To interact with this page you must login.
Signup
philosophy
understand
Why do Christians (and people of other faiths) think that belief based on faith is better than belief based on evidence?
EDIT: Please read these details and the comments on the other answers. EDIT 2 The original question was "Why do Christians (and people of other faiths) think that faith is a necessary part of religion?", but this was a misleading question for people even after reading the question details.
To be clear, of course we do need faith to believe in god/s as there is no universally accepted evidence of the existence of god/s, but if god/s existed why does he demand belief is faith driven instead of evidence driven?
This is following on from this question Why couldn't Jesus Christ save himself from his crucifiers when he was able to walk on water and turn water to wine? it seems that the answer from Christians is that Jesus could do this if he had wanted to but chose not to because it was important that belief in him was based on faith. This implies that if people just knew for a fact that he was the son of God it wouldn't have been as good for people as they would just follow his teachings because they 'knew' what he had said was the truth as opposed to 'believing' it is true.
Apart from this example, whenever there is a discussion on proof, the answer keeps coming back (at least this is how it appears to me) is that the sheer act of having faith is an important part of religion. Sometimes I also hear a free will argument, but I personally don't think knowledge some how eliminates free will.
With all due respect, as someone who believes the Bible to be a work of mostly fiction (even if based on some facts), quoting scripture to me is unlikely to give me a better understanding on this. I'm really interested in people who have thought about the philosophy and psychology of believing versus knowing and why they think the world is better off like this, especially as so many people don't believe.
Are there religious people who think we would be better off if we had compelling evidence of a god/s and all that this would represent? Obviously this would mean challenging the fact that this evidence hasn't been produced.
A simpler way of asking this question would have been Why doesn't God prove his existence?, but I think it is unnecessarily challenging and I'm really interested in some open answers.
To be clear, of course we do need faith to believe in god/s as there is no universally accepted evidence of the existence of god/s, but if god/s existed why does he demand belief is faith driven instead of evidence driven?
This is following on from this question Why couldn't Jesus Christ save himself from his crucifiers when he was able to walk on water and turn water to wine? it seems that the answer from Christians is that Jesus could do this if he had wanted to but chose not to because it was important that belief in him was based on faith. This implies that if people just knew for a fact that he was the son of God it wouldn't have been as good for people as they would just follow his teachings because they 'knew' what he had said was the truth as opposed to 'believing' it is true.
Apart from this example, whenever there is a discussion on proof, the answer keeps coming back (at least this is how it appears to me) is that the sheer act of having faith is an important part of religion. Sometimes I also hear a free will argument, but I personally don't think knowledge some how eliminates free will.
With all due respect, as someone who believes the Bible to be a work of mostly fiction (even if based on some facts), quoting scripture to me is unlikely to give me a better understanding on this. I'm really interested in people who have thought about the philosophy and psychology of believing versus knowing and why they think the world is better off like this, especially as so many people don't believe.
Are there religious people who think we would be better off if we had compelling evidence of a god/s and all that this would represent? Obviously this would mean challenging the fact that this evidence hasn't been produced.
A simpler way of asking this question would have been Why doesn't God prove his existence?, but I think it is unnecessarily challenging and I'm really interested in some open answers.
philosophyunderstand
We are living in a 21st century world where science has proven religion wrong many times. The Bible says that the Earth is flat, and that the world was made in 144 hours, etc. We also have forensics. How were any murder cases solved before the 1900s? In the olden days I could convince you that witches exist. Now I can't.
Because of all the flaws that science has found in religion, that makes people question their own faith. The logical response is to declare religion as nonsense, but the people who believe in God can't do this. All evidence that supports X is believed, and all evidence that disproves X is ignored. The people who are religious truly want God to exist with all their heart. Without having faith in God, their belief has no basis, because they can't do anything else.
Science is the new religion. It gives us all the answers, and has disproven religion, but the religious people do not want to admit this. All they have to push them forward is their faith and pray to God and have faith in him.