Pretty much. It is possible, but irrational to call any beliefs for which there is not 100% Cartesian certainty “faith”. Indeed such an approach is very frequently introduced by apologists, but they simply like to wash away the differences between levels of certainty.
In the absence of full certainty, one can estimate just how probable the claim is. To assert that the belief of “the car will start tomorrow” and the belief of “a three days old corpse will come back to life” to be both “articles of faith” removes the apologist from rational consideration. It is possible that the apologist is so dumb that he does not understand the difference, but I think that is very unlikely. It is much more likely that he can see the difference, but admitting it would deprive him of the “defense”… “but your beliefs are also based upon faith”!
One can establish a few semi-arbitrary limits, based upon the available evidence. By the way, evidence is something that does not have to be accepted a-priori, and what is not dependent on authority or mere hear-say. Evidence is a fact, or a procedure, which one can employ and reach the conclusion that the claim correctly describes reality. As such we can say that if the evidence gives a 90% or better assurance, then the phrase “reasonable expectation” is indeed correct. If the evidence gives less than 10% assurance, it is properly called “blind faith”. Somewhere in-between we can draw more lines for finer granulation.
Imagine that you went back in time 2000 years ago and told people about your life now. You would describe “wagons” that go several times faster than a race horse… with no animal attached.
Can you imagine the reaction? How could that be? your listeners would murmur.
How can that be? Because there is a form of energy about which they know nothing.
In the same way, there is a form of energy about which you know nothing, and you refuse to believe in it because the only proof of its existence is in the past.
Imagine Mary and Martha, weeping because their brother Lazarus has died. Christ finally arrives 4 days after Lazarus was buried. He calls, and Lazarus arises and emerges from the tomb, still clothed in the burial cloths.
*This is a fact. *It is a fact that you do not believe because you do not believe that there exists a supernatural power which could cause this to exist.
It’s actually kind of odd… your disbelief is circular! You do not believe in God, so you dismiss any evidence of His existence.
But to get back to Lazarus–the raising of Lazarus from the dead is a fact. In fact, this event occurred to show that Christ had a power that was beyond that of anyone else, to show that He is God, Who does have the power of death, and of life. Yes, it is true that the creator of the universe can raise a man 4 days in the grave from the dead.
Now, you may ask why I believe that this event is a fact. Well, why do you believe anything that occurred before you were born is true? Why do you believe that your parents met the way they said they did, that your great-grandfather was a pirate or a colonel or a farmhand or a banker?
Because people you trusted told you. Because you have no reason to distrust these people.
In the same way, I believe that Christ raised Lazarus from the dead–I trust those who told me because so much of what they tell me can be verified, or hangs together so well, or is otherwise very reasonable to believe.
And I have no reason to distrust these people, who have told me so much that is true, in this area.
An apologist will not use your faith that your car will start as being the *same *as his faith that God exists, but as an analogy. We use analogies as a way of explanation from something familiar to something new.
I recently had so much faith that my car would start that I got all ready to leave, assured my children were ready to leave, got us all into the car. Before I turned the key, I had faith. Once I turned the key and it started, I had evidence.
Now I am telling you this, and you probably believe me, right? Because I have no reason to lie.
It is indeed unlikely that a man could raise a man from the dead. But it is not unlikely that the creator of the universe could do so, is it?
How else could Christ give us evidence of His divinity? You seem to want Him to come to you personally and do something equally evidential just so that you will believe.
But why should He? He came to earth, He lived and taught and cured and performed other miracles.
But you because you don’t see the actual evidence, you reject the fact that Lazarus was raised from the dead as evidence *because *it is humanly impossible.
Thus you reject all proof of God, of Christ’s divinity because any proof of a being greater than human would necessarily have to be beyond human ability, but you reject it *because *it is beyond human ability.
And even if you saw a miracle happen before your very eyes, it might be that you would discount it on the same grounds; you wouldn’t be the first or the last.
) believe that this is what Catholics are committed to believing, when they are not, and when Christians for most of history have not believed it.