[Cal]

zeek,

In some places you are thinking I am disagreeing with you when I'm actually in agreement. In other places, you miss my point altogether.

It was exactly my point that we have to go with the probable, what would make you think I was saying the opposite?

I never said anything that would suggest faith was self-delusion. My point was that faith in some form is an absolute necessity in all aspects of our lives. "Faith" is not just something reserved for religious or spiritual attitudes. It is a necessary convention given the nature of knowledge. To start off with, we need faith just to get going with our thinking, because as I said all supposed knowledge is based on assumptions we make that we may not even realize we are making. For example, we assume our brains function well enough to take on the task of thinking. We assume what we call "reason" in some way corresponds with reality. We have no real proof of these things, but we believe them to be true, more or less. We don't just assume because we have no other real choice, we have a real faith that something approaching truth can be found. Why would we even entertain such a hope? The answer is that there is a kind of faith in us that it is possible.

So to me the term "faith" is very broad and general. I might have faith in President Obama, for example. The interesting question is: Why would I? When it comes to God and Jesus and the Bible the interesting question is not that people believe or don't believe, the interesting question is why or why not. We all take things by faith, so the question becomes not whether we have faith in things, because we all do, but why in those particular things.

Given the fact that there is a certain amount of subjectivity in how we discern reality, our character is called front and center in the decision. If whether or not God exists was something that was absolutely beyond question, then faith would not be needed and character wouldn't matter. It would just be a matter of sanity or insanity. If a group of people on the beach look up and see a tsunami coming, only the insane would continue to say they don't believe it's there. But if before it appeared at all a helicopter with "US Weather Service" painted on the side flew up and someone inside with a megaphone told everyone to clear the beach because a tsunami is coming, then the tsunami becomes a matter of faith. Do you believe the US Weather Service or not? If so, why; and if not, why not.

When it comes Christianity, the real question is whether there is something so compelling about the message that tells you that you are fool not to believe it. I can understand and appreciate the desire to know facts that might inform you about the issue. But to me people who have the motive to reject Christianity always seem to be squinting at trees to prove a forest is not there.

I said I could not imagine the character of Jesus being invented by fiction writers. You countered by saying I couldn’t imagine Hamlet either. But that missed my point. After reading about Hamlet I can easily imagine him being invented, as I can with all other fictional characters I’ve encounter in books and shows. But Jesus is a character that I cannot imagine being invented. I cannot imagine anyone creating the things he is purported to say. To me I would be a fool not to think that is significant. Because if Jesus is who Christianity says he is, how else would we know but by examining his character and his words? You tend to come back with some theoretical person who might disagree with me. But I have yet to hear such a person mount a convincing argument that Jesus was just another Joe. Nor have I heard a convincing argument that his dialogue was just invented.

I’m not presenting false dilemmas. I’ve just stated what I believe based on the evidence I’ve seen. If I say something strongly then your job is to counter with evidence that causes me to question, not simply say there are a myriad of possibilities besides mine. I realize there are other options, I just think the one I’ve chosen is what is most probable. Please tell me why it isn't, not just that someone might disagree with me. As you’ve said yourself, let’s deal with what is probable and not throw around unlikely possibilities. Let’s start again with a reasonable explanation for how the character of Jesus could have been invented. Who wrote his dialogue? A motley group of disciples who were threatened with death? Monks with too much time on their hands? Again, those seem very unlikely.