TXHumanist

Many (though not all) intelligent theists will readily agree that the existence of god(s) cannot be demonstrated by recourse to empirical evidence. Furthermore, precious few theists are willing to offer a rational or empirically-based argument for how their favored god, as opposed to the hundreds of other gods that have been posited over the centuries, is the TRUE GOD (TM).

The one thing that all such theists have in common is that, sooner or later, they all seek refuge in the concept of "faith." "Faith," as used by such theists, is an extremely broad concept. In addition to merely describing a belief unsupported by evidence, the concept is also invoked (in a circular and conclusory fashion) as a justification for such a belief. (Q: How can you believe in a supernatural entity for which there is no evidence? A: Faith.)

In order to avoid plunge down the slippery slope, anyone resorting to "faith" as a justification for his/her beliefs must set out to apply some kind of limits to when the concept can--and cannot--be used. No rational person fighting criminal charges would allow a jury to return a guilty verdict based upon "faith." Instead, the accused would (quite rightly) protest that his/her guilt and/or innocence must be determined only by a thorough assessment of the evidence.

This of course, leaves the theist with a conundrum. If some knowledge is gained through an assessment of empirical evidence while other knowledge is gained through faith alone, how do we know which method to use at any given time? In other words, if faith is a "valid" tool for the acquisition of knowledge, how can anyone credibly delineate which knowledge is "validly" acquired through faith, and which knowledge cannot be so acquired?

Can we be assured of the existence of another culture's god through "faith"? If the answer is no, then why not? How about the truth of UFO abduction stories or the efficacy of ouija boards? How about astrology? Why do we demand empirical evidence that a particular type of technology works instead of just making an introspective determination of the question based upon faith?

In short, any person applying the concept of "faith" to his/her belief system must establish some limits regarding which hypotheses are properly subjected to the test of "faith," as opposed to an assesment of empirical evidence. How do they draw the line, and why?

Infidelettante

IIRC Paul said faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. With this in mind we must say that faith is at once that of which the thing believed is made and the evidence for it’s existence. So then faith being an empirical fact it proves itself both as subject and object.

Such is the twisted landscape of theism.

JT

Godless Wonder

Faith has no limits. That's a big part of what's wrong with faith. Or, if faith has limits, those limits are waaaay out there in nutspace. 9/11 - Deanna Laney - Jim Jones territory is well within the domain of faith..

xxthe_leewitxx

I think you're asking the wrong group of people. Why not try over at ChristianForums?

Just joshin' with ya. Lemme be the first to extend a welcome here to a fellow Houstonian.

It's a good question, certainly one we've asked here before. I think there are as many answers as there are theists.

Plognark

Welcome, you're preaching to the choir about the incredible potential for evil in faith.

TXHumanist

Thanks to all for the welcome. I've actually been hovering around for quite a bit but the last time I actually posted was so long ago that I seem to have lost my earlier profile . . .

Also, great to see not one but two other Houstonians on the boards. A rare sight indeed in a place where theism is as ubiquitous as the humidity. Carry on, o enlightened sages of the bayou.

For me, the problem with "faith" is that, if it proves anything, it simply proves too much. In this way, it is like virtually all "arguments" that theists use to support their position. If faith is a valid tool for the acquisition of the knowledge of a god, then it must also be valid to acquire knowledge of other gods, UFO abductions, IPUs, etc. Given the theist's admitted reliance on the doctrine of faith, could any theist ever credibly allege that these other phenomena don't exist?

In this way, the issue is similar to the never-ending "burden of proof" debate on the boards here. If we must accept the existence of any given deity because we cannot "disprove" that deity, then how are we not also forced to accept every other ridicuolous, counterintuitive supernatural hypothesis that has been posited over the years?

Plognark

Alas, not enough people are able, or willing, to grasp such logic.