Richard Dawkins has spent much energy attacking Christian faith. Yet he says "Faith, by definition, defies evidence." Since Dawkins never explains where he got this definition of Christian faith, could someone cite a single Christian theologian who holds this view?
2006-10-28 08:03:26 · 12 answers · asked by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I suppose it is informative that not one person can cite a theologian who claims this, despite Christianity being 2000 years old. Clearly tautological reasoning takes less work.
2006-10-28 08:18:16 · update #1
Evidence / knowledge / comprehension of God is impossible according to Augustine:
"What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend Him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou hast not comprehended it."
According to Augunstine, we must have faith without evidence. If we believe according to what WE consider proof then what we have comprehended though our reasoning is not God at all.
2006-10-28 09:52:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
He does certainly appear to be closed-minded as the opponents he accuses. Dawkins takes the same old arguments but only mixes it up with arrogance and name calling. That's the only reason why he is so popular among the bitter atheist crowd. He really doesn't have any real evidence to support atheism. In logic, absence of something is not evidence that it does not exist. If it were, then I could say that there is no one named "Johnny cheng" in England simply because none of them are present with me. Edit: I think the first answerer took some key notes on how Dawkins debates his opponents. Yikes! A+
2016-05-22 03:27:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look up faith in a dictionary and it will say something like:
"complete confidence in a person or plan"
"loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person"
"something that is believed especially with strong conviction".
Belief and loyalty are central to faith, religious or otherwise. What Dawkins means is that a person with strong convictions will not be swayed when confronted with ideas and data suggesting they might be incorrect. In this sense, they defy the evidence presented to them. I imagine only a severe fundamentalist would champion (or at least openly admit) this definition of faith, saying, "we will uniformly deny any and all man-made claims to knowledge, including all of science".
Example: The 'christian scientist' (the world's most hilarious misnomer) take on disease. By claiming illness is a result of sin, and that healing is garnered by a better understanding of God, they are flatly denying all that medicine has accomplished.
2006-10-28 08:19:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does it need explanation? The statement is self evidently true-faith is belief without regard to any evidence. What is to explain and what is the significance of any theologian's view on it? I really don't grasp what your point is. As regards Dawkins I support him and his views 100%, and I support his attacks on the self perpetuating delusion of institutionalised religion.
P.S. The accusation of tautological reasoning doesn't wash because the question doesn't raise any valid point. The questioner is attempting to create a straw man out of Dawkin's ideology by drawing in an irrelevant point about theology.
2006-10-28 08:14:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Just look the word up in a dictionary.
Dawkins is only making a true statement.
Anybody who says that faith does not defy evidence, logic or rationality is blowing smoke up your but.
2006-10-28 08:14:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's not a view. There is no evidence to support the Bible; you must believe it on faith alone. It is the same as the myth of the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause.
2006-10-28 08:05:47 · answer #6 · answered by Michael 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'm no theologian, but dawkins is right in that for it to be faith at all, it is beyond human explanation, and to a point even human understanding. And I think that goes for any faith, not just Christianity.
On a side note, dawkins is a blowhard joke. Naive in that he doesn't realize evolution takes a large degree of faith.
2006-10-28 08:08:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
The laws of science say that people can't walk on water, it doesn't matter what his definition of "Christian faith" is.
2006-10-28 08:05:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's simple there is no evidence to support the bible one must take it all on faith.
2006-10-28 08:08:51 · answer #9 · answered by alex e 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
faith and science are two different dimensions...
science is based empirical proof, faith is not.
2006-10-28 08:14:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋