All religious faith, after all, depends on magical thinking.
Mr. Derbyshire, with all due respect, you do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
The word translated most often in the New Testament as “faith” is the Greek word “pistis”. It is not a word of common usage; in fact, it is a word used only in making specific rhetorical arguments (outside of the NT the most notorious use of the word “pistis” comes from Aristotle. Quintiallian also used the word in rhetorical arguments.)
When used as a noun, pistis is transliterated as “forensic proof”. When used as a verb, the transliteration is “trust based on proof or prior trustworthiness”. In short, Mr. Derbyshire, Biblical “Faith” is based on evidence.
This is why such an appeal to signs and wonders – miracles, if you will – is made by the NT writers, who were either eyewitnesses to said miracles or, in the case of Luke, interviewed eyewitnesses. The Gospels were written within the lifetimes of those who, were the accounts false or delusional, could have refuted them. It is important to note that the first clear denial of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts doesn’t occur until 300 years after they had been in circulation.
As Christian apologist James Patrick Holding wrote (concerning Acts 2:22-36):
Peter’s primary appeal here was threefold: He appealed to the evidence of the wonders and signs performed by Jesus; he appealed to the empty tomb, and he appealed to fulfillment of OT prophecy. In short, his appeals were evidentiary. One of course might wish to dispute the validity of the evidence, but in context this is beside the point. The point is that Peter grounded belief in Christianity on evidence — or, as the definition of pistis in Acts 17:31 would put it, proofs. (Itallics in original.)
The fact that in the last 150+ years the definition of Biblical faith in large part due to the work of Hume and misinterpretations of Kierkegaard does nothing to change the central point that what you and other atheist/agnostic commentators, such as Harris, Dawkins, Carrier etc., define as “faith” is a straw man argument about as valid as Al Gore’s climate change tripe.
You, as a conservative, should know better. Please try to stop offering up made up drivel and patting yourself on the back for how clever you are. You are better than that, sir.
Deal with the evidence.
Sincerely,
Tom Bryant
Religious Studies major
Clemson University
