welsh extian

When I question the Bible's lack of clarity on many topics, e.g. a systematic theology that cannot be misinterpreted (after all, if there was one obvious theology Christians would have nothing to argue about amongst themselves ), I am often told something along the lines of "If it was clear on everything, there would be no need for faith."

Aaaargh! I hate that one. I need a rebuttal, maybe demonstrating that religious faith is just a shortcut to belief because you either can't or won't find the evidence, and therefore you'd be better off without it?

David B

Just to welcome a fellow Welshman to the board.

Christians move in mysterious ways,

David B

David Vestal

Two points that come immediately to mind:

1) A perfectly lucid bible wouldn't negate faith. It could, and would, still be disbelieved.

2) Dooming hundreds of millions of sincere christians to misunderstand how god wants them to act (potentially damning them), in order to give room for faith to a much smaller number who DO get it right, seems beyond arbitrary: it seems horrifically cruel. Especially when, as pointed out, the lack of clarity isn't necessary for faith anyway.

jjramsey

I'd recommend two things.

First, make this person realize that in this context, he/she is using "faith" in the sense of "belief based on insufficient evidence." If this person contests that this is not what he or she means, then point out that while the word "faith" has a few different meanings, and in other contexts, he/she may have used it with these other meanings in mind, in this context, the meaning "belief based on insufficient evidence" is the one he/she is using, like it or not. I would recommend reading at least the first few paragraphs of Mark A.R. Kleiman's Sermon on Doubt to get an idea of how the word "faith" gets used in practice.

Second, get this person to understand that "belief based on insufficient evidence" is something to be avoided if possible, not encouraged. Sometimes it can't be avoided. A rabbit who hears a rustling probably shouldn't stick around to check whether the rustling came from a predator or the wind, but should just run away. Anyway, one might point out that a God who provides insufficient evidence for belief in Him yet condemns nonbelievers is a monster, and in that case, one is probably toast regardless.

fr0sty

I think the faith card only works if you have a single religious choice. How does faith help you distinguish between all competing religions and their numerous sects?

In my eyes it doesn't. The stuff has to be logically coherent.

Diogenes the Cynic

The whole notion that "faith" is needed or is meaningful or is virtuous is utterly senseless. Essentially, that just comes down to an assertion that religious belief doesn't mean anything unless you believe it without evidence. It's completely illogical. How can you know that you're supposed to believe something without any evidence?

I always liken the idea that you get saved by "faith" to basically the equivalent of saying that the only way to get saved is to guess what number God is thinking of between one and infinity. You're not allowed to have any hints and you're not allowed to know. If it's not a completely random guess, it doesn't count. It's the same with religion. There are an infinite number of possible religious beliefs, all with exactly the same evidence....none whatsoever. The Christian premise is that one of these religions is true and it's up to the individual to correctly guess which one - and believe it sincerely - with no evidence. It only counts if it's a random guess. If God was just to tell you then for some reason your belief would not be valid.

Here's a good comeback, though, ask the Christian about all those people that God did talk directly to in the Bible. Abraham, Moses, Noah. What about THEIR "need for faith?" Was their belief invalidated because they had direct knowledge instead of faith? If they could receive direct communication, then why can't everyone else?

BenefitOfTheDoubt

The Bible's own answer to your question is: "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:" (Isaiah 28:10) which is continued in Isa 28:13 "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

The "precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line" serves at least two purposes.

(1) Those who don't care much about God get sick of it pretty fast and go away.
(2) Those who do care about God are entertained by having to search for what he's saying rather than just "boom, boom, boom"

So the wicked just gave up and get to be lazy, but the righteous put their nose to the grindstone and search their whole lives. You can't argue with that.

(I.E. Christianity would be boring if everyone knew everything there is to know about God's word, and there would be even more pretenders than there already are if the word of God was not annoying to the wicked.)

There's also another reason as is indicated in 1 Cor 11:19 "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

Heresy is a tool to protect the truth. We would all become lazy on searching for the truth if there were no one to attack the truth. But if the truth were presented in too clear a manner, how would anyone attack it? It would be too clear to be attacked. So, as there must be heresy to protect the truth from laziness, there must be the ability to misconstrue to have heresy.

Spanky

The hell we can!

I think it is backwards, the "wicked" put their noses to the grindstone and search their whole lives. And the "righteous" just give up (on reason) and become lazy (by accepting everything through faith).

BenefitOfTheDoubt

What makes you think the nincompoops who hold to blind faith are righteous? After all, the Bible says that faith comes from hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17) but these pretenders don't base their so-called "faith" on the word of God but on their own fantasies. Such as those who pray to Mary and count rosarie beads, or who believe that they will become gods of their own planets and therefore must marry multiple women in this life to populate their future celestial abode with servants--these all claim when asked "why do you believe that?" that it is faith--but is any of that in the Bible? No freaking way.

Diogenes the Cynic

Searching for thruth is fine, but faith is not about searching. Faith is about giving up and believing without a search. Faith is believing in something you haven't verified as true. What's virtuous about that? Isn't it more virtuous to demand proof?