> "if God undeniably existed, then faith would no longer be applicable."
I kind of see both sides of that.
On the "agree" side, I saw a quote somewhere that said, "that's why it's called 'faith' instead of 'reading comprehension'." If it were that cut and dried, then it would just be a matter of objectively evaluating the evidence, without even any "probably".
On the "disagree" side, the point of faith isn't really the existence of God. Yes, that's the starting point. But much further than that, the point is that we need God's forgiveness - a forgiveness that is completely unreasonable. Faith is "you have, I need, please give" (contrast with love, which is "I have, you need, I give"). The difference between those two postures is why it is faith, rather than love, that is the fundamental bottom line in dealing with God. Knowledge - even certainty - that God exists doesn't remove the need for a faith that goes beyond mere knowledge.
The various ambiguities of the word "belief" reminds me of a Terry Pratchett quote, from Reaper Man:
> Wizards don't believe in gods in the same way that most people don't find it necessary to believe in, say, tables. They know they're there, they know they're there for a purpose, they'd probably agree that they have a place in a well-organised universe, but they wouldn't see the point of believing, of going around saying "O great table, without whom we are as naught." Anyway, either the gods are there whether you believe in them or not, or exist only as a function of the belief, so either way you might as well ignore the whole business and, as it were, eat off your knees.
>But much further than that, the point is that we need God's forgiveness - a forgiveness that is completely unreasonable.
Why would one need forgiveness from their creator? He created us and the universe we exist in. There is nothing we do or think that is not a result of his design, so why should we ask forgiveness for doing exactly what we were designed to do?
It would be like expecting an AI I created to ask forgiveness from me for something bad it did, this is ridiculous, it's the creators fault not the creations.
The dichotomy you describe only works with a rudimentary notion of faith, which might be better referred to as belief or superstition. It goes along with the image of God as a being, when God is better understood as Being itself. A deeper understanding of faith implies trust, a trust which one might not be conscious of but necessarily underlies and sustains any genuine love. The "you" of God cannot be put in opposition to "me", since God is our true nature, the real "me".
To get a better understanding of these things, I recommend checking out "The Experience of God" by D.B. Hart or the works of C.S. Lewis.
True, He already gave, once and for all. But it's still "please give me" - please impute to me Christ's righteousness that I in no way deserve, that is received by faith.
Perhaps faith is a type of choice and in either case difficult.
1. We see often where people deny an objective choice. Even those choices that are predominately 'good' and instead choose those that are predominately 'destructive'.
2. A choice to accept forgiveness is exceedingly difficult as the first step is to accept limits of your own power. That is to say, you must accept another's greater ability to forgive than your own.
In either case, regardless of the objective nature of the 'choice' they remain difficult for humans to make.
> On the "agree" side, I saw a quote somewhere that said, "that's why it's called 'faith' instead of 'reading comprehension'." If it were that cut and dried, then it would just be a matter of objectively evaluating the evidence, without even any "probably".
"I don't comprehend what's going on and can hardly read, therefore my views about an invisible sky, man which cannot be proven in any way, are valid"
In a less mocking way of putting it, couldn't it be stated as:
"I don't understand the world, and it sometimes seems unfair, so I find comfort in trusting there's some all seeing power who has a plan. I don't understand the plan because I'm flawed, but I trust the plan exists. In the end, I trust this powerful being will reward the just and punish the unjust (or redeem them by showing them the evil of their ways)".
As an atheist, I don't subscribe to this worldview at all, but I can see how it could comfort people. It's a way to explain the unexplainable, and to face the uncertainty of death, illness and tragedy.
I kind of see both sides of that.
On the "agree" side, I saw a quote somewhere that said, "that's why it's called 'faith' instead of 'reading comprehension'." If it were that cut and dried, then it would just be a matter of objectively evaluating the evidence, without even any "probably".
On the "disagree" side, the point of faith isn't really the existence of God. Yes, that's the starting point. But much further than that, the point is that we need God's forgiveness - a forgiveness that is completely unreasonable. Faith is "you have, I need, please give" (contrast with love, which is "I have, you need, I give"). The difference between those two postures is why it is faith, rather than love, that is the fundamental bottom line in dealing with God. Knowledge - even certainty - that God exists doesn't remove the need for a faith that goes beyond mere knowledge.