Just What I Needed To Hear
Posted in Encouragement on | 5 minutes | 28 Comments →
I’ve got a whole heap of posts brewing right now, but none of them are quite ready to pour. So, seeing as how I’ll be undergoing surgery Friday and probably unable to post until next week, I figured I’d at least throw something out there for readers to digest in the meantime.
A few weeks back, Matt left this comment, which contained a link to Victor Reppert’s blog, Dangerous Idea. I had seen the name around, but hadn’t spent any time on the blog. Since the link in Matt’s comment was directly related to our Responding To Universalism discussion, I had to investigate. What I found was one of the better Christian philosophy blogs around. I added it to my links sidebar, and have made a habit to check in semi-regularly. In a nutshell, I’m a fan of Victor’s approach: he has a tendency to parse through the details and clarify things, and—more importantly—he tends to let the reader think for themselves. Victor’s style is more, “having an intelligent discussion with oneself,” than, “let me interpret the facts for you then belittle you if you disagree,” the latter being unfortunately prominent amongst (a)theist blogs.
Doing what I do is often a thankless, loveless task, and I imagine that anyone who spends a significant amount of time debating people of opposing worldviews might agree. After a while, the constant assault and viciousness certainly takes its toll. I’m sure there are those who would read this and chalk it all up as me being a crybaby. Well, I can’t stop people from seeing what they want to see. There’s an old saying, “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” I can certainly take the heat—but that doesn’t mean I’m a Superman. My point is, when the majority of responses contain nothing but insults and ridicule, a sane person ought to question the efficacy of their approach. Then again, as the feedback sidebar of this testifies, or every vitriolic rant a hater makes in mean spirit, there’s somebody else who either agrees with or encourages me. The latter will never know how much I appreciate their input.
As is often the case, lately I’d been questioning the efficacy of blogging in general, and my blogging, specifically. What’s the goal, you might wonder? To encourage critical thought. That’s it. If I encourage critical thought and this makes somebody more open to the Bible, great, but the goal is not to convert. After all, the Bible says that only God alone can handle that part of the deal [cf. John 6:65]. The believer’s duty is to speak the truth to the best of their ability, and to plant seeds. God does the watering, which brings me to the point of today’s post.
While reading the comments in Victor’s post Mapping Dualism & Materialism, I stumbled across the following from a commenter who goes by Shackleman:
I was raised a “weak” atheist. My public grade-schooling reinforced this “weak” atheism.
By college, I was a “strong” atheist. My college studies, along with my appetite for works offered by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins, Hawking, Dennet, Harris, etc, and supplemented with a sort of institutional materialism peddled by the “West”, and I was firmly planted in my belief in “strong” atheism. I even began to be an “evangelical” atheist, in the mold of Dawkins or Loftus. In other words, I sought to deconvert the religiously brainwashed—religion, after all, was really bad for them.
Then one day, while pondering the question, How can anyone with half a brain believe that shit?, I decided to search to see if, indeed, anyone with half a brain believed that shit.
I was shocked to discover that, yes, not only people with half a brain believe that “stuff” (notice, it was no longer “shit” to me), but people with full brains, and brains much more learned and intelligent than mine, too.
Had I stopped seeking, content to remain in the halls of my atheistic echo chambers, I can’t say that I would have ever become open to conversion. (Note: Apologetics, philosophy, competing science, etc., didn’t convert me. But they certainly added what I think were *necessary* bricks and mortar—without which I could not have constructed a new house of understanding).
There’s such a wealth of reason and impartiality in there that I don’t even know where to begin. This, my friends, represents true critical thinking, and I would say the same thing if Shackleman had transitioned in reverse—from theism to atheism. Talk about fresh air! I especially liked the remark about “bricks and mortar” because, like I said: I’ve often questioned the efficacy of what I do. Yet, Shackleman’s forthright comment seems to scream from the rooftops that YES, I should continue. I imagine that when the dust settles and the haters have got their last digs in, somewhere in the silence of the audience sits somebody in whom a seed was planted.
So I say, yes, there is good reason to press on towards the goal, and I thank you all—haters and friends alike.
Philistine Dog
says...Greetings, found your site by way of Victor Reppert’s which I found by way of John Loftus. Just subscribed to your posts yesterday, and the first thing to hit my reader from you was this post. Very refreshing. I wish you well on your upcoming surgery and look forward to your return. As most Theist/Atheist conversations are uncivil at best I look forward to hearing more from a civil voice.
Mike
says...With apologies to Edmund Burke, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stop blogging.
For every snide remark that an opponent writes to you, there are five other open-minded but silent readers looking for evidence of which one of you is right…and the snide guy just lost a point with them.
Ronin
says...I wish you the best with your surgery & God bless.
FYI and/or just in case, I am not hating or crapping on you, but I do struggle with the questions I asked you on the other thread. In fact, most of what you have written here and on CSA is great (IMO).
Anyways, I hope you have a speedy recovery.
Matt
says...Hey cl,
I’ve had an experience on another Christian blog where I feel the blogger got burnt out from debating people with opposing worldviews. It was unfortunate because the blog was a great resource for philosophy and social science in regards to Theism.
I don’t have enough to add to the (a)theism conversation to start my own blog dedicated to the subject but it’s a blessing to be able to converse with those who do to help clarify my own understanding of the arguments. Most of my friends outside cyberspace are not interested in discussing philosophy of religion with a critical mindset (either because they outright reject any religious claim or because they don’t want to challenge their own religious beliefs) so I thank you and Victor for having sites like this.
TaiChi
says...Is it really critical thinking? Or is it an abortive attempt at critical thinking? As Shackleman tells us, faith is required to complete the process of conversion, but if so, then Shackleman isn’t really impartial, and doesn’t really fully commit to critical thinking after all. He uses it up to a point, perhaps, but he ditches it in the end.
Good luck for the surgery, cl.
Mike Gantt
says...“I’ll be undergoing surgery Friday”
Hope all goes well today, cl.
Michael
says...Hope the surgery went well!
Matt, were you thinking of ‘The Faith Heuristic’?
I am also sad that he has stopped blogging, he had a wealth of knowledge and I can’t seem to find any way of contacting him! :(
Matt
says...“were you thinking of ‘The Faith Heuristic’?”
Yes, that’s the one.
Reidish
says...Hope you’re back to blogging soon after surgery, cl.
I agree – Reppert’s blog is wonderful.
Come now TaiChi, isn’t that a little excessive? The Christian faith is belief in the unseen as a response to that which we do see and know (Hebrews 11). Sounds like induction to me, no?
cl
says...Hey all, thanks for support. I’m still pretty hurtin’ over here, so… don’t expect much this week. However, I did get to read a good dozen books so far, and plan on reviewing some of them. Not the chapter-by-chapter, in-depth reviews we’re used to, more like little overviews of each. Pain is bunk but at the same time, it’s been an interesting ride. I thought about the POE quite a bit: in the sense that people will willingly endure great misery for future good.
Also: Wasn’t The Faith Heuristic Justin Martyr’s blog?
TaiChi,
Are you implying that critical thinking necessarily entails atheism/agnosticism?
cl
says...I found this both interesting, and relevant — to the OP that is.
Matt
says...“Also: Wasn’t The Faith Heuristic Justin Martyr’s blog?”
Yes.
TaiChi
says...Sorry this reply is so late.
“Come now TaiChi, isn’t that a little excessive? The Christian faith is belief in the unseen as a response to that which we do see and know (Hebrews 11). Sounds like induction to me, no?” ~ Reidish
Abduction, perhaps. But if it’s abduction, then why call it faith? Isn’t faith something extra-rational? And isn’t abduction rational, since science (that paradigm of rationality) cannot progress without such abductive inferences?
Perhaps I misunderstood. I took Shackleman’s comments that apologetics weren’t enough, and his implication of the personal nature of faith, to be an admission that his belief overstepped the limits of rationality. He, of course, evaluates this move positively, which I’m happy to grant for the sake of argument. Cl, on the other hand, champions Shackleman’s transition as representing “true critical thinking” – this I contest, because if the conversion cannot be effected by critical thinking alone, it must either transgress (atheistic term) or transcend (religious term) critical thinking. But how, then, is the conversion paradigmatic of critical thinking? It isn’t.
Are you implying that critical thinking necessarily entails atheism/agnosticism? ~ cl
I’m not sure how to unpack that. Do I think that critical thinking leads to atheism/agnosticism? Yes. Do I think that there is something about the epistemic limits which critical thinking imposes on us which would make it impossible, in principle, for any of us to rationally believe in God? No. It seems to me that only a logical positivist could believe the latter, and then, only by restricting their consideration to a certain conception of God.
cl
says...Then, why can’t that apply to Shackleman?
TaiChi
says...It could, perhaps. But he admits that it doesn’t. Or at least, he admits that his belief is not founded solely on critical thinking.
cl
says...No he doesn’t. He simply states,
Then you say…
…that’s a little more accurate at least, but you just said that due to “the epistemic limits which critical thinking imposes on us,” it is possible that one can rationally believe in God. If critical thinking imposes limits, then what’s the problem with somebody taking critical thinking to those limits, and then casting a vote for theism? Honestly, you’re *coming across* as one of those people who claims that critical thinking only leads to atheism, and that’s a bunch of nonsense. I don’t know if you actually believe that, which is why I asked in my first response to you, but if you do believe that, well… not much else to say. I know that’s not true. Still, I ask again: does critical thinking necessarily lead to atheism/agnosticism?
As Shackleman said, thinking critically about apologetics, philosophy, and science was the “necessary bricks and mortar” which led him to a new understanding.
TaiChi
says...“No he doesn’t. …that’s a little more accurate at least..”
It was a singular point I was making, but whatever.
“..but you just said that due to “the epistemic limits which critical thinking imposes on us,” it is possible that one can rationally believe in God. ”
I’ve been non-committal on this point. I responded to your post to make the small point that Shackleman’s doxastic practices do not represent ‘true critical thinking’, and are, in the end, contrary to a commitment to critical thinking. Whether or not critical thinking is to be identified with rationality, or whether one can rationally believe what cannot be justified on the grounds of critical thinking alone is an issue which I’ve left open.
“If critical thinking imposes limits, then what’s the problem with somebody taking critical thinking to those limits, and then casting a vote for theism?”
I’m not inclined to say that there is anything wrong with it, here. I’m only making the point that you shouldn’t take this choice to be in conformity with critical thinking. You shouldn’t hold up someone who believes on the basis of such a choice as representing ‘true critical thinking’.
“Honestly, you’re *coming across* as one of those people who claims that critical thinking only leads to atheism, and that’s a bunch of nonsense.”
I’m not making the broad argument you think I am. My point is modest. I’m sorry if that wasn’t what you wanted to argue about.
“Still, I ask again: does critical thinking necessarily lead to atheism/agnosticism?”
I’ve answered this, or at least I think I have. If not, I don’t really know what you’re getting at.
cl
says...Tai Chi,
Yeah, and first of all, I’d bet all my money that you’ve never even asked the man. Your just judging him from the outside, when, in fact, he states that apologetics, philosophy, science, etc. were a necessary part of the process. He critically reconsidered his former view of atheism, looked at the available evidence to him, and reversed his decision. Yet, here you are trying to claim that his practices don’t represent “true critical thinking.” In fact, you seem to be making the atheist version of the “no true believer” fallacy. I’ll call it the “no true critical thinker” fallacy, and rightly so.
No you didn’t. At least, a plain reading of what you wrote doesn’t allow this interpretation. You wrote that rational belief in God is possible, did you not? That’s not “leaving it open,” that’s taking a stance. It either is, or is not, possible. If it is, then, it must be possible for Shackleman, too.
Why? Where’s your evidence? Have you investigated Shackleman’s conversion such that you possess knowledge sufficient to sustain this? I doubt it.
Why not? Because you say so? Thus far, you’ve failed to supply even one argument, and I already outlined the evidence of “true critical thinking” that I see.
Then make the argument you need to make, because I didn’t want to argue about anything in this post. You were the one who obviously wanted to argue that Shackleman’s wasn’t “true critical thinking.” Since I don’t think that’s right, I spoke up. Don’t simply disparage Shackleman’s process without evidence or argument.
I’m trying to get at a straight answer. You reworded my original question, and then answered the reworded version. I asked you if critical thinking necessarily entails atheism/agnosticism, and you replied that you didn’t know how to unpack. There is nothing to unpack. Either “true critical thinking” necessarily leads to atheism/agnosticism, or it does not. If it does not, then, on what grounds do you claim that Shackleman did not avail himself of “true critical thinking?” You have yet to supply any evidence or argument, whatsoever. If you have either, let’s hear it. If not, then maybe you should withhold judgment until you have sufficient evidence?
TaiChi
says...“Yeah, and first of all, I’d bet all my money that you’ve never even asked the man. Your just judging him from the outside, when, in fact, he states that apologetics, philosophy, science, etc. were a necessary part of the process.”
So too are you judging him from the outside. You take apologetics, philosophy, science, etc. as being a necessary part of his conversion because he said so. I take it that these things are not enough for conversion, because he said so.
“He critically reconsidered his former view of atheism, looked at the available evidence to him, and reversed his decision.”
He did all those things, yes. But to hear you tell it, he came to believe simply on the basis of the available evidence. That’s false. His belief had the further requirement of faith.
“Yet, here you are trying to claim that his practices don’t represent “true critical thinking.” ”
Because, admirable though his reasoning may have been leading up to his decision to believe, the decision to believe itself cannot be held up as representative of critical thinking.
“In fact, you seem to be making the atheist version of the “no true believer” fallacy.”
You’ll have to explain what you mean.
“You wrote that rational belief in God is possible, did you not?”
Actually, no, I didn’t.
“Why? Where’s your evidence? Have you investigated Shackleman’s conversion such that you possess knowledge sufficient to sustain this? I doubt it.”
Shackleman said that his conversion required faith, on top of apologetics, science, philosophy, etc.. Faith is by definition a species of believing which goes beyond the evidence. Critical thinking, on the other hand, requires apportioning one’s belief to the evidence. So Shackleman’s conversion is, by his own admission, a trangression of critical thinking, whatever other virtues one may want to find in it.
“Don’t simply disparage Shackleman’s process without evidence or argument.”
Don’t assume that I’m disparaging the whole of the process.
“There is nothing to unpack. Either “true critical thinking” necessarily leads to atheism/agnosticism, or it does not.”
True, but how does insisting that your question has a definite answer help me in understanding what question it is you are asking? If you want an answer, you’d best tell me what it would be for true critical thinking to lead to atheism/agnosticism.
“If it does not, then, on what grounds do you claim that Shackleman did not avail himself of “true critical thinking?” You have yet to supply any evidence or argument, whatsoever. If you have either, let’s hear it. If not, then maybe you should withhold judgment until you have sufficient evidence?”
Feel free to read Shackleman’s comments about his conversion again (I’d quote it here, but I can’t load the site). And remember, just because I disagree that Shackleman’s conversion represents ‘true critical thinking’ does not mean I think that some or even most of that conversion process fails to accord with critical thinking.
cl
says...Right here:
By your own words, it is possible in principle to rationally believe in God. Did you actually mean something else?
Let’s say I agreed with that definition [I’m not sure if I do or not because “goes beyond the evidence” is not sufficiently articulated]. Even then, most of our beliefs would be classifiable as faith. Do you believe the Taliban exists? For that question, I’ll accept three answers: Yes, no, and undecided. If yes, why? If no, why? If undecided, why?
That’s nitpicking. You are, without question, disparaging “at least part of” his process as “not true critical thinking.”
Define “true critical thinking” for me, then use that definition for the next question:
I delineated the the Boolean nature of the question because you shouldn’t need help understanding it: Does “true critical thinking” *necessarily* entail atheism/agnosticism?
TaiChi
says...“By your own words, it is possible in principle to rationally believe in God. Did you actually mean something else?”
I denied that I held X. That is not the same as holding ~X. There are atheists and theists, but also agnostics in the common sense as well.
“Even then, most of our beliefs would be classifiable as faith. ”
Only if you take an unreasonable view of what evidence is or what certain kinds of evidence entitle us to believe. That is, if you ‘go nuclear’, to use Stephen Law’s expression.
“Do you believe the Taliban exists?”
Yes. I read it in a newspaper somewhere.
“That’s nitpicking. You are, without question, disparaging “at least part of” his process as “not true critical thinking.””
That’s silly. Of course I’m disparaging part of his process as not true critical thinking. The faith bit. Since that bit isn’t representative of critical thinking, neither does the whole deserve to be described as representing true critical thinking.
“Define “true critical thinking” for me, then use that definition for the next question”
Fine. Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. True critical thinking, with ‘true’ emphasizing the maximal nature of the critical thinking, is thinking clearly and rationally at all times with regard to all matters.
“Does “true critical thinking” *necessarily* entail atheism/agnosticism?”
It does in certain circumstances: acquaintance with the argument from evil, for example. But not every critical thinker is so fortunate to be in those circumstances. As a universal rule? No – but then I know of no person who has held such a thing.
cl
says...You know, getting straight answers from you is rather difficult. Given the epistemic limits which critical thinking imposes on us, is it possible, in principle, to rationally believe in God–or not? I need a “yes” or a “no” else your position remains veiled. If you can supply one, I’m interested in continuing. If not, I think this ambiguity is counterproductive and probably a waste of our time. I really would like to continue, but, I can’t hit a moving a target, if you know what I mean. If not, then I’ll come back and add my last words. Your call.
TaiChi
says...Tell me, cl, have you stopped beating your wife? No explanations of your answer please, just a simple “yes” or “no” will do. No, no, don’t tell me that you’re single, or that you never began beating your wife, or anything like that. Explanations are ambiguous, and so I’ll assume you have something to hide. Just say “yes” or “no”, so I can move on to what I want to do, which is to criticize you for whichever of the two answers you give.
Of course, I’m being facetious above, but it’s to prove to point: nobody is required to give a ‘straight answer’ where doing so would give the wrong impression of the facts. To suppose that they are is to uphold the value of simplicity over accurate representation, and I’m sorry, but I happen to think that the latter is much more important than the former. I’ll not answer your simple question in a simple way if it means submitting to a caricature of my actual position.
And in fact you’d probably do the same thing. Consider the following aporetic cluster:
1. The world was created by God.
2. The world contains evil.
3. A creator is responsible for all defects of his creation.
4. God is not responsible for the evils of this world.
Well, do you believe 1-4? If so, then you believe a contradiction, assuming evil is a defect. But what you probably believe, rather than the simplistic premises 3 and 4, is something more like..
3′. A creator is causally responsible for all defects of his creation.
4′. God is not morally responsible for the evils of this world.
.. which, together with 1 and 2, do form a consistent set. In other words, you would not accept or reject 3 and 4 outright, but you would instead introduce a distinction that allowed you to accept what you thought true about each, and to reject what you thought erroneous about each.
But suppose I did not allow you this move. Suppose I stood on principle and insisted that you accepted or rejected 1-4. Suppose I complained that your qualifications, which would allow you to evade absurdity were objectionable because they lead to ambiguity. Would that be fair? Of course not. And not only is it not fair, it is inaccurate: the qualifications used in 3′ and 4′ are not ambiguous, instead they do away with ambiguity by separating out two senses of responsibility which ought not be conflated.
And so, I reject your demand for a crude, simplistic answer. In truth, I find it ridiculous. What you appear to want is not a philosophical opponent, but a straw man whom you are confident of upstaging.
cl
says...Why am I not surprised? I don’t want straw, Tai Chi: I want clarity. Can you provide it? Will you provide it? You can say something like, “Yes it’s possible to rationally believe in God if such and such conditions are met.” That sort of thing.
Please, explain yourself. That’s all I’m asking for. As it stands, you’ve given seemingly contradictory statements. Don’t accuse me of setting up a straw man here: you’re the one who’s position remains veiled.
So, poo-poo, or, off the pot.
Shackleman
says...Hello!
I’m grateful that my comment helped to offer a chance for discussion!
Here are some of my thoughts after reading through the comments:
I think some of the contentions come from incomplete understanding of what we all mean when we use terms such as “belief”, “evidence”, “faith”, “rationality”, “truth”.
But perhaps all of those contentions brought on by incomplete understandings of terminology can be mitigated if we instead shift the focus of the discussion away from “faith” and “rationality” and toward “justification” and “warrant” instead. (For further reading, if any onlookers are interested, have a gander at Alvin Plantinga’s works regarding justification and warrant).
In a nutshell, suppose someone named Jake, holds the belief that the sun revolves around the earth. We here would all agree that Jake’s belief is *wrong*, but is he justified in holding that belief? Well, we don’t know yet.
Now suppose Jake explains that all his schooling, and even years of subsequent research was devoted to Ptolemy and Aristotle, and geocentric models of physics.
Readers may disagree with me, and that’s okay, but I would say that Jake is *justified* in his belief. He’s *wrong*, but he’s justified. I would say he even *rationally* believes *wrongly*.
Conversely, let us assume George believes in a heliocentric model of physics. But George simply believes that because his father told him so.
Again, people may disagree with me, but I would say George is not justified in that belief, nor is he rational in holding it, even if his conclusion is right!!
I fully admit that my belief in God may turn out to be wrong. I’m okay with that. But I also believe that I’m justified in that belief in part because I’ve come to it by way of over a decade of investigation, research and study, into the arguments and evidences for and against that position–and my investigations aren’t over yet!! They probably never will be.
That said, it is one thing to hold a belief. It’s quite another to *live* it and *commit* to it. And **that’s** where faith comes in. That is what requires something other than “rationality”. That is what is personal, and that is what I believe can only be had if one is open “spiritually” to it. Again, I really don’t know if it, this faith (better said as “trust”, “hope”, and “commitment”) is something offered by God, or obtained by men. I haven’t been convinced yet which it is, but either way, I’m eternally grateful for having found it.
If we return to Jake for a moment, let’s assume that he’s open-minded and someone “out there” exposes him finally to Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo. Jake spends time studying them and after some rigor, and probably even some emotional trauma, concedes that he was wrong—That a heliocentric model is true and his former belief was false. Well, that sort of describes me. Take it for what it’s worth.
If any part of this is irrational or subrational or whatever, that’s perfectly fine by me. I don’t take offense if one assumes that “faith” is not rational. In fact, I’d agree with them. However, *beliefs*, even false ones, can be held rationally. And I would say that mine are held as such.
I strongly encourage those who are still “on the fence” to do their own research and study. And I would encourage bloggers like Mr. cl to continue their efforts here and elsewhere. You never know where and how the Holy Spirit might be lurking to help things along.
Px to you all!
cl
says...Shackleman,
Thanks for stopping by. It certainly helps to hear directly from the source. I wholeheartedly agree with you on the fact that one can irrationally hold true beliefs, and rationally hold false beliefs. Asteroids and cathode rays are two favorite examples of mine, respectively.
That said, my main gripe with TaiChi was his remark that your comment represents “an abortive attempt” at critical thinking. Personally, this reeks of the whole, “true critical thinking only leads to atheism” fallacy, and you may have noticed that TaiChi strongly resisted a clear answer to that question. Now, sure: one can say that the “faith” here is irrational, but if that’s the case, then so is the “faith” entailed by any other rigorous process of critical thinking. This is precisely why I asked TaiChi if he believed in the Taliban. Note that his sole criterion for belief was that he read it in a newspaper somewhere, and he’s denigrating part of your process as an abortive attempt at critical thinking! As if newspapers never report false stories! As if agendists with media control never manipulate the public!
In truth, TaiChi’s stated criterion for belief in the Taliban is far more an “abortive attempt at critical thinking” than the decade of studying you allude to, and that’s the thing that irks me [besides the fact that he seems to have missed the point of the post]: we’ve got all these skeptics and atheists who think that science and critical thinking are on their side, yet, at the end of the day, a significant subset of their beliefs require the very same “leap of faith” they denigrate in someone like yourself.
What do you think? Do you see your belief as “an abortive attempt” at critical thinking? Why or why not?
Shackleman
says...I completely agree with you, CI and I think you make excellent points all the way through.
As to your question: “Do you see your belief as “an abortive attempt” at critical thinking? Why or why not?”
I tried to briefly show ( Plantinga does all the *real* arguing on this, so I just tried to allude to it really) that “beliefs”, in and of themselves are not rational or irrational. They are simply held, period.
What can be rational or irrational is the *process* by which beliefs come to be held by the believer. It’s a bit of semantics, really, but I think the distinction is important.
So, in short, I’d like to think I’m a critical thinker and that I have *derived* at my beliefs by a process of critical thinking. He’s free to disagree with me—it’s really no sweat off my nose :-)
That said, the other part in there that caused some confusion was my note about faith requiring something *more* than just rationality. I quite eagerly admit to this.
Oftentimes to the atheist (I speak as an authority here because I did this myself back when I was one) conflate “faith” with “belief”. They’re not synonymous. Faith is both a verb and a noun, whereas belief is only a noun. But then, I never could understand the difference until I “got to the other side” so to speak, so I can’t really blame TaiChi for making the mistake. I think to flesh out what the difference is between the two terms would require its own topic though. I’d love to read your thoughts about the distinction. Maybe you could blog on that sometime. :-)
Lastly, if anyone wants to question whether or not I was “really” an atheist, they’re free to do so. They’d be wrong of course, but I’ve learned that you really can’t convince people of that so I don’t bother trying anymore. Believe me or don’t…it’s up to them. I really was, and after studying it with an open-mind, I eventually, and reluctantly, gave up my atheism. It took probably at least as long to settle on “one” specific understanding of theism (Christianity) as it did for me to reject atheism generally. But that’s a whole different topic too.
Keep fighting the good fight, brother. And, thanks so much for inviting me to your blog! I’m honored!
Shackleman
says...“we’ve got all these skeptics and atheists who think that science and critical thinking are on their side, yet, at the end of the day, a significant subset of their beliefs require the very same “leap of faith” they denigrate in someone like yourself.”
I pulled this out specifically because I think it hits the nail squarely on the head.
If I had some sage wisdom to offer to get militant “skeptics” to see the truth of this, I’d give it. Sadly though I don’t. It took me *years* before the light bulb finally went on and I saw the truth of this.
Here’s a blog from Dr. Reppert that addresses some of these very topics:
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/05/c-s-lewis-on-faith-from-mere.html