I saw a comment on Facebook today that prompted a memory of something I have thought previously but not written about. So now I am writing about it. Thanks, Facebook!
A Christian friend of mine told the world that he is about to read a copy of Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, that well known, aggressive (and often lampooned as philosophically poorly constructed) case against religious belief. Perhaps sensing from the comments being made that my friend was unlikely to be persuaded, an atheist friend of his was quick to advise him that while she did not think highly of Dawkins’ books on atheism, still: “you should at least approach atheism with the openness that Christians tell atheists to approach the Bible with.”
This might sound reasonable to you at first. It just sounds like a person is being asked to be reasonable, right? I don’t think so. Suppose that you are a happily married man, and that you have been one for some years. You have a wonderful marriage, and you can honestly say that you love and trust your wife more than anyone else in the world. With this background in mind, just imagine if I told you that your wife is being unfaithful to you. What would your initial reaction be? Imagine, further, that I told you that you should really be open minded about this. You should, I tell you, try to be just as open to the possibility that she is cheating on you as you’d like others to be to the possibility that she is not. Further, imagine that you were immediately persuaded that my approach was the right one.
Suppose that your wife hears of your open mindedness and protests with you. “How could you suspect me of this, after all these years?” Do you think you’d be making matters better by telling her that you couldn’t possibly let your history together influence your judgement on this most important matter? If your wife didn’t have a reason to run off, you just gave her one!
Now what’s wrong with this picture? What is it that would make your judgement astonishingly poor in the above scenario? It should be pretty obvious: An approach to investigation might be fine for somebody who has no commitments of a certain type, and yet quite inappropriate for someone who has those commitments. In this case, because of the type of commitment that you believe you and your wife have to one another, you actually have a prima facie duty to trust your wife rather than her accuser. If you didn’t know your wife at all, and a wise friend who you have come to trust told you that she is a loose woman that you should probably avoid, then the situation is reversed. Because of your relationship with your friend, you could well have a justified suspicion of this woman. How high the evidential hurdle is must take into account what you already know and the duties you take yourself to have. If you’re going to accuse my wife of being unfaithful, you’d better have the kind of evidence that can clear a very high hurdle.
So it is when a Christian is asked to consider atheism. It’s not true that the Christian should be as open minded to the possibility of atheism as he would like people to be to the possibility of Christianity, any more than I should be as open to the possibility of my wife’s unfaithfulness as I would like people to be to the possibility of her faithfulness. A person who is a Christian has what he or she takes to be a relationship of trust. They have a prior commitment (and in fact the relationship between Christ and the church is likened, in the Bible, to a marriage e.g. Ephesians 5:31-33). When I talk about a prior commitment here, I do not just mean a prior belief, something that they affirmed before and don’t want to give up. I mean not a commitment to a proposition but to a person – to a relationship, call it what you will. It is a relationship of trust, and more than that, of worship. Of course, you might not believe that any such real such relationship exists any more than one that a person might have with an imaginary friend. But if you use that as a reason for the Christian not to put stock in that relationship, you’d obviously just be asking them to give up Christianity before they even begin. As far as the Christian is concerned, such a relationship does exist at the outset, and hence the duty of trust exists as well.
So here’s what I think about the instruction to investigate impartially, being just as open minded on the issue as we want everyone else to be: What might sound like a simple request for reasonableness actually conceals the very type of presuppositions (whether conscious or not) that the inviter is asking you not to bring to the investigation.
Glenn Peoples
Similar Posts:
- Ehrman: I’m not destroying Christianity, I’m only destroying the Bible!
- Weatherston guilty of murder. He's not sick. He's evil.
- Homosexuality and Socialism?
- Liberals and sliding goalposts
- Hell: Definition vs description
- Deal Breakers and Christian Essentials
Tags: apologetics, scepticism
Open mindedness in the absolute sense really is a myth… unless you are only one year old! is it not?
So who are we kidding when we make such statements? Our selves!
Its a bogus piety! ‘Im open-minded’ is pretensions rubbish! a self delusion.
I agree with you that we ought to be faithful to what we believe until some stronger belief manifests itself to us and compels us to embrace the new revelation and that can never properly be the result of negating our faith.
Thus it is actually a trick saying we should negate our minds.
Is it true that a Nihilist may have an open mind?
ie a vacant space…a void that may be filled…just like a one year old?
If so it is may be true for a Christian to say consider this…But for a nihilist to expect the same thing from a Christian only in reverse is for them to assume you are like them…valueless!
The great thing is a Christian ought to have no fear that his ‘wife’ is unfaithful and be willing to consider any argument presented to him in the clear knowledge that unless it is very compelling no harm can come of it In fact to do this is to exercise your faith and results in vindication of your love.
No Mature Christian has anything to fear from an atheists arguments. It is an opportunity to build some mussel! It is an opportunity to turn the tables!
Yes?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Doubt has a far better chance of finding truth than faith. Blind faith in your existing beliefs lacks the power to tell you if you are wrong. Self doubt runs the risk of exposing you to incorrect ideas but it also has the power to doubt even those and will eventually find truth.
I think that this is the purpose of being “open minded”. To accept that we may be wrong in our beliefs to allow ourselves to learn the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damian, I guess it’s fortunate, then that nobody is advocating “blind faith in your existing beliefs.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m confused Glenn. Are you arguing that no proper Christian should sit down and examine their own faith? The questions here are just the thoughts popping up in my head as I read this and I would love a clarification. I doubt this is what you meant, but I’m not exactly sure what you did.
While I agree that a person may have ‘prior’ commitments, so might a person who isn’t religious. It might be the case that you expect the godless to be ‘open-minded’ to the Gospel. However maybe she, is a committed member of a state or a husband, or a family life, or an ideological community where Christianity is shunned. She would have to uproot and break the trust of all or some of the above. However you expect of that person to be open minded?
And what sort of presuppositions are you talking about?
Should Christians even ask non-Christians to be open minded, if the non-Christians have ‘prior commitments’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Doubt has a far better chance of finding truth than faith.”
Damian do you think I should doubt this statement? After all you have not proved it and doubt not faith leads to truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Matt, yes, you definitely should doubt that statement. Put it to the test.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, and before you reply with “and should I doubt *that* statement” I’ll pre-empt you with my answer: don’t be a dick.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Doubt may have a better chance at finding truth than faith, but faith has a better chance at maintaining it…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Leonhard, I think you’ve misunderstood the nature of “prior committments.” As I tried to stress, the idea is not of prior committment to a belief, but to a relationship with the very person who is being called into question. Atheists don’t even profess to have this, since the absence of God is not (obviously) a person at all.
You say “I’m confused,” and I’m inclined to agree! Your worries about whether or not a Christian should be willing to examine her faith are worries that any person could ask about how I should feel about my wife’s faithfulness to me. Should I absolutely rule out any questions? No, and I never said this. All I’m talking about is the initial type of stance that is appropriate for someone who already takes himself to be a certain type of relationship.
This is part of what’s wrong with the approach that sees Christianity only as a collection of propositions to be believed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here’s another way to think of it: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When you’re addressing someone who takes themself to be in a trust relationship with Christ, the claim that God doesn’t even exist is absolutely extraordinary, and requires a very high standard of evidnece indeed, far more than most claims would.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, what would your response be to someone of a different faith who used the same argument as you have just put forward for not keeping an open mind?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damian, I would understand entirely, and so I would accept that the burden of proof that I would have to meet when trying to persuade that person is higher than that which would be required for an agnostic. I would have to, for example, provide credible reasons for giving up the trust that they currently have.
Now, a question for you: How would you respond to the claim made by an outsider that your wife was being unfaithful? His claim is that she told him. She denies it. Are you going to be open minded?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What do you mean by “I would understand entirely”? You’d just accept that it’s reasonable for them to keep a closed mind? What would your response be?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You edited your comment (12) which kind of makes my response look out of place. Nice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damian you write “Oh, and before you reply with “and should I doubt *that* statement” I’ll pre-empt you with my answer: don’t be a dick.”
I see, so heres my answer to you when you doubt the existence of God.
“Your a dick.”
That apparently is adequate to address a skeptical demand for proof.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Matt, I was warning that descending into infinite recursion was dickish behaviour.
My answer is, of course, doubt everything. ‘Doubt’ in this context is synonymous with ‘test’ so, yes, test the effectiveness of this approach too. Not in a way that cripples progress but in a way that allows us to rethink our starting assumptions if and when evidence to the contrary or debate occurs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damian, I edited my reply seconds after posting it. Sorry if you didn’t see the new version before posting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damian wrote “Matt, I was warning that descending into infinite recursion was dickish behaviour.”
The problem is the phrase “doubt everything” makes a claim about everything that is every proposition and its not hard to see that this phrase entails an infinite regress. You can call pointing this out “dickish” all you want, the problem is its an implication of the phrase you made. A rational person either accepts the logical implications of their position or if these implications are absurd and incoherent, rejects the position. Clinging to it and insulting others is not a rational approach.
Doubt’ in this context is synonymous with ‘test’ so, yes, test the effectiveness of this approach too.
The problem is this is impossible, to test a belief you need to test it against something. And this will have to be something you believe is true. ( showing a proposition is called into question by or not supported by falsehoods is hardly going to establish much).
But then in order to test A you need to believe B, but to believe B you need to test it, so now you have to appeal to C to test B, but what about C and so on. So again we get a regress.
Statements like “test everything” and “believe nothing till its proven” are nice sounding slogans or cliches but taken as a serious epistemological method they collapse pretty quickly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Matt, I don’t think it is practical to “believe nothing till its proven” and have never claimed so. In fact I took pains to add “Not in a way that cripples progress but in a way that allows us to rethink our starting assumptions if and when evidence to the contrary or debate occurs”.
This is commonly called being “open minded”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damian, just so that it’s clear: Nobody (or at least, neither Matt nor I) has said that we should not be willing to critically consider the truth of our startuing assumptions. I think you can see that I am not calling for a stance like this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, if you believe in an invisible, undetectable personal deity you should really be spending most of your time critically examining your beliefs. That should be a warning bell. Instead, you are advising that because you believe you have a relationship akin to a marriage with this deity you should take *less* of an open minded stance. You’ve got it the wrong way around my friend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Glenn, if you believe in an invisible, undetectable personal deity you should really be spending most of your time critically examining your beliefs.”
You say this, I will assume, because of what you believe about God (or lack thereof). I gathered that you were an “unbeliever,” and saying the above only serves the social function of re-stating this position. If I’m right about what good reasons for which beliefs are out there, then it is you who should be desparately reviewing your beliefs. But me saying that would get us nowhere. I assume you already figured that I think this, just as I figured out that you don’t. Venting our bias isn’t really productive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
While I think doubt can in some cases lead to some truth, I would say that most truth are found by being faithful (to a calling, vision, dream, etc). Great truth demands great faith in seeking it.
Doubters are usually quiters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think that is a very good analogy. Though I can imagine how it sounds inconsistent to an atheist that we demand open mindedness of them, but we do not have such an open mind about what they say.
The roots of it though, I think, are that atheism is a negation. It is not actually position. It is, by definition, an accusation that something else is false.
Heidegger said something to that effect when he was asked about his atheism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow.. this article left me truly stunned. This often what separates atheists and theists the most and it’s true.
Ask a believer what will take away his belief in God and you usually get the reply “nothing!” however if you ask an atheist what will make him believe in God/gods you will get the reply “evidence for their existence”. This has developed because atheists are usually very scientifically-minded so require observable data in order to accept a belief or theory, however with a believer it is taught in the Bible, and in churches, that you are weak if you can be swayed from your beliefs or if you question God. Think about it, the person with the strongest, most unshakeable faith in a congregation is usually admired the most. But you have to ask yourself; why is this a good thing?
This is how we progress; look at how many scientific truths we’ve found this way. I’m with Damian on this one. Doubt is the key. Without doubt, then all belief is circular, surely? You believe in something, then being narrow-minded you disregard all the evidence that challenges your belief and accept all the evidence that supports your belief. This is definitely the wrong way to go about things, and Damian is right. You believe in an invisible deity, of which there is no proof of it’s existence, and you claim that you should not doubt the existence of this invisible deity because that would be disloyal, even unfaithful.
Again, wow. You have your heads so high in the clouds it’s unbelievable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Josh, it’s rhetorically convenient yet entirely incorrect to read what I’ve written and then write a preachy little piece about how theists won’t let any evidence move them. That’s about as misleading as implying that people who have previously identified themselves as atheists are as open to reasons for believing in God as as theists. No fair person believes either of these things. But that doesn’t stop sceptics from saying it.
Your claims about your own epistemology are just naive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Glenn,
I almost called you Glenny, and then decided strongly against it.
I was going to respond to Josh’s comment, but also decided against that.
I appreciate that you’ve addressed this so adequately. While it’s important to listen to those who do not believe in Christ, I think there are gross misconceptions (and double standards) about what “open-minded” means.
Pax Domini!
Semm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damian said: “You believe in an invisible deity, of which there is no proof of it’s existence, and you claim that you should not doubt the existence of this invisible deity because that would be disloyal, even unfaithful.”
This is your problem Damian you believe that we believe in God without proof or evidence.
You have missed the whole point.
A Christian’s belief is based on evidence and proof that is the very reason why they don’t doubt the existence of God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Elizie, it was Josh who said that, not me. I personally believe that there *is* evidence that God exists but that it’s of such a poor quality that no one would accept evidence of a similar standard in, say, the claims of another religion. If I have ever said that there is “no evidence” it would be in the same context as there being “no evidence” for the existence of Icelandic Elves. I.e. I’m sure that many Icelandic people are having what they feel are genuine experiences (which counts as a form of evidence) but that the evidence is so shoddy as to be dismissed as “no evidence” for all practical purposes.
Another point I’d like to make is that I used to be a baptised, born-again, in-a-relationship-with-God-through-Jesus Christian. I didn’t abandon the Christian faith because I was upset with anything or because I hated God. I found it a very slow and painful process in a search for truth above all else. If you share a passion for truth you will see that self-doubt and a constant willingness to find that our presuppositions are wrong is by far the best way to achieve this.
You may search for truth and come to the conclusion that God *does* indeed exist. But your search won’t be an honest one without open-mindedness. If you give your presuppositions special privileges you are only lying to yourself and living by a double-standard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damian: Sorry about miss-naming the quote. An honest error.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damian, experience tells me that most who walk away from the faith do so not because they decided one day to be concerned about evidence and lo and behold, they started to see that the evidence for Christianity was poor.
On the contrary, it is most often, in my experience, very much like a marriage break up. They are enticed to something else, or else they feel betrayed or let down some how. If your case is genuinely different then you’re exceptional. Although – and yes you might see this as a cynical view of people – I tend to find that more intelligent sounding explanations are often woven into events after the fact.
“You may search for truth and come to the conclusion that God *does* indeed exist. But your search won’t be an honest one without open-mindedness. If you give your presuppositions special privileges you are only lying to yourself and living by a double-standard.”
You’re continuing to misunderstand this blog. You’re talking here about a person reaching the conclusion that God exists when they didn’t realise this before. It’s obvious that this isn’t what I was writing about.
I seriously doubt you if you say that you would approach your relationship with a spouse in any way other than in the way that I outlined in this blog, and yet your (double?) standard seems to require that Christians strip themselves of such principles for the sake of atheists!
As I have made clear to you already, nobody but nobody but nobody has advocated an unwillingness to consider evidence against theism. I think you’re depending on the rhetorical ease of being able to call people closed minded without seriously addressing what they say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, my journey out of Christianity took 14 years and I maintained a deep belief in the existence of a God until the very end. Lots of peripheral beliefs went by the wayside along the way (YEC, virgin birth, inspiration of scripture, etc) but I maintained a belief in God. I wasn’t running. Just searching for the truth of things.
Anyway. This is probably getting to the stage where further words are wasted. I’m happy to let what I’ve written stand for any who might stumble across this who can see the sense in open-mindedness as a way to truth. Those who believe that truth trumps our deepest beliefs.
Thanks for the conversation and all the best.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Truth trumps our deepest beliefs.”
It certainly does (when our beliefs aren’t true, but I assume you meant that).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hilarous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have to agree with Damian here. But the opposite experience is the case for many former atheists. An honest, open-minded search for meaning often ends up with God.
Many Christians, myself included, can attest to trying to live without God but found themselves back in His house after long prodigal wanderings.
Surely Truth is a unity, so doctrines and theologies should withstand open minded criticism, and indeed they do so and are strengthened.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ropata, you say that you agree with Damian, and then you proceed to refer to an honest open minded search for God.
By repeating and repeating his false characterisation of my view, clearly denied by me, I fear that Damian may have persuaded you to accept it as fair. I fully agree that the search for God should be fully open minded and honest.
Why anybody would think I have said otherwise is beyond me. I think that many Christians fear “showing their hand” by admitting that they (i.e. Christians, who I was writing about in the blog post) have a precommittment because of their relationship status, thinking that they make themselves vulnerable to the charge of not really caring about evidence, or of being dogmatic, or of believing against the evidence or something else along those lines. The fear is one that believers should simply dispense with. It is a fear as well founded as the fear that I might reveal a committment to my wife by trusting her.
Nothing in any of this suggests a mindset that evidence doesn’t matter. The suggestions to this effect were just cases of misleading opportunism saying “A HA! I KNEW you didn’t care about evidence. Proof!” No such thing was being said at all, and I think that on reflection all readers would admit this. For what it’s worth, I certainly do think that a truly open minded assessment of reality, from the position of agnosticism, leads to Christianity, rather than away from it. But that wasn’t even the subject of this blog. It’s remarkable that somehow a couple of visitors trying to control the meaning of what I said have persuaded anyone to think about this subject instead. Ah well, like figures in the clouds, they’ve managed to see what they were looking for.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, and “Richard Dawkins” of Australian, why not use your own name?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, you clearly criticised open-minded inquiry when you likened faith in God to a marriage, and questioning God to doubting one’s spouse.
I do not usually experience Jesus as my girlfriend and it’s a strange misconception in contemporary church that we are supposed to carry on some kind of fantasy romance with God. Most people simply don’t have that. Admittedly there is a peace of mind and heart, and a few times I have been overwhelmed by grace an compassion, but actual “relationship” is rare in this life.
Proverbs says “trust in the lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding” etc.. but how that works out practically is that an untended garden grows weeds.. While trying to commmit one’s steps to the Lord, we often have to work things out for ourselves. This is maturity.
I acknowledge there is a certain imbalance especially when a young christian encounters atheists in a university environment, but freedom of thought (doubt) is a liberating and empowering experience. Surely there comes a time when an adolescent tests their parents’ authority, likewise a faith that has never been tried and tested is probably not very deep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jesus as my girlfriend? Criticised open mindedness? Fantasy romance?
Ropata, trust me. There is absolutely no doubt at all that you are misreading what is happening here. You are reacting in colourful terms to a position that was not advanced.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, perhaps I have misread your position on open mindedness & scepticism, but your article has prompted a similar reaction from others. Instead of creating a confusing analogy to marriage, why not say something along these lines…
Faith in God is a philosophical conclusion that is reached after a long period of honest seeking. The atheist who demands “open mindedness” is not aware of this process, and usually misreads the situation as dogmatism.
Hostile demands for open mindedness and scepticism are usually an attack mechanism to characterise religious people as unthinking; whereas the Christian has glimpsed a spiritual reality that isn’t amenable to glib dismissal by reductive materialists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ropata, because that is not what I wanted to say.
In fact you are the first person to react this way. Nobody prior has said anything about the whole “Jesus is my girlfriend” thing, much less made reference to a fantasy romance. You’re the first. But it should be clear that two scenarios that are being compared because of one thing in common (that which I called a relationship of trust) should not be assumed to have all things in common (i.e. romance or sexuality). The connection is really an unwarranted one.
As for the way others have reacted, it’s very easily understandable why those with a deep desire to portray Christian faith as fideistic or hostile to evidence based thinking would leap at the chance to call it such, however flimsy the reason may be. That they may have reacted this way does not make it a sensible reaction.
Your own version of what I said is a fine thing to say, but it’s really not at all what I was saying. What I was saying is that all of us accept that there are situations where, because of a relationship of trust that we have with someone, it would be obviously wrong to expect our standard of evidence for doubting that person to be the same as the much lower standard required by someone who had no reason to trust the person at all. A marriage is a great illustration of this.
You would never, I assume, imply that when assessing the accusation of unfaithfulness made by a stranger against my wife, I should be as willing to believe in her guilt as in her innocence prior to looking at this person’s evidence. Assuming that you accept this, I think perhaps you might want to reassess the way you are construing my claims about faith and trust when it comes to God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, thanks for the reply. But how does one have a “relationship of trust” with God? Practically it’s indistinguishable from wishful thinking. (I believe in God but I’m just not sure about the “relationship” bit).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ropata, my natural instinct is to say “its a fiduciary relationship,” but that would be a bit of a tautology given that fiduciary relationships are just relationships based on faith or trust.
The link you gave is all about prayer and outcomes, but that’s not really what I was getting at so I’m not sure of its relevance. When Christians talk about being justified through faith, they are talking about trust in Christ as a Saviour.
From reading your blog I see that you’re a Christian. Even if for whatever reason you’re not comfortable with the term “relationship” (perhaps you think it implies certain things that some of us don’t), would you be comfortable saying that you trust Christ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, Elizie. You believe in Christianity because of faith right? If there is proof of God’s existence then you have no faith as faith is not required. Faith is about believing in something without and proof or evidence, go look it up in the dictionary. So either I have been grossly misinformed about this proof of God’s existence or I’m right and there isn’t any and you believe in God because of faith.
Glenn, I partly agree with what you say. There are so many narrow-minded atheists out there who have there heads buried so far in their beliefs that they’re just as bad as many Christians are. But I disagree that these are the majority of atheists. These atheists have wrongly jumped out of one box and into another box. Personally, I try to question atheism also and I’m in search of spiritual truths and matters on whether a soul exists and if there’s life after death. I personally don’t believe in them through what I believe to be sound reasoning, however I try to empathise with these beliefs and would readily accept any evidence.
One of the things that gets me is why God chooses to supposedly speak to certain people or why angels appear to some and not others, as well as seemingly arbitrary healings that are awarded to some unbelievers and not others.
Many times, as an atheist, I have actually prayed to God to see if He was there or to give me some evidence or proof. If I really mattered to God so much, why when I ask him for signs of His existence doesn’t He give me any, but supposedly gives other people signs? I think that’s downright unfair.
So no, I’m not a narrow-minded atheist. And just as I try to question my beliefs, or lack of beliefs, you should also try to. Otherwise you become trapped in circular belief systems, be it atheistic or theistic ones.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually, Josh, you’re grossly misinformed about what faith is. Take your advice and look it up; in fact, the first definition on dictionary.com is “confidence or trust in a person or thing.” Although definition 2 is, in fact, what you were referring to, faith (pistis in the Greek) as talked about in Scripture is not “belief without proof.” In the Bible, it’s more “trust in someone (usually God) who has proven Himself reliable.”
Hebrews 11 is a great source for the Biblical view on faith, as it’s basically Paul pointing out several people in the OT who had faith, and how they showed it. It’s not because they didn’t have proof of God (indeed, quite the opposite for some – Moses is the perfect example, he saw more miracles than most). It’s because they followed God even when it was difficult, because they knew God was faithful and that He keeps His word.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Josh, who told you that faith means believing something with no evidence, and that if you have evidence you don’t have faith?
I’m not just waxing rhetorical in asking that, I’m serious. Do you know of serious Christian sources that really say that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damian you write
“Not in a way that cripples progress but in a way that allows us to rethink our starting assumptions if and when evidence to the contrary or debate occurs…This is commonly called being “open minded”.
Well if this is what you mean by being open minded then a person who has certain theological beliefs as there starting point, is required to rethink and doubt their truth when evidence to the contrary occurs. In other words until atheists can come up with an argument against the existence of God as opposed to merely criticisms of arguments for Gods existence the theist is not being closed minded.
The problem is in this thread you criticize theism for allegedly being based on rarely weak evidence, now if all beliefs should be doubted until compelling evidence was provided for them that might be a cogent objection, the problem is that leads to a regress.
You can avoid the regress by adopting the position above, but then the standard atheist argument from lack of evidence fails.
BTW your stance is also compatible with Glenns comments, Glenn is suggesting that in a fiduciary relationship such as that between husband and wife one should start with the assumption that your wife is faithful, he not saying that if the evidence mounted up so as to convincingly show she was cheating you should continue to believe she is faithful. His position is simply that one should start with this assumption. And like you said open mindedness requires only that you to rethink your starting assumptions if and when evidence to the contrary is forthcoming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Precisely Matt. People are reacting as though I were saying something like “don’t even listen to evidence that she is unfaithful” (or don’t even listen to evidence that your faith is misplaced). Now of course I wouldn’t say that, but because that relationship of trust does exist, we have every reason to start with trust, meaning that those who want us to doubt need to give us reasons. They are, after all, the ones making an extraordinary claim to us (just like the stranger who tells my wife who has been with me for over 13 years is being unfaithful).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi guys, I guess I’m grossly misinformed then, especially by the dictionary. Yes, you are referring to the faith you have in God as a relationship, but I’m referring to the fact that you have faith that your relationship with God is real.
If I’m so grossly misinformed and you do actually have this proof of God’s existence, could you please show me it? I’ve already shown that I would readily accept any proof of the existence of God and I would convert to Christianity right now if you gave me the proof of YOUR God’s existence and why your God is real over all the other gods out there.
You say that it’s an extraordinary claim for someone to come to you saying your wife is being unfaithful; yes it is. However, how is it an extraordinary claim that God doesn’t exist?
Short answer is that it’s not. It’s a very plausible notion that there is no such thing as God and that there’s nothing more to life. And it makes the most sense to me right now as well. And that’s not even exploring all the blatant contradictions and errors in the Bible, such as the world being only 6000 years old for example.
So please just give me some evidence to believe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Josh, if a person has no relationship with my wife, then it’s not such an extraordinary claim to tell them that she is unfaithful.
What this indicates is that whether a claim is extraordinary or not depends in great measure on what is known by the person to whom the claim is being made.
As for this “by the dictionary” stuff, it would be just crazy to go to the english dictionary to learn about concepts in theology or philosophy (or science, for that matter).
It is, if you’ll forgive my saying so, disingenuous for a person to say “give me some evidence for God’s existence,” when it is a very safe bet that this person (you) is fully aware of the long standing philosophical disputes about the alleged reasons to believe in God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0