4 ms·

That definition actually comes from the epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter 11. It’s a way, way less poetic way of saying “Faith is evidence of things not seen, a

by rhelz 3y ago

That definition actually comes from the epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter 11. It’s a way, way less poetic way of saying “Faith is evidence of things not seen, and the essence of things hopes for.” And then the chapter goes on to give examples of people who had faith—none of which did what they did or believed the way they do because of anything describable as what would count as evidence in science, or a court of law. This is not to say that the faithful are irrational or even that they are wrong. The faithful have good reasons to believe as they do, but those reasons are not confirmed by evidence. Why is this so important? Well, what do you do when all the evidence says you are doomed to fail? Or that there is no way out? Do you give up? Or does your hope, as Hebrews says, consist of things not seen? If the faithful insist that their faith is confirmed like any other belief is confirmed, they will miss the whole point of faith, and when the time comes that they need that kind of faith, they find they don’t have it.

kybernetikos 3y ago
I think there's a big big stretch between "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." and "faith is belief absent evidence", and lots of room for different opinions in there.
- rhelz 3y ago
  I think one of the reasons there are so many opinions is because people give different meanings to the words “faith” and “evidence.” Here is the difference for me: A teacher has two students, and she firmly believes they both can succeed in her class, and in life. 1. The first student has a history of getting good grades, has engaged parents, secure home, etc. The teacher takes this as EVIDENCE that the student will succeed. 2. The second student has always gotten very bad grades. He gets in trouble a lot. His parents are disengaged and have trouble keeping food on the table. Nevertheless, the teacher has an unshakable belief that this student can succeed. In complete contradiction to every piece of objective evidence. Because she has FAITH in the kid. There is a huge difference between those two ways of coming to a belief. This difference should not just be glossed over. Both kinds of ways of coming to believe are essential to human existence. Sometimes, the apropos thing to do is throw out all the evidence. Sometimes the most rational thing to do is have the courage to keep going by faith.
roca 3y ago
> none of which did what they did or believed the way they do because of anything describable as what would count as evidence in science, or a court of law. Abraham is in that list, and is elsewhere described as the paragon of faith. Yet in Genesis 18/19 Abraham is said to have met and talked with God, and discussed the destruction of Sodom, which Abraham then witnessed immediately. Abraham's faith was not a belief in a God he had never seen. Likewise Cain, Abel and Noah are in the Hebrews 11 list but Genesis says they spoke with God before they exercised their faith. In Hebrews 11 the "things unseen" are elaborated as the creation of the universe and the future fulfillment of God's promises (almost entirely the latter). They're unseen not because there is no evidence for them, but simply because the faithful people did not live to see them fulfilled. "Faith is belief without evidence" is a trope widely believed by Christians and atheists, but that's not the faith being promoted in Hebrews.
- mwcampbell 3y ago
  Disclosure: I'm a former Christian, now an atheist. It's true that the people discussed in Hebrews 11 were said to have met and spoken with God. But, unless I'm missing something, the chapter still seems to say that present-day believers must have faith in a God they've never seen; verse 6 says that anyone who comes to God must believe that he exists, which to me implies that they haven't met him as the early believers did. So this still seems to require some kind of leap of faith, beyond the evidence available to us today. I'll leave it at that, since we clearly disagree.
  - roca 3y ago
    Disclosure: I'm a former agnostic, now Christian. A person could have a well-founded belief in God without seeing him as Abraham did. What if someone in the early church had seen apostolic miracles and talked to an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus? Would it still be a "leap of faith" for them to believe in God and his promises? I would say not. So I don't think verse 6 "requires some kind of leap of faith" in the sense you're using it. I think such a person would still need faith, per verse 6, to put their justified belief into action in critical moments, e.g. at a moment when they're facing persecution for following Jesus. Now, how much of a "leap of faith" is required given the evidence really available to believers then and now... that's the big question about which we presumably disagree.

by rhelz 3y ago

kybernetikos 3y ago

I think there's a big big stretch between "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." and "faith is belief absent evidence", and lots of room for different opinions in there.

rhelz 3y ago
I think one of the reasons there are so many opinions is because people give different meanings to the words “faith” and “evidence.” Here is the difference for me: A teacher has two students, and she firmly believes they both can succeed in her class, and in life. 1. The first student has a history of getting good grades, has engaged parents, secure home, etc. The teacher takes this as EVIDENCE that the student will succeed. 2. The second student has always gotten very bad grades. He gets in trouble a lot. His parents are disengaged and have trouble keeping food on the table. Nevertheless, the teacher has an unshakable belief that this student can succeed. In complete contradiction to every piece of objective evidence. Because she has FAITH in the kid. There is a huge difference between those two ways of coming to a belief. This difference should not just be glossed over. Both kinds of ways of coming to believe are essential to human existence. Sometimes, the apropos thing to do is throw out all the evidence. Sometimes the most rational thing to do is have the courage to keep going by faith.

roca 3y ago

> none of which did what they did or believed the way they do because of anything describable as what would count as evidence in science, or a court of law. Abraham is in that list, and is elsewhere described as the paragon of faith. Yet in Genesis 18/19 Abraham is said to have met and talked with God, and discussed the destruction of Sodom, which Abraham then witnessed immediately. Abraham's faith was not a belief in a God he had never seen. Likewise Cain, Abel and Noah are in the Hebrews 11 list but Genesis says they spoke with God before they exercised their faith. In Hebrews 11 the "things unseen" are elaborated as the creation of the universe and the future fulfillment of God's promises (almost entirely the latter). They're unseen not because there is no evidence for them, but simply because the faithful people did not live to see them fulfilled. "Faith is belief without evidence" is a trope widely believed by Christians and atheists, but that's not the faith being promoted in Hebrews.

mwcampbell 3y ago
Disclosure: I'm a former Christian, now an atheist. It's true that the people discussed in Hebrews 11 were said to have met and spoken with God. But, unless I'm missing something, the chapter still seems to say that present-day believers must have faith in a God they've never seen; verse 6 says that anyone who comes to God must believe that he exists, which to me implies that they haven't met him as the early believers did. So this still seems to require some kind of leap of faith, beyond the evidence available to us today. I'll leave it at that, since we clearly disagree.
- roca 3y ago
  Disclosure: I'm a former agnostic, now Christian. A person could have a well-founded belief in God without seeing him as Abraham did. What if someone in the early church had seen apostolic miracles and talked to an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus? Would it still be a "leap of faith" for them to believe in God and his promises? I would say not. So I don't think verse 6 "requires some kind of leap of faith" in the sense you're using it. I think such a person would still need faith, per verse 6, to put their justified belief into action in critical moments, e.g. at a moment when they're facing persecution for following Jesus. Now, how much of a "leap of faith" is required given the evidence really available to believers then and now... that's the big question about which we presumably disagree.