And I see this person on the loose in the world, wherever grace is embodied.
Of course, I also have great sadness. Because faith has been abused and twisted. There really is a thing called sin. It infects faith, especially faith. It turns beauty into ugly, love into domination, divinity into demonic. Yet this process called sin does not have the last word. Jesus is the last word. At least that’s what I see, because I believe.
So I hope that the word “faith” can be redeemed, given new definition. Peace. Grace. Love to all.
But Marin Luther held that marriage is between a man and a woman and homosexuality is an abomination.
How then can we reconcile what the homosexuals have done to his church?
I naively thought that my former synod, the ELCA, would be united in this view. How wrong I was. Friendships and communities are being torn apart because of a single difference in the interpretation of a so-called holy book. Many of the good people that I knew from my former church have left the synod because they cannot tolerate homosexuality. .”
Peter,
As a member of the ‘former church,’ you refered to in your article, I can promise you that the “good people who left your former church” did not do so “because they cannot tolerate homosexuality.” They left because they believe the Bible is God inspired, and they believed that the ELCA social statement indicated that the Bible was open to interpretation based on whatever was/were the social norms of the current time.
I have never heard a single person who left your former church make a single statement that indicates that they harbor any ill will against homosexuals; only that the Bible indicates that homosexuality is a sin. To those who left the ELCA, if you tell someone who is sinning that what they are doing is not sinning then you risk the soul of not only that person but also your own soul for leading a fellow sinner astray.
I did not state that individuals harbor ill will against homosexuals. I stated that they do not tolerate homosexuality. There is a distinction.
Whether homosexuality is a “sin” or not, what you have outlined in the final paragraph is intolerance. Intolerance is not justified by faith.
Furthermore, organized Christianity has a long history of interpretation relative to the current times. Interpretation does not occur in a vacuum. Even if you do not realize it, your biblical interpretations are made relative to the current times.
Peter,
We can play the semantics game all day long. My point is that you were stating why people left your former church, but I would be very surprised if you could name even one person that you spoke with who told you that they left because of intolerance or whatever term you wish to apply. If you are going to state something as a fact in a publication be sure you can back it up.
To be correct you should have stated, “I, the writer of this article, believe they left because of intolerance, but I have no basis in fact for that opinion.” If you can supply to me the name of the person you spoke with who left your former church for the reason you gave, then I stand corrected. Otherwise do not state as fact that which you do not know as a fact.
America’s first 150 colleges and universities were founded by Christians including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.
I think faith is a virtue.
The secret to America’s success is found in the following item:
Newsweek (March 29, 1999)–“By any secular standard, Jesus is also the dominant figure of Western culture. Like the millennium itself, much of what we now think of Western ideas, inventions and values finds its source or inspiration in the religion that worships God in his name. Art and science, the self and society, politics and economics, marriage and the family, right and wrong, body and soul–all have been touched and often radically transformed by Christian influence.” P. 54.
It seems that the case is: America was touched and radically transformed by this Jesus who is indeed the dominant figure of Western civilization.
As Dr. David Noebel says, “A question worth considering–could all these good things happen in America if America followed the likes of, say a Michael Foucault, instead of Christ, morality, and the overall Christian worldview? While the intellectual elite worship at the feet of Foucault those who really know him know that America would never have become such a great and good nation with him as patron saint. He died of AIDS and gave his deadly disease to as many of his “partners” as possible.”
Humanism is so virtuous… (not).
Even studies show the virtue of faith:
Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks shows that religious people (mostly Christians) ‘of all political persuasions are 40 percent more like to donate to charities each year than secular people, and more than twice as likely to volunteer. They are also more than three times more likely than secular people to give each month, and three and one-half times as likely to volunteer that often.’ Brooks concludes, ‘So who is more compassionate: the religious right, or the secular left? The answer appears to be the former.” World magazine August 26, 2006, p. 52
John Dewey despised faith and religion. But he even admits that its virtuous.
“The church-going classes, those who have come under the influence of evangelical Christianity…form the backbone of philanthropic social interest, of social reform through political action, of pacifism, of popular education. They embody and express the spirit of kindly goodwill towards classes which are at an economic disadvantage and towards other nations. It has been the element responsive to appeals for the square deal and more nearly equal opportunities for all.”
John Dewey, The American Intellectual Frontier (1922). Quoted in The Weekly Standard, June 14, 1999, p. 33.
Its even true that religious people give more to secular causes than secular people. (Source: Charity Navigator, National Center for Charitable Statistics, The Center on Philanthropy)
Additionally, the 45 year-old Scottish preacher John Witherspoon and his 450 students educated, tutored, and encouraged at what is now called Princeton University: 114 became ministers; 49 became U. S. Representatives; 28 became U.S. Senators; 26 became state judges; 17 became members of their state constitutional conventions; 14 became delegates to the state conventions that ratified the Constitution; 12 became members of the Continental Congress; 8 became U.S. District judges; 5 became delegates to the Constitutional Convention; 3 became U. S. Supreme Court justices; 3 became Attorney Generals; 2 became foreign ministers; 1 became Secretary of State; 1 became Vice-President; and 1 became President.
That being the case, even if you were to personally despise and hate religious faith, you can’t help but recognize the need to study and understand it. So if for no other reason that getting a comprehensive, holistic, informed, and balanced education; religion and faith are indispensible parts of Gustavus’ mission and core values!
A personal relationship with Jesus Christ is a gift and can only be received by one who has the faith of a little child. That is why many intellectuals will never get it and choose not to. They choose to become too influenced by other ideologies that appear superior to Christianities saving grace which is too unscientific for many to accept. Thankfully many of us were raised by parents who taught us the truth at a young enough age. Sin is well defined in the Bible. It is only God’s saving grace that we can be free from sin. Jesus was sent to us by God to save us from our sins because he is to be our model for human behavior. Without the Bible you cannot know who Jesus is. You knowlege of Him is free choice.
Your comment presents many issues that I myself have with a belief system that refutes logical thought.
“A personal relationship with Jesus Christ is a gift and can only be received by one who has the faith of a little child. That is why many intellectuals will never get it and choose not to.” You seem to be confusing “intellectuals” with “non-believers.” Were not some of the greatest teachers of Christianity intellectuals? Cannot faith be considered in a philosophical way? Martin Luther, St. Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas were all very much intellectuals AND devout to Christianity. To assume that just because one is “intellectual” they are less likely to have faith is to ignore a great chunk of the history of Christianity itself. Much of the current Christian religion is founded not on just the Bible but on well-received interpretations of the Bible throughout the ages. If that is what it takes to be an intellectual, then you should be grateful intellect is a part of your faith’s tradition. Ask your pastor or priest – they almost certainly studied these texts with great depth in seminary. Or, better yet, look up the texts yourself and see firsthand how intellectual thought has influenced your beliefs today.
“Thankfully many of us were raised by parents who taught us the truth at a young enough age.” Again, you make a grand assumption. First of all, many Christians (and those of other religions) are converts who made the choice as an adult and were not indoctrinated into their belief system. If this is your logical basis for why you hold your Christian belief, then it is safe to make the assumption that if you had been born in a devout Muslim family, you would now be a devout Muslim. However, for many, that is simply not the case. They have made a choice that is based in higher-level thinking and still chosen to convert to Christianity.
“Without the Bible you cannot know who Jesus is. Your knowledge of him is a free choice.” This statement is illogical because many in the world (primarily those in third world African countries) have never heard of the Bible, Christ or the Christian religion, and thus do not have any such free choice.
It is only recently that people have been able to challenge religion’s domination of the thought process and in those parts of the world where reason has been allowed to shine over indoctrination the results have been staggering.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-04-27-1Amillfaith27_ST_N.htm
In many parts of the world such is the domination of thought by religion that even suggesting that you are not of the ‘Faith’ whatever that Faith is means being ostracised at the very least and often a death sentence.
Even in the USA there are many places where a black person cannot stand as a political candidate. So much for the land of the free. At which point you will scream what nonsense, of course a black person can stand for election. I respond if you substitute atheist (someone who thinks gods are created by humans to help them have power over other humans rather than the other way round for that is what a freethinker or atheist is) for a black person and you will hopefully see the absurdity.
When you raise the issue of some of the greatest teachers of Christianity (Martin Luther, St. Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas who were all very much intellectuals AND devout to Christianity) being intellectuals this is undoubtedly true. However anyone who challenged the authority of the Church on such matters would have been declared heretic and executed. As the church controlled all books and writing, the thoughts and arguments of anyone who disagreed would not have been recorded. Look at how Galileo and Copernicus charged with heresy for speaking the truth.
You comment that
‘many Christians (and those of other religions) are converts who made the choice as an adult and were not indoctrinated into their belief system.’
However I would argue that they were indoctrinated into a religion of one faith or another at an early age. They may switch horses as an adult unable to break the shackles of this childhood indoctrination of religion but very few not so indoctrinated become religious as adults. And once broken free of religious delusion with logic and reason few ‘find’ religion again.
Your final comment “This statement is illogical because many in the world (primarily those in third world African countries) have never heard of the Bible, Christ or the Christian religion, and thus do not have any such free choice.”
suggests a high degree of ignorance of the World where Africans are seen the way missionaries saw them in the 18th century as ignorant savages and as potential converts to be saved. As Bishop Desmond Tutu said “When the white missionaries came we had the land and they had the Bibles. They said bow your heads and pray. So we bowed our heads and prayed. And when we looked up they had the land and we had the Bibles.”
Most of Africa is very religious as persecution of people accused of being witches and non-heterosexual will show. Some 45% of Africa is very Christian and the other 40% is Islamic. Please see wwww.adherents.com and you will see that over 1 billion people are non-religious by choice not because they have not been exposed to religion and many are escaping from religion every day.
There have been many “wrongs” committed throughout history in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities do not line up with scripture, therefore are not “Christian.” God can speak quite well for Himself. The problem is when we, in our finite human mind, try to put our own thoughts and opinions into what God says. When we do that we distort the truth and cause problems.
Too often, highly intellectual people think they are “too smart” to believe such “nonsense.” they in effect make themselves their own God. Janet Muldoon said it right. We have to have the faith of a little child. When we get too high-minded of ourselves we miss the mark. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” Proverbs 14:12 NKJV
http://carlswordsofinspiration.blogspot.com
It is a convenient thing to define faith in the terms presented by the author. Although it is readily at hand, it is very much an incidental evidence presented about the concept of faith, itself. Which evidence is, likewise a contradiction to the author’s demands that no evidence provided be either anecdotal or incidental. So, why should an anecdotal or incidental definition be permitted to exist as a valid premise? Therefore, the premise of the provided definition provides a fallacy of necessity, which opposes any possible or conclusive refutation at the gate. Any provided evidence is already invalidated by the premise established by such a definition, which is in fact not asking for evidence but asking for proof. Although proof requires evidence, it does not follow that all evidence constitutes proof. Furthermore, the assertion of this definition’s premise demands sufficient evidence to refute the initial premise, which in effect is to render the definition either inaccurate or fallacious.
So, permit me to accommodate the demanded refutation of the fallacious premise. Faith is much differently defined by Christian truth claims. Long ago, the writer of the book of Hebrews wrote in such a way as to instruct new converts to Christianity that the older concepts of Hebrew law had substantiated the teachings of Jesus, long before He lived, died and was resurrected in Palestine. The author of Hebrews offered in the instruction of the eleventh chapter the concept of faith as it had been understood by the ancient Hebrews. And today, a full two thousand years, the new atheists of the world are attempting to refute the validity of faith by simply redefining it.
Hebrew 11:1 clearly, again I add, clearly states that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This definition is presented in the form of a Hebrew parallelism that had been in place since the earliest days of the ancient Hebrew culture, and is most clearly evinced in the use of the same forms of parallelism in the book of Proverbs. This is the definition of faith that is supported not only by Christian truth claims, but by the ancient ancestors of the Christian religion, itself.
Having presented this refutation of the premise of fallacious necessity demanded by the author by asserting incidental evidence of the premise, I refer the reader to an even more interesting logic. Consider the concept that if faith had been properly understood and applied in the days of Galileo, then the evidence that he presented may have been viewed in a much different light. So, it the failing of Christianity to itself recognize the proper definition of faith that has propagated the fallacious alternative adopted by the author above. So, he should be rightly absolved of consequence in the fallacious assertion.
Please read the post at:
http://alogicalchristianity.org/logic/science/curiosity-compulsion-hope-faith-in-atheism-science-christianity
This should offer a much different view of the relationship of science and faith that should be restored to its rightful place in education.
First I must commend you for such thorough obfuscation, especially in the first paragraph. Now permit me to elucidate some of the erroneous claims that were furnished by you in the above reply to the article which I wrote on the topic of faith, concerning its lack of virtue.
Claim 1: The definition that I used, from Merriam-Webster, was “incidental evidence” in regard to the concept of faith.
This is quite a curious claim. Is your objection to the particular dictionary as an authority on language or to dictionaries in general?
Claim 2: Faith is defined differently by Christians and this definition should have more authority than a dictionary.
I have two objections to this. Firstly, why should Christians (or Jews or Muslims since the passage quoted is from Hebrews) have an exclusive right to the definition of the word faith? Put another way, should other religions have their own definition? Should they use the one from Hebrews? Furthermore, how do we know an unknown writer from “long ago” has authority on the subject?
The second objection is to the idea that the two definitions being debated are substantially different.
“Hebrew 11:1 clearly, again I add, clearly states that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
It would seem the first part of this definition states that faith is the foundation for some sort of optimism. This says nothing about evidence or claims to truth, so I will not concern myself with it. It is the second half that I am concerned with here – “the evidence of things not seen.”
On your own website, which you linked to, you have said:
“Some Christians have long accepted that faith is evidence based by accepting the biblical definition of faith, which clearly makes the statement that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Here, it cannot be seen (acknowledged as evident) by many human beings, namely, some scientists and some atheists, that the definition is true.”
I noticed that you accept “acknowledged as evident” as a substitution for “seen.” I agree with this, since seeing is our primary mode of observation and visual observation is commonly used as evidence. Now if I use your substitution in the Hebrews definition, it would read: “the evidence of things not acknowledged as evident.” Truly I tell you, this is an absurdity.
The New International translation of Hebrews 11:1 reads:
“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”
or
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not acknowledge as evident.
Merriam-Webster 2b (1) “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”
I have shown using your own definition of the word “see,” that the definition provided by Hebrews is in fact, nearly identical to that used by Merriam-Webster and myself.
It is not coincidental that these two definitions are the same, nor is this definition new. One only has to read the work of Christian theologians and/or philosophers to see that an absence of sufficient evidence is a necessary requirement for an act of faith. Two examples that come to mind are Tillich and Kierkegaard.
incidentally – by the way: introducing a different topic;
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note the use of an authoritative dictionary.
I have no objection to either Merriam-Webster, or dictionaries in general. In fact, I hold no objection to the definition that you offered on its own merit. My objection is to the manner in which it is used in your article.
If I simply reverse the order of two statements:
For proof, I require verifiable or scientific evidence.
The definition which I will use is defined by Merriam-Webster as a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”
This is like asking for proof in order to validate faith, then stating, “Oh! And by the way – by definition, faith holds no proof.”
Now that is an absurdity established by a fallacy of necessity and which even further asserts a fallacy of a suppressed correlative.
That is why I offered:
Therefore, the premise of the provided definition provides a fallacy of necessity, which opposes any possible or conclusive refutation at the gate. Any provided evidence is already invalidated by the premise established by such a definition…
From Wikipedia’s list of fallacies:
# Correlative based fallacies
* Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none.
* Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
# Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises.
Likewise, refer to the description of a suppressed correlative, which is also employed in the same two sentences, though not addressed in my first rebuttal to your article. I hope this offers sufficient disambiguation to the first paragraph as well as an answer to the question you asked regarding Claim 1.
Your paraphrase of my overall rebuttal in Claim 2 is inaccurate.
Claim 2: “Faith is defined differently by Christians…”
I agree with this part.
“…and this definition should have more authority than a dictionary. ”
As for this part, although you may have inferred it, I did not imply it. I merely offered evidence of a second, equally valid definition that has been conveniently omitted in order to both introduce and sustain your fallacious argument.
Therefore, so as not to evade, my answers to your questions relevant to your first objection, which follows from the erroneous Claim 2 are respectively:
They don’t.
No.
They can.
Apart from investigation, we don’t.
Therefore, you are free to refute my usage of the definition in Hebrews the same way that I am free to refute your usage of the one in Merriam-Webster. My point is that Merriam Webster offers no greater or lesser validity than does Hebrews. The authority of scripture is an entirely different debate.
Now, as for your second objection following the erroneous Claim 2, I offer this response:
You stated:
“The second objection is to the idea that the two definitions being debated are substantially different.”
Then you follow with a quite canny trick. I commend your inventiveness; nevertheless I refute the conclusion based on a flaw in your application.
By taking my parenthetical (acknowledged as evident) as equivalent to “seen” in the original context is rightly assessed. So, to that purpose for the parenthetical, I agree.
Here is my problem:
Taking my parenthetical out of context, while assuming to retain the same equivalency, is an absurd literary abuse. It is simply another example of your tendency to assert fallacy.
The result of your non-contextual substitution is:
“Now if I use your substitution in the Hebrews definition, it would read: ‘the evidence of things not acknowledged as evident.’ Truly I tell you, this is an absurdity.”
What a shock it must me to you that I would agree with this statement. What I do not agree with is your assertion of absurdity on my part. The absurdity of the manner of your substitution is what leads to your conclusion of absurdity. Introduce an absurd practice, and you will obtain an absurd result.
Here is the truly amazing thing:
You absurdly take my parenthetical out of context and substitute it into a context of your own choosing, and then call the result absurd. By doing so, twice in succession, you have chosen to violate the law of contradiction.
In the first sense because you substitute the parenthetical and call the result absurd:
“‘the evidence of things not acknowledged as evident.’ Truly I tell you, this is an absurdity.”
Then you perform the exact same operation into a different translation of the exact same scripture and pronounce it as valid.Ergo, your statement:
“I have shown using your own definition of the word ‘see,’ that the definition provided by Hebrews is in fact, nearly identical to that used by Merriam-Webster and myself.”
Dude, make up your mind. Is it absurd or is it valid?
Now for the final issue as regards:
“an absence of sufficient evidence is a necessary requirement for an act of faith…”
The assertion that sufficient evidence, in most cases sense evidence, is not present futher establishes what is precisely meant by something not seen. But it does not necessarily follow that the presumed insufficiency of sense evidence constitutes a complete absence of evidence.
It takes faith for a scientist to develop an instrument based on a theory about something, which cannot be detected by sense evidence. Scientists often use unproven instruments as experimental detectors of things not seen. They have done it for centuries. How bad would it have been had Galileo lacked the faith to craft a telescope to prove that there is more than meets the naked eye? And how do you suppose that Galileo would have defined the faith that he practiced? Would his definition, if different from Merriam-Webster’s, be proclaimed non-authoritative?
http://alogicalchristianity.org
You are right to say that if I took your substitution out of context that my conclusion would not be valid. The substitution was, however, in context.
A definition of context…
“the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/context
Now the quote from your website.
“Some Christians have long accepted that faith is evidence based by accepting the biblical definition of faith, which clearly makes the statement that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Here, it cannot be seen (acknowledged as evident) by many human beings, namely, some scientists and some atheists, that the definition is true.”
The Hebrews definition was put into the sentence preceding the one from which I took the substitution. This is a context that you have created, ergo, deemed appropriate.
In regards to whether I think the above definitions of faith are valid or absurd, they are both. It is a valid definition in that it is an accurate description of what faith is. It is absurd in that, by definition, faith is irrational and absurd.
In my opinion you have taken liberties that I do not agree with as regards the context of my writing. I consider your practice absurd, and reserve the right, as the original author, to say whether or not my writing was taken out of context. However, I am certainly willing to leave the matter in the capable mind of the reader.
Finally, I believe I have adequately shown the fallacies and absurdities present in your arguments to be of your own fabrication.
In the interest of Christian charity, I leave the preceding works to any willing reader, and offer you the last word.
Thank you for the exhilarating debate, and God bless you!
Hola! I’ve been following your site for some time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Humble Texas! Just wanted to tell you keep up the excellent job!