"Just have faith" vs evidence

[catholictiger]

I think the “just have faith” lingo is a misunderstaning of how we as Catholics understand faith.

faith isn’t just belief. I think protestants think that we have faith in God, meaning we have faith in something we don’t see. The Just have faith and how faith is contrary to science and evidence is a very protestant understanding of faith.

The Catechism says that faith is a response to God revealing action in the economy.

Faith is man’s response to God, who reveals himself and gives himself to man, at the same time bringing man a superabundant light as he searches for the ultimate meaning of his life
CCC 26

Belief is a part of faith, but faith is not just something intellectual, faith is a virtue that should permeate every part of our lives.

our vocation for our lives is a response of faith, but it is not very intellectual. When someone enters into marriage they believe that God is calling them to marriage and that he is calling them to live together for their life. A priest is a response of faith, he believes that God is first calling him to celibacy and second priesthood. Our vocation isn’t a career choice, God has created us in a certain way and with certain passions and desires, as we come to know who we are more as God’s child and created in him image, we can find out what God wants us to do. God in a sense reveals to us what he is calling us to. Us living out our vocation is an act of faith.

My simple point is that faith is more than an intellectual action about what we believe.

As the CCC explains Faith is mans response to God, it is through this where he searches for meaning in his life.

Faith is a virtue not just a belief.

I’m not sure if protestants understand faith as a virtue, and as a response to God. This is where this just have faith response comes in.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Empiricism is useful as a method or attitude in religion (or religious studies or theology), but empiricism is not complete and self-sufficient as a method or attitude in these areas. If someone wants to be a strict empiricist in these areas, they are automatically excluding (as their own negative presupposition) anything that does not conform to a materialistic naturalistic four-dimensional view or interpretation of the space-time universe. From a religious viewpoint (or even from rational viewpoints in philosophy), strict empiricism is just another name for reductionism. :tsktsk: :nunchuk: npatrol:

Of course religion includes considerations related to physical things and tangible aspects, but religion is especially concerned with a fifth dimension of reality, an intangible dimension, an enduring spiritual dimension. This is not a wild or strange or esoteric theory. This is a basic standard orientation that is often found, for example, in various kinds of idealism (referring to metaphysical idealism) in the history of philosophy. :compcoff: :angel1: :yup: :clapping:

Really, I hate philosophy. But I love your emoticons!

LOL

So, I agree we can’t rule out miracles and such. So I haven’t ruled them out completely, although I’m not inclined to accept them. My biggest problem is I feel there is a double standard. Christians accept miracles reported in the Bible, but not the many miracles reported from other faiths… KWIM? So, if based on the evidence, I would reject something as a miracle from some other source, then I feel inclined to do the same with the Bible. To not do so would be like trying to delude myself into believing this story based on something like intuition or wishful thinking instead of reason…

I find no compelling reason to believe the miracles written in the Bible and not believe the miracles reported by other faiths.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I think the “just have faith” lingo is a misunderstaning of how we as Catholics understand faith.

faith isn’t just belief. I think protestants think that we have faith in God, meaning we have faith in something we don’t see. The Just have faith and how faith is contrary to science and evidence is a very protestant understanding of faith.

The Catechism says that faith is a response to God revealing action in the economy.

Belief is a part of faith, but faith is not just something intellectual, faith is a virtue that should permeate every part of our lives.

our vocation for our lives is a response of faith, but it is not very intellectual. When someone enters into marriage they believe that God is calling them to marriage and that he is calling them to live together for their life. A priest is a response of faith, he believes that God is first calling him to celibacy and second priesthood. Our vocation isn’t a career choice, God has created us in a certain way and with certain passions and desires, as we come to know who we are more as God’s child and created in him image, we can find out what God wants us to do. God in a sense reveals to us what he is calling us to. Us living out our vocation is an act of faith.

My simple point is that faith is more than an intellectual action about what we believe.

As the CCC explains Faith is mans response to God, it is through this where he searches for meaning in his life.

Faith is a virtue not just a belief.

I’m not sure if protestants understand faith as a virtue, and as a response to God. This is where this just have faith response comes in.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think you’re right that Protestants, probably the fundamentalist type, view faith this way. I’m not exactly sure if it makes sense but I feel like I’ve encountered some fundamentalist types in Catholicism too. Who knows, maybe those are converts from Protestantism and just brought their thinking with them.

If faith is a virtue and not just belief…would you say it’s like a combination of trust and belief?

I am comfortable with the idea of having “faith in God”. I can see how this can be a virtue. I know I can’t prove His existence, but I don’t feel I need to at all. I think this stems from the fact that I feel theism is a very human response to life and existence. However, having faith in the religious claims of a book (the Bible) and an organization (the Catholic Church) is becoming more and more difficult for me without a solid reason. I don’t see why this would be a virtue. Just like it wouldn’t be a virtue in my mind to have faith in what my Muslim friend says about the Quran and the Prophet… not unless I had a solid reason (which I don’t in that case either).

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

It is kind of difficult to weigh the evidence for and against** a person who is standing right in front of you.** Jesus said (says) “Follow me, I am the King / Messiah from God, I am the Son of God”.
What do you do with that person? Do you want to be with him or not?

And, even so, they are not asking you to “believe this evidence” to be saved. They are actually, with the whole Church, the person of Christ right in front of you. Do you want to be with Him, one of his People of the Covenant? That is what “saves”, being with Him, knowing you are one of his People walking behind him as he walks.

I’m not sure what you mean by “right in front of you” but I can assure you I’m sitting at my kitchen table looking around and the only people right in front of me are my kids.

You must mean something “deeper” on a metaphysical level (unless you’re one of the people that thinks they see Jesus) but I’m not understanding you.

 

[catholictiger]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think you’re right that Protestants, probably the fundamentalist type, view faith this way. I’m not exactly sure if it makes sense but I feel like I’ve encountered some fundamentalist types in Catholicism too. Who knows, maybe those are converts from Protestantism and just brought their thinking with them.

If faith is a virtue and not just belief…would you say it’s like a combination of trust and belief?

I am comfortable with the idea of having “faith in God”. I can see how this can be a virtue. I know I can’t prove His existence, but I don’t feel I need to at all. I think this stems from the fact that I feel theism is a very human response to life and existence. However, having faith in the religious claims of a book (the Bible) and an organization (the Catholic Church) is becoming more and more difficult for me without a solid reason. I don’t see why this would be a virtue. Just like it wouldn’t be a virtue in my mind to have faith in what my Muslim friend says about the Quran and the Prophet… not unless I had a solid reason (which I don’t in that case either).

yes trust is a part of faith. I think there is where you may bring in hope. We have faith in God, and we have hope that our faith in God will bring us to salvation. Trust is a simple form of hope.

In baptism we receive the infused virtues of Faith Hope and Charity. All three of these virtues play a important role in our lives as Christians.

But we must understand faith as a virtue.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . (I) have to humbly acknowledge the extent of my ignorance . . .

As it pertains to all of us, this is the most intelligent comment I have heard this month. I think it is actually the perfect response to the OP.

Matt 11:25 - At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

1 Corinthians 13: If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. . . Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. . . For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. . . And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

As it pertains to all of us, this is the most intelligent comment I have heard this month. I think it is actually the perfect response to the OP.

Wow, it’s crazy how I totally agree with you yet draw a completely different conclusion. I agree that I have to acknowledge the extent of my ignorance. And in acknowledging that, I realize that our ability to reason is limited, often influenced by our biases, and this leads me to question things I think are true. So, yes, there is some evidence that Catholicism might be true, but it’s not hard, unambiguous evidence, so the only way we can affirm it as true is to take the evidence and make a leap of faith… this necessity to go beyond the evidence is based on bias - we either rather it be true so we believe it, or we rather it not be true so we don’t believe it. At least, that’s how I think it normally works for most people investigating the faith. The conclusions they draw are not based on actual rationality and evidence but more on faith. This works for some people… but for me it leads me to realize that this religion might be true, or might not be true, and I will never know for certain. And so I’m left with skepticism - always wondering if it is true or false - or fidesm - accepting it on faith. (And fidesm works the other way too…rejecting it on faith.) But I am well aware that I can never know for certain. And that is the only thing I CAN affirm.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . And so I’m left with skepticism - always wondering if it is true or false - or fidesm - accepting it on faith. (And fidesm works the other way too…rejecting it on faith.) But I am well aware that I can never know for certain. And that is the only thing I CAN affirm.

God is love.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8: Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

In the words of the Amaerican moralist and philosopher will.i.am:

I feel the weight of the world on my shoulder
As I’m gettin’ older, y’all, people gets colder
Most of us only care about money makin’
Selfishness got us followin’ the wrong direction

Yo’, whatever happened to the values of humanity
Whatever happened to the fairness and equality
Instead of spreading love we’re spreading animosity
Lack of understanding, leading us away from unity

That’s the reason why sometimes I’m feelin’ under
That’s the reason why sometimes I’m feelin’ down
There’s no wonder why sometimes I’m feelin’ under
Gotta keep my faith alive 'til love is found
Now ask yourself

Where is the love?

You come to know God in the presence and absence of love. No empiricism, no skepticism - the reality of existence.

 

[steve_b]

As I post topics related to my doubts, it seems many keep telling me that I just need to have faith. But I know that fideism is rejected by the Church. So, is the “just have faith” advice just bad advice? Or is there something about the Church’s teaching that encourages us to “just have faith” despite not being persuaded by evidence?

I really need some clarity on this because I’m simply trying to deal with my doubts and weigh the “evidence”… but then I’ve got people telling me I can’t use empiricism in religion, that I need to just have faith…as if I shouldn’t be weighing the evidence.

So, should one weigh the evidence for and against Christianity?

how faith and reason work together

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

 

[RollTide1987]

When I say “hearsay” I mean that I learn about the Resurrection in the Gospels, which are translations of fragments of books (the originals of which we do not have) who were written by people, who knew people, who knew people who had seen this happen…

St. Paul was writing in reference to the resurrection of Christ BEFORE the Gospels were even put to paper. You had early Christians quoting from Paul’s writings in their letters. St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early 2nd century (roughly 107 AD), professed his undying belief that Christ was divine and had been resurrected. This belief in the Risen Christ was there at the beginning. It didn’t just develop over time.

And the Gospels were written by those who knew Christ or those who knew an Apostle of Christ.

The Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle St. Matthew. The Gospel of Mark was written by a disciple of St. Peter named St. Mark. The Gospel of Luke was written by a disciple of St. Paul named St. Luke. And the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle St. John.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

St. Paul was writing in reference to the resurrection of Christ BEFORE the Gospels were even put to paper. You had early Christians quoting from Paul’s writings in their letters. St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early 2nd century (roughly 107 AD), professed his undying belief that Christ was divine and had been resurrected. This belief in the Risen Christ was there at the beginning. It didn’t just develop over time.

And the Gospels were written by those who knew Christ or those who knew an Apostle of Christ.

The Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle St. Matthew. The Gospel of Mark was written by a disciple of St. Peter named St. Mark. The Gospel of Luke was written by a disciple of St. Paul named St. Luke. And the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle St. John.

Can you point me to where you find this information regarding who wrote the Gospels? Because the information I have directly contradicts the information you’re stating.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

God is love.

In the words of the Amaerican moralist and philosopher will.i.am:

You come to know God in the presence and absence of love. No empiricism, no skepticism - the reality of existence.

Yes, I agree. This is how you come to know God. I am not debating that.

I’m asking - how do you come to know that Catholicism/Christianity is true? So far the answer seems very simple: you can’t. There is no way to know for certain that Christianity is really from God, or that it really isn’t. The evidence is ambiguous.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I posted about my main doubts in other recent threads.

Basically, I am tripped up by Polygenism (science says yes, Church says no, and of course the effect on Original Sin and the Atonement) and the "evidence for the Resurrection and the idea that we’re supposed to accept hearsay in order to be saved.

This is not related to polygenism, but it is my most recent blog post Is faith belief without evidence?

Regarding polygenism, I would offer a couple thoughts. First of all, polygenism is not the universal consensus among scientists. Here’s an article from last year, for example, from Technology.org explaining that the scientific data supports a common ancestry. Secondly, one school of philosophy regarding Adam and Eve refers to ensoulment. This hypothesis also accounts for evolution and avoids the necessity of incest at the onset. It is not a Church teaching, but a hypothesis. It basically would say that biological animals were ensouled and raised to the human level (thus, man coming from the “earth” in Genesis, and the animals being said to have been created prior to man). Adam and Eve, the first humans with a soul, then transmitted human life through their offspring, and if those offspring were to have mated with biologically comparable animals, their offspring would likewise be ensouled. This would account for any concept of polygenism as contrary evidence to Adam and Eve because ensoulment is not biologically measurable anyway. In either case, sound science would not contradict faith.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Here’s a few more articles as food for thought:

Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record
biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p87.htm

Does Science Allow for a Literal Adam and Eve?
biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p102.htm

Catholic Dogma and Teaching on Creation
philvaz.com/apologetics/p100.htm

Time to Abandon the Genesis Story?
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

This is not related to polygenism, but it is my most recent blog post Is faith belief without evidence?

Thank you for your reply, I enjoyed your blog entry on the topic. I agree that atheist are wrong to say there is “no evidence” for Christianity. I have found evidence, I just don’t find it compelling enough to affirm the teachings of the Church as if they were in fact completely true.

 

[987mk]

Yes, I agree. This is how you come to know God. I am not debating that.

I’m asking - how do you come to know that Catholicism/Christianity is true? So far the answer seems very simple: you can’t. There is no way to know for certain that Christianity is really from God, or that it really isn’t. The evidence is ambiguous.

This isn’t unique to Catholicism. It is a problem faced by every religion the world over.

All claim to represent the fullness of truth, but none can actually produce concrete evidence to prove their claims true.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Here’s a few more articles as food for thought:

Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record
biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p87.htm

Does Science Allow for a Literal Adam and Eve?
biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p102.htm

Catholic Dogma and Teaching on Creation
philvaz.com/apologetics/p100.htm

Time to Abandon the Genesis Story?
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

I will check these out later tonight when I get the chance, but I will say that I am aware of ways of reconciling Polygenism with Original Sin, but the main problem is that those theories sound outlandish to me. My bigger issue right now is the credibility of the Bible accounts of the Resurrection. If you have any reading related to that that you could show me I would much appreciate it because I’ve been looking at arguments for and against that and I find the arguments against it more compelling right now.

 

[SpeakKindly]

Wow, your name fits you. Thank you for speaking kindly.

So, would you say that someone, who based on the “evidence” that they’ve looked at, doesn’t believe, has simply not received the “gift of faith”?

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I think that Catholicism makes reasonable sense and has arguments to back it up. I think wanting evidence is logical, and sometimes all of the evidence in the world won’t be enough to change someone’s mind about converting to the faith. There could be underlying issues with trust, misconceptions, and even lack of knowledge. I’m not a theologian, but I’d say that God is prepared to help us to accept things that require faith, but we have to be open to it. Some types of things, like God, have no scientific proof, but do have educated and reasonable arguments to support their existence.

If you want to watch a series that helped me in times of questions and a need of educated understanding, I’d suggest you watch Father Robert Barron on YouTube. Just type his name into a YouTube search and you’ll find his channel.

My last bit of advice is to take a hard look at Catholicism, strip away the buildings, the writings, the saints, and even the Bible - take away everything and what you’re eventually left with as the most important part is Jesus. Ask yourself if Jesus were not raised from the dead, if he wasn’t divine at all but just a regular guy, then where would the Catholic Church be today -where would Christianity logically be today?

There were other people in Jesus’ day who claimed to be the Messiah, who died, and their followings ended there. What convinces me that the Church is right is because history tells a different story about a group of people who based their lives (and death) on Jesus’ teachings and example, and had their faith explode into a massive religion in a short period, and it still exists today. That Church has produced arguments for its views that modern humans are very much against (just for example, its views on abortion), yet the arguments are true.

So I must ask myself if a man could start this, and the Church keep going and giving the messages filled with truth that it does…if none of the faith’s core beliefs in just Jesus were true? I have to say that Jesus is divine because I don’t believe it’s possible to have things work like this, I see it no where else.

Maybe you can ask yourself the same thing.

 

[987mk]

So I must ask myself if a man could start this, and the Church keep going and giving the messages filled with truth that it does…if none of the faith’s core beliefs in just Jesus were true? I have to say that Jesus is divine because I don’t believe it’s possible to have things work like this, I see it no where else.

Maybe you can ask yourself the same thing.

Did God create Sikhism, or did a man? 23 million members

Did God create Islam, or did a man? 1.6 billion members

Did God create Moromonism, or did a man? 10 million members

Did God create Hinduism, or did a man? 1 billion members.

A man did in fact create Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama. 376 million members

Yes, a man can create a popular and well followed religion.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I will check these out later tonight when I get the chance, but I will say that I am aware of ways of reconciling Polygenism with Original Sin, but the main problem is that those theories sound outlandish to me. My bigger issue right now is the credibility of the Bible accounts of the Resurrection. If you have any reading related to that that you could show me I would much appreciate it because I’ve been looking at arguments for and against that and I find the arguments against it more compelling right now.

I have not read it but I have heard good things about Lee Strobel’s The Case for the Resurrection. I believe he has a series of books including The Case for Christ, etc… If you search for him, you can find videos that may have shorter treatments. He is not Catholic, as I understand, but his focus is on that historical event which is native to other Christian traditions as well.

I think you can find much historical data that early Christians made the claim and accepted martyrdom for that claim. Also, if you think philosophically about it, when the Christians went around claiming that Christ rose from the dead and ascended and that they went to their deaths for the belief - wouldn’t their audience’s natural reaction would be to simply produce the body? I think it is not entirely compelling to say people would go to their deaths en masse in the absence of something at least incredible. I think that puts the skeptic on at least an equally outlandish footing, for they have to come up with an alternative explanation for historical events for which there is, ironically, no evidence.

For instance, if, for example, the skeptic argues that the body was destroyed and the Christians conducted a scam, it begs the question — why was their story so compelling to others then? Likewise, the skeptic makes an argument based on plausibility rather than evidence. There is not positive evidence for some sort of scam, but the skeptic must admit he makes an argument based not on evidence, but on the plausibility of a scam. But, as I said, the idea of a scam raises other wild consequences that are, to me, at least as outlandish as the idea of God coming to earth and dying and rising. Really, the idea of someone dying and rising is SO outlandish, it ironically would explain why the event so transformed the witnesses. That would actually explain their behavior if it were true.

Finally, I appreciate your looking at the evidence. It is important that your decision regarding the Christian proposition be done freely. In his encyclical Redemptoris Missio, Pope John Paul II reiterated Church teaching that, “Proclaiming Christ and bearing witness to him, when done in a way that respects consciences, does not violate freedom. Faith demands a free adherence on the part of man, but at the same time faith must also be offered to him…”