Christianity

Dr Richard, talking of bridges and faith, I imagine you use foot or vehicle bridges fairly frequently, like the rest of us. If so, how would you characterise your assurance and confidence in each bridge you use that it will not collapse whilst you are using it. I would venture you exhibit belief, faith, trust. But what is your characterisation?

I'm sorry, but I don't am not clearly following what you are asking. I hate to be obtuse, but could you make it just a bit more clear so I don't have to guess what you are saying? Thanks. 

How about this: think of a footbridge or road bridge you go over: what words would you use to describe your assurance about things you can't see in it, and your confident hope that it won't collapse as you go over it, if not "faith", "belief" or "trust"?

I don't presume to know Dr Richard's answer but I would use my previously safe passage across bridges to be evidence for probable future safety. 

There is a difference between being certain of something and it being reasonable to believe it.

'Faith' (in the way I understand Dr Richard to be using it) is only necessary when there is a paucity of evidence.

Defining faith as: believing in, and hoping for, something you can't see...  We all have faith. It's not whether we have faith, but what we have faith in. Evidence for this abounds; for example numbers of people killed or injured in unexpected bridge collapses. They believed in, and hoped for, the structural integrity of the bridge they were crossing; but sadly their faith (as defined) turned out to be misplaced.

I think you and Dr Richard are using 'faith' in different ways. You define it as a belief and hope for something even though you can't see it and he appears to be definitely it as something that takes the place of sufficient evidence for a belief.

Without a single definition the conversation is meaningless.

Good point thank you... Please see my reply today to Mr Richard (and his latest reply)

Interestingly, I crossed several footbridges and road bridges in Lapland a couple of weeks ago. On one footbridge that did not appear structurally sound, we crossed the river one by one and held onto a safety rope as we crossed. My confidence in the security of the bridge was low. We did not exercise such caution on the highway bridges because traffic ahead of us did not cause the bridge to shake, and my confidence level was high. 

However, how this pertains to the subject at hand is still beyond my understanding. 

Love the examples! My original comment was a response to the second paragraph in your answer. Defining faith as assurance in, and hope for, things we can't see... We all have faith in various ways.

I did not define faith. So, I will here: In the context of a philosophical discussion, the definition of faith is a belief held without evidence to support the belief.

Thank you for the definition. The others have deduced the same thing: our definitions are different. No-one has criticised either, they've merely stated they're different.

Since this discussion is under a question about Christianity, and Christians are in the spotlight (at least to some extent), let's use their definition.

The Bible is the standard Christian textbook and it contains the standard Christian definition written in a sermon for early Christians. It's this: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (See here)

This definition isn't religious. It doesn't mention God, Christ, Christians, or spiritual matters such as worship, etc.

My points are that first, under this Bible definition, the question isn't whether we have faith, but what we put our faith in. And second the definition doesn't put reason and faith in opposition to each other. On this definition, there is such a thing as reasonable faith.

All of which is my way of saying the real issue is evidence, not "faith". And on the evidence, my answer to the original question is, Yes!

I do not accept the definition of faith you offer: “faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” 

What do you propose as a name for the concept, “a belief held without evidence to support the belief.”

I think part of the issue is that the meaning of the word "faith" can be pretty muddy.

If you talk to a typical devout religious person, they'd likely consider faith to be a virtue. They'd say that a person with strong faith could believe in God, even if there was a total lack of evidence.

If I come across a road bridge, simply based on my knowledge of how society is structured, I could tell you that there are standards in place on how these bridges are designed, built, and maintained. If it was a random foot bridge in the wilderness, you can at least assume that the person who built it intended for it to withstand foot traffic. Having a general idea of the strength of wood and structures, you can visually assess it and see how sturdy it looks. In either of these cases, it's not 100% certain that the bridge won't collapse under you, so it does take some amount of faith in other people and the validity of your assumptions, but you're still doing some amount of internal calculus to reach a conclusion based on available information.

Thank you... Please see my reply today to Mr Richard (and his latest reply)

Dear "AI Fallacy Master", you haven't answered the question, and you've shown ignorance about Christianity. If you want clarification on either of these two points, then please say so. Otherwise, please would you address them?

Would you be kind enough to say what they are?

Many thanks, in advance.

Your question is detached from the various threads. Are you awaiting an answer, still?

I was hoping you would identify which arguments "don’t rely on some fallacious reasoning as to why Christianity could be considered the “correct” religion as opposed to others in the world?" 

[To Trevor Folley]

Do we need more than one such?  Your own looks OK.

I hoping to expand my understanding but fair enough

OK, here's my effort, with the same start point as yours.

P1: God is infallible

P2: Jesus is God incarnate

Therefore P3: Jesus is infallible

P4: Jesus said, "No one comes to [God] the Father except through me."

Therefore P5: The only way to God is through Jesus

P6 "Through Jesus" means by trusting Jesus

Therefore P7: The only way to God is by trusting Jesus

P8: What "Trusting Jesus" means is defined in Christianity

Therefore P9: The only way to God is defined in Christianity

P10: A "correct religion" is a "way to God"

Therefore P11: The only correct religion is defined in Christianity

P12: "Is defined in" can be shortened to "is"

Therefore P13: The only correct religion is Christianity (which was to be demonstrated)

Thanks for this. I appreciate the time and thought that has clearly gone into it.

The logic looks pretty robust. There is a lot riding on P1. It would be interesting to see a logical argument that leads to the conclusion that God is infallible. Otherwise it is an argument built on an arbitrary predicate. A point of controversy in the Ontological argument.

One potential fragility is P8, "What 'Trusting Jesus' means is defined in Christianity."

'Christianity' is a vague term adopted by a variety of groups that believe a range of things. Is it possible to tighten this up by stating specifically where and how it is defined?

Thanks again for your time and effort here.

The question itself does not assume there is only one correct religion or that there is a need for a correct religion. It just asks if there is an argument to support this position that doesn't use fallacious reasoning.