Comment by rhelz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhelz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That definition actually comes from the epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter 11. It’s a way, way less poetic way of saying “Faith is evidence of things not seen, and the essence of things hopes for.”

And then the chapter goes on to give examples of people who had faith—none of which did what they did or believed the way they do because of anything describable as what would count as evidence in science, or a court of law.

This is not to say that the faithful are irrational or even that they are wrong. The faithful have good reasons to believe as they do, but those reasons are not confirmed by evidence.

Why is this so important? Well, what do you do when all the evidence says you are doomed to fail? Or that there is no way out? Do you give up? Or does your hope, as Hebrews says, consist of things not seen?

If the faithful insist that their faith is confirmed like any other belief is confirmed, they will miss the whole point of faith, and when the time comes that they need that kind of faith, they find they don’t have it.

> none of which did what they did or believed the way they do because of anything describable as what would count as evidence in science, or a court of law.

Abraham is in that list, and is elsewhere described as the paragon of faith. Yet in Genesis 18/19 Abraham is said to have met and talked with God, and discussed the destruction of Sodom, which Abraham then witnessed immediately. Abraham's faith was not a belief in a God he had never seen.

Likewise Cain, Abel and Noah are in the Hebrews 11 list but Genesis says they spoke with God before they exercised their faith.

In Hebrews 11 the "things unseen" are elaborated as the creation of the universe and the future fulfillment of God's promises (almost entirely the latter). They're unseen not because there is no evidence for them, but simply because the faithful people did not live to see them fulfilled.

"Faith is belief without evidence" is a trope widely believed by Christians and atheists, but that's not the faith being promoted in Hebrews.

Disclosure: I'm a former Christian, now an atheist.

It's true that the people discussed in Hebrews 11 were said to have met and spoken with God. But, unless I'm missing something, the chapter still seems to say that present-day believers must have faith in a God they've never seen; verse 6 says that anyone who comes to God must believe that he exists, which to me implies that they haven't met him as the early believers did. So this still seems to require some kind of leap of faith, beyond the evidence available to us today. I'll leave it at that, since we clearly disagree.

Disclosure: I'm a former agnostic, now Christian.

A person could have a well-founded belief in God without seeing him as Abraham did. What if someone in the early church had seen apostolic miracles and talked to an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus? Would it still be a "leap of faith" for them to believe in God and his promises? I would say not. So I don't think verse 6 "requires some kind of leap of faith" in the sense you're using it.

I think such a person would still need faith, per verse 6, to put their justified belief into action in critical moments, e.g. at a moment when they're facing persecution for following Jesus.

Now, how much of a "leap of faith" is required given the evidence really available to believers then and now... that's the big question about which we presumably disagree.

Yes, I don't think there's any real evidence. I'm curious about what persuaded you to become a Christian.

> What if someone in the early church had seen apostolic miracles and talked to an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus?

If you saw somebody walking around healing people, and he claimed that all known religions were false, and you should start worshiping this new god, would you do it?

Or would you just think this has to be some kind of magic trick/scam?

> Abraham is in that list,

Yes, and one of the things Abraham did was take his kid out for a human sacrifice--because he saw god in a dream.

Its one thing if you and I were talking with God, while a bunch of guys in lab coats were doing experiments trying to verify whether it was God or just some kind of magic trick.

But there's no sense of the word "evidence" in which a dream is evidence that God wants you to kill your kids.

> things unseen

i.e. things we do not gain knowledge about through our sensory organs, i.e. not empirical evidence. Hebrews is rather poetic, at least in my favorite English translations, but I don't think it could be any clearer that faith doesn't come from sensory experience in the way empirical evidence does.

> but that's not the faith being promoted in Hebrews.

People wonder why I care so much about what Hebrews says about faith, given that I'm an atheist. The reason is this: if you think faith is the same thing as evidence, then sooner or later, when you really need a good reason to ignore all the evidence which makes you feel like you are doomed, you will need the kind of faith which gives you things to hope for, even though the answers are as yet unseen. When (not if, this eventually happens to everybody) that happens, I hope you find you have the right kind of faith too see you through.

I think there's a big big stretch between "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." and "faith is belief absent evidence", and lots of room for different opinions in there.

I think one of the reasons there are so many opinions is because people give different meanings to the words “faith” and “evidence.”

Here is the difference for me: A teacher has two students, and she firmly believes they both can succeed in her class, and in life.

1. The first student has a history of getting good grades, has engaged parents, secure home, etc. The teacher takes this as EVIDENCE that the student will succeed.

2. The second student has always gotten very bad grades. He gets in trouble a lot. His parents are disengaged and have trouble keeping food on the table. Nevertheless, the teacher has an unshakable belief that this student can succeed. In complete contradiction to every piece of objective evidence. Because she has FAITH in the kid.

There is a huge difference between those two ways of coming to a belief. This difference should not just be glossed over. Both kinds of ways of coming to believe are essential to human existence.

Sometimes, the apropos thing to do is throw out all the evidence. Sometimes the most rational thing to do is have the courage to keep going by faith.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com