Faith as "Belief without evidence" is a redefinition by Carl Sagan, a reknowned atheist. It presumes the non-existence of a god and can't be used as the basis of an argument against religion.
It's completely bogus to accuse religious persons of being irrational on this basis when they do not hold to such a definition of faith but rather the opposite, that a god personally and directly proves its own existence to each that is worthy of it. What's unreasonable about that?
Atheists arguments are always flawed, but this one is absurd.
A god proving itself [in line with religious definitions of 'faith' and not the novel and presumptuous definition "Belief without evidence" of the atheist Carl Sagan] may not be scientific evidence but would still be proof - assuming an almighty god - and hypothetically could resolve the critical issue of 'solipsism', where we cannot prove that what we experience (ie. a god, the World, my own feet) is concrete reality and not either psychosis or artificial construct.
Faith is the religions has always been about trusting the god you know and absolutely nothing to do with "belief without evidence"; it's not even defined in terms of belief. Even the Devil is said to believe in God. Plenty believe in a god but are not faithful to their god. Christ's "Blessed are those who have not seen [god] and yet believe" has been narrowly interpreted to mean something that could not have been intended.
Here's the Catholic theological definition of 'faith' (which develops on mere trust): "Assent and adherence to divinely revealed truth". It's entirely reasonable to believe in something that has revealed itself. In theory all one would need do is persevere in "God if you exist, please reveal yourself", which people often will not do instead looking for a god in books, philosophy and science instead.
Here's a neat quote from G K Chesterton that Atheists need to answer before they dismiss religious claims: (paraphrased) "The weakness of materialistic atheism is that it is insisted that all is mere matter when yet it could just as well all be only mind". Bertrand Russell dishonestly sidestepped this critical question of solipsism but it must be answered.
Assuming a god does answer, then it's time to tackle other questions like "What about the other religions, God". Which leads to another problematic atheist objection: that there are so many gods suggest that it's just human invention. In fact few other religions are entirely exclusivist, apart from certain fanatics and some protestants. Catholicism, for example, teaches that the supreme being has manifested in most other monotheisms (it also teaches that married sex is good, inspite of St Augustine's prudery). Even its "No salvation outside of the Church" does not preclude non-Christians being saved. [As an aside, essentially that works if a person somehow assents to the supreme being - perhaps being well disposed to do so by kindly, generous and humble/non-arrogant life - then they are joined to the body of Christ, which is technically 'The Church', whether they have heard the name of Christ or not]. Hinduism is a mirror of Catholicism, including all its major attributes. Most religions define their supreme beings practically identically, ie it's the same god.
In my experience atheist arguments are always flawed in one way or another, depending on:
out-of-context quotes
a narrow and ungenerous view of history (and the bible)
over-simplification
strawmen (the infamous Creationists, most of Cristianity has never had a dogma of a literal translation of the Bible)
no allowance for a god who would do anything but what they would do if they were god
incorrect definitions of religious terms and beliefs
uncritical acceptance of equality and democracy (see 'Arrow's theorem' for a proof on why the latter is doomed)
no allowance for mistakes (or evil) on the part of human agents of Christianty
etc etc......
Even the maths falls flat. Dawkins' "infinitesimal probability" that there is a god is not based on any actual calculation merely his 'fine' judgement. His not a 'shred of evidence' is only true if you entirely discount all the people saying that they personally know a god (and not that they merely 'believe' in one). Even then, in terms of scientific evidence, it's a bit peculiar to demand materialistic evidence, which could never be absolute proof, of a non-matter being, who is in any case willing to prove itself to the worthy enquirer. You can imagine that such a being might not cooperate (thinking here of studies on prayer).
It's reasonable to be agnostic. And if there is a god then it is reasonable to be religious.
Even if we leave out the parts that could be construed as things that happened rather than things God endorsed, there are things in the Bible that are pretty abhorrent that God tells people to do....
I can think of an example. Telling King Saul to slaughter a killer and his women and children.
However, that needs putting in to context. Firstly that of those innocents among them, death is not a bad thing but should be seen as God calling a person to the next life; that killing guilty people is simply justice and in terms of the infinite goodness of God: more than justified. Secondly that as a decision of God it will be made in all fairness knowing things that we do not know. Thirdly, that one way or another God kills us all by not giving us immortality here and now (though let's keep in mind that there is a promised general resurrection). So death itself is the real objection. Killing people is only truly abhorrent if there is no after-life, but that would be a bogus anti-God argument.
Just assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a Biblical God. You would be effectively saying of this God "it doesn't exist because it is said to do things I don't agree with". Hmmm. I'm not seeing a good argument here. There's also the serious illogic of taking modern moral norms, which are often opposed to religious moral norms, and judging that there isn't a biblical god because the moral norms of the Bible don't fit. But to expand on that, let's take your examples...
"I find the idea that we are born with sin (i.e. even babies) is a pretty abhorrent idea."
This is a misinformed objection. Original sin is a theological concept. What you should really think of it as is: a person created good but natural without the presence of God's own life in their soul. It's not that one is born in what theologians call 'actual sin'. Even St Thomas Aquinas was of the opinion that while unbaptised bables couldn't go to heaven they would still exist in a natural paradise (called Limbo); and that was 7 centuries ago. In anycase, the evidence for original sin is pretty evident: even a young child is capable of outrageous selfishness and spite. There's nothing heavenly about humanity. One further note: original sin was not God's intention for us, and he provides for our rescue from it (if we are willing). So one way or another, original sin is not a real objection to a god.
" I find the idea that it was necessary for Jesus to die in order for our sins to be absolved (i.e. glorifying human sacrifice) abhorrent "
Well, theologians don't think it was necessary; God could have provided a general amnesty by clicking his fingers. However, God chose the better way which was to make compensation for our sins himself (in Christianity, Christ is God, by the way, in case you didn't know that; some don't) and to demonstrate his love for us even while we were still sinful and selfish, and to provide the escape route from sin in such a way that in eternity we will have greater glory than had Adam and Eve not sinned. That's a pretty good deal, if you ask me.
I find the idea of hell (i.e eternal punishment) abhorrent.
It's abhorrent even to Christians, but it's also totally logical if you have a infinitely good God and created beings of free will. If a free being rejects God, who is infinitely good, then what does that make them? And what would they (logically) deserve? Additionally, no one is forced to reject God. The damned WANT to be in hell and prefer it to going to heaven (out of pride). As C.S. Lewis put it: Hell is locked form the inside.
On top of all that, God provides every grace and help to each created soul to avoid going to hell. There is no need for anyone to go to hell. So while it may be a horrible idea, it doesn't follow that a God that necessitated such a place could not exist; rather it means that such a god would be infinitely good. The
but I don;t see any reason to believe any of the stories about his divinity, or that I should treat the Bible as a book inspired by a higher power.
Sure you would, if a supreme power were to witness to its divine inspiration. You mention the 'abhorrent stories', but being familiar with the old testament, I see none that can't be explained by modern morality being corrupt, and/or an retrospective judgement using non-religious or anti-religious moral norms. Further many of the stories end with "And that's how it was when men lived by the lights they had", ie, before the God through the prophets told them how to behave.
Many of the stories are not morality tales at all, merely retellings of the history of God's relationship to the Jews, good and bad together. The Old Testament does not, for example, condone rape or incest, despite what atheists often claim.
This issue also reminds me of Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy, summarised here :
"....If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot [and were] I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be [proven] [and] since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth...hesitation to believe in its existence would... entitle the doubter to the attentions...of the Inquisitor..."
....except that we don't believe in God because a book is telling us, but rather we believe in the book because God has told us that he inspired it. And inquisitors did not persecute non-believers. Hitchens is even worse for misrepresentations. If you want to find out if there is a god, don't be asking an atheist.
But if you don't believe in the 100% truth of the bible, then why are you a Christian?
I can't answer for the OP, but Catholics, for example, have never had a dogma of a literal interpretation of the Bible. The Church itself, guided by God, is the final authoritative interpreter. That doesn't mean there hasn't been an assumption of literalness at a time when there wasn't any reason to think otherwise, but there has never been an actual dogma/infallible-teaching of literalness.
Consequently much is up for grabs. Even Adam and Eve (despite an earlier assertion here) are only thought to be literal because St Paul mentions them in the manner of the Redemption, and not because they are in the Old Testament where they could arguably be representative metaphors. This also means that even if Adam and Eve existed (I believe it, personally, though it's not dogma) they could have derived from human precursors, conceived in the womb of the anatomically identical cromagnon woman, for example, but now with a soul made in the image of God.
It's interesting to note that anthropologists say that at around 30-40,000 years ago three things happened almost simultaneously: the culture explosion, art etc (prior to which there had been basically nothing), the nuclear family, and the wipe-out of Neanderthals (who presumably would otherwise have been humanity's servants). Genetically we were also subject to a population crunch according to geneticists.
In any case the point is that it isn't as simple a matter as you are presenting it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's completely bogus to accuse religious persons of being irrational on this basis when they do not hold to such a definition of faith but rather the opposite, that a god personally and directly proves its own existence to each that is worthy of it. What's unreasonable about that?
Atheists arguments are always flawed, but this one is absurd.
Faith is the religions has always been about trusting the god you know and absolutely nothing to do with "belief without evidence"; it's not even defined in terms of belief. Even the Devil is said to believe in God. Plenty believe in a god but are not faithful to their god. Christ's "Blessed are those who have not seen [god] and yet believe" has been narrowly interpreted to mean something that could not have been intended.
Here's the Catholic theological definition of 'faith' (which develops on mere trust): "Assent and adherence to divinely revealed truth". It's entirely reasonable to believe in something that has revealed itself. In theory all one would need do is persevere in "God if you exist, please reveal yourself", which people often will not do instead looking for a god in books, philosophy and science instead.
Here's a neat quote from G K Chesterton that Atheists need to answer before they dismiss religious claims: (paraphrased) "The weakness of materialistic atheism is that it is insisted that all is mere matter when yet it could just as well all be only mind". Bertrand Russell dishonestly sidestepped this critical question of solipsism but it must be answered.
Assuming a god does answer, then it's time to tackle other questions like "What about the other religions, God". Which leads to another problematic atheist objection: that there are so many gods suggest that it's just human invention. In fact few other religions are entirely exclusivist, apart from certain fanatics and some protestants. Catholicism, for example, teaches that the supreme being has manifested in most other monotheisms (it also teaches that married sex is good, inspite of St Augustine's prudery). Even its "No salvation outside of the Church" does not preclude non-Christians being saved. [As an aside, essentially that works if a person somehow assents to the supreme being - perhaps being well disposed to do so by kindly, generous and humble/non-arrogant life - then they are joined to the body of Christ, which is technically 'The Church', whether they have heard the name of Christ or not]. Hinduism is a mirror of Catholicism, including all its major attributes. Most religions define their supreme beings practically identically, ie it's the same god.
In my experience atheist arguments are always flawed in one way or another, depending on:
Even the maths falls flat. Dawkins' "infinitesimal probability" that there is a god is not based on any actual calculation merely his 'fine' judgement. His not a 'shred of evidence' is only true if you entirely discount all the people saying that they personally know a god (and not that they merely 'believe' in one). Even then, in terms of scientific evidence, it's a bit peculiar to demand materialistic evidence, which could never be absolute proof, of a non-matter being, who is in any case willing to prove itself to the worthy enquirer. You can imagine that such a being might not cooperate (thinking here of studies on prayer).
It's reasonable to be agnostic. And if there is a god then it is reasonable to be religious.
I can think of an example. Telling King Saul to slaughter a killer and his women and children.
However, that needs putting in to context. Firstly that of those innocents among them, death is not a bad thing but should be seen as God calling a person to the next life; that killing guilty people is simply justice and in terms of the infinite goodness of God: more than justified. Secondly that as a decision of God it will be made in all fairness knowing things that we do not know. Thirdly, that one way or another God kills us all by not giving us immortality here and now (though let's keep in mind that there is a promised general resurrection). So death itself is the real objection. Killing people is only truly abhorrent if there is no after-life, but that would be a bogus anti-God argument.
Just assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a Biblical God. You would be effectively saying of this God "it doesn't exist because it is said to do things I don't agree with". Hmmm. I'm not seeing a good argument here. There's also the serious illogic of taking modern moral norms, which are often opposed to religious moral norms, and judging that there isn't a biblical god because the moral norms of the Bible don't fit. But to expand on that, let's take your examples...
This is a misinformed objection. Original sin is a theological concept. What you should really think of it as is: a person created good but natural without the presence of God's own life in their soul. It's not that one is born in what theologians call 'actual sin'. Even St Thomas Aquinas was of the opinion that while unbaptised bables couldn't go to heaven they would still exist in a natural paradise (called Limbo); and that was 7 centuries ago. In anycase, the evidence for original sin is pretty evident: even a young child is capable of outrageous selfishness and spite. There's nothing heavenly about humanity. One further note: original sin was not God's intention for us, and he provides for our rescue from it (if we are willing). So one way or another, original sin is not a real objection to a god.
Well, theologians don't think it was necessary; God could have provided a general amnesty by clicking his fingers. However, God chose the better way which was to make compensation for our sins himself (in Christianity, Christ is God, by the way, in case you didn't know that; some don't) and to demonstrate his love for us even while we were still sinful and selfish, and to provide the escape route from sin in such a way that in eternity we will have greater glory than had Adam and Eve not sinned. That's a pretty good deal, if you ask me.
It's abhorrent even to Christians, but it's also totally logical if you have a infinitely good God and created beings of free will. If a free being rejects God, who is infinitely good, then what does that make them? And what would they (logically) deserve? Additionally, no one is forced to reject God. The damned WANT to be in hell and prefer it to going to heaven (out of pride). As C.S. Lewis put it: Hell is locked form the inside.
On top of all that, God provides every grace and help to each created soul to avoid going to hell. There is no need for anyone to go to hell. So while it may be a horrible idea, it doesn't follow that a God that necessitated such a place could not exist; rather it means that such a god would be infinitely good. The
Sure you would, if a supreme power were to witness to its divine inspiration. You mention the 'abhorrent stories', but being familiar with the old testament, I see none that can't be explained by modern morality being corrupt, and/or an retrospective judgement using non-religious or anti-religious moral norms. Further many of the stories end with "And that's how it was when men lived by the lights they had", ie, before the God through the prophets told them how to behave.
Many of the stories are not morality tales at all, merely retellings of the history of God's relationship to the Jews, good and bad together. The Old Testament does not, for example, condone rape or incest, despite what atheists often claim.
This issue also reminds me of Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy, summarised here :
"....If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot [and were] I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be [proven] [and] since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth...hesitation to believe in its existence would... entitle the doubter to the attentions...of the Inquisitor..."
....except that we don't believe in God because a book is telling us, but rather we believe in the book because God has told us that he inspired it. And inquisitors did not persecute non-believers. Hitchens is even worse for misrepresentations. If you want to find out if there is a god, don't be asking an atheist.
I can't answer for the OP, but Catholics, for example, have never had a dogma of a literal interpretation of the Bible. The Church itself, guided by God, is the final authoritative interpreter. That doesn't mean there hasn't been an assumption of literalness at a time when there wasn't any reason to think otherwise, but there has never been an actual dogma/infallible-teaching of literalness.
Consequently much is up for grabs. Even Adam and Eve (despite an earlier assertion here) are only thought to be literal because St Paul mentions them in the manner of the Redemption, and not because they are in the Old Testament where they could arguably be representative metaphors. This also means that even if Adam and Eve existed (I believe it, personally, though it's not dogma) they could have derived from human precursors, conceived in the womb of the anatomically identical cromagnon woman, for example, but now with a soul made in the image of God.
It's interesting to note that anthropologists say that at around 30-40,000 years ago three things happened almost simultaneously: the culture explosion, art etc (prior to which there had been basically nothing), the nuclear family, and the wipe-out of Neanderthals (who presumably would otherwise have been humanity's servants). Genetically we were also subject to a population crunch according to geneticists.
In any case the point is that it isn't as simple a matter as you are presenting it.