The Misunderstanding about 'Faith' | John Lennox
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2022
- John Lennox explains how the rise of AI and transhumanism has forced us to make big decisions about morality and our beliefs. Lennox also discusses 'faith' and why it's generally thought to be belief without proof or evidence. Lennox argues against this notion, asserting that a faith in God is a trust based on evidence.
Watch the full episode here: • AI, Man & God | Prof. ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversations feature John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, interviewing the world's foremost thought leaders about today's pressing social, cultural and political issues.
John believes proper, robust dialogue is necessary if we are to maintain our social strength and cohesion. As he puts it; "You cannot get good public policy out of a bad public debate."
If you value this discussion and want to see more like it, make sure you subscribe to the channel here: / @johnandersonmedia
And stay right up to date with all the conversations by subscribing to the newsletter here: johnanderson.net.au/contact/
Follow John on Twitter: / johnandersonac
Follow John on Facebook: / johnandersonac
Support the channel: johnanderson.net.au/support/
Website: johnanderson.net.au/
Podcast: johnanderson.net.au/podcasts/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As John said " on facing moral reality " ....it seems that very few are willing.
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
Hebrews 10:31.
Thank you both for your tenacious courage and integrity.
The line of reasoning is clear and brilliant. One wanting to understand has a clear line of reasoning for it; one wanting to reject will find infinite reasons to reject and scorn.
Oh yes!
I listen to John Lennox every week. He is such an intellectual and a man of great faith. The perfect person to give a lecture on faith. If he reads comments…Dr. Lennox…it is interesting that Moses was fearful at first, not wanting to go to Egypt because he didn’t think he was capable. But then God gave him assurance… and then Moses set off for Egypt. It is interesting that the story mentions fear… fear then faith ignited action. Was the story indicating even people with faith have fear? A huge human problem! ♥️✝️
"I have *faith* in the healing power of cheese cake."
Stated by one of the dames on the 'Golden Girls.'
Faith and religion are two entirely different things. One needs to know the difference.
Love and blessings to u from Canada! U r too articulate for many people!
Very able language very functional very practical. Simply know your audience.
Beautifully put. Amen
Wonderful, thank you.
Amen thank you Lord amen
Faith, hope and love, according to what the apostle Paul was inspired to write (1Corinthians 13:13), are meant to last forever. So, they're pivotal for life, even our "finite" earthly lives. The problem is, as dr. Lennox highlighted, that our modern understanding of these terms is corrupted. I don't need to define the word "faith", since it's been masterfully explained so many times by this brilliant scholar. Rather, I wish to point out what the other two words mean for the vast majority of people today.
Hope expresses someone's desires, or expectations, but without certainty whatsoever. Not so, in the writings of the New Testament.
Love - today - has very little to do with what is conveyed by God through the Bible. To say "I love you" to someone is not necessarily equivalent to that kind of love.
But... we love because, in a sense, we cannot live without loving. And we express hope as the only alternative to despair. In the same way, we have faith. We all have faith in something, because we're made with those three features. It's up to us to learn how to live them out as they're intended for us by the Creator.
May we all never doubt the true Yeshua who's grace is always sufficient for each of us, though all we may see is our own failure, it is then when we most need to know Him as truth, not in fear of judgement, rather love that chooses reconciliation. Herein is the true faith, that we can know we have been forgiven even when we know what we are. It is His love that keeps us and will keep His promise to transform us. Until then walk in the faith of truth of His cleansing, not our filth, for it is precisely when we most clearly see our sinfulness that we can most fully know His faithful graceful loving forgiveness that is so undeserved.
NEED MORE ACTION. GOT EVIDENCE. NEED MORE ACTIVE FAITH. OLD ANSWERS LEAD TO WAR.
Beloved remember it will be hard to show off to God without our neighbors beloved. Attributes of Yeshua Jesus Christ. Made known unto the sons of men. And why neighbors given unto the Son of men? What is contributing? Either best interest for my neighbors. Some have different definitions of my neighbors. Even the most innocents young sons and daughters unborn nor born. Clumps of cells. Beloved if these same minds can do that to these innocents. What do you think these same people can do unto you? Are you more precious than a baby. Different minds can careless. Thy true WORTH. REMEMBER ALL OF YOU ARE WORTH MORE THAN ANYTHING NOR EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS!
Lots of atheists loitering in the comments section.
Loitering is a loaded word. Whether or not one is a god-believer (there are many varieties), unsubstantiated claims need to be challenged.
Praying for their blinders to fall off!
The faith I have in science is justified by its testability, demonstrability and predictability. My faith that god exist is unjustified for the opposite reasons, plus the main one, it being unfalsifiable. Now its possible to have faith in science or god or both, but the difference in one being justified and not the other is EVIDENCE.
I have faith that religion will continue to do over humanity!
Lennox states, categorically, 'There was a resurrection'. I retort that there were certainly rumours of a resurrection, at first not widely believed; but these rumours caught on, slowly at first, and were in time more widely disseminated and accepted (when they were) on the basis of the enthusiasm of the believers (like Paul), based on their own psychological experiences (Pentecost, Damascus Road) rather than on any alleged events in Jerusalem months, years or even several decades earlier.
Obviously you have faith in your own mythology, but the narrative you post is not consistent with the available evidence.
@@peterwebb8732 Perhaps you could point out my inconsistencies. There are various accounts of sightings of the risen Christ, but even those which got into the canonical literature are full of their own internal inconsistencies.
It is widely accepted that the resurrection accounts were being circulated within a few years if not months of the event. The seemingly random attribution of names in the gospels at various events attests to the importance that the gospel writers gave to eye witnesses. Why? Because no one expected the kinds of things to happen which were happening, and very influential people were not happy about it. The environment was hostile in the extreme, legal and political power was brought to bear against the narratives, but it prevailed.
@@saltburner2
The available evidence comes from a level of contemporary documentation that is incredibly rare in ancient history. We have more contemporary or near-contemporary accounts of those events than we have of - for example, the conquest of Gaul by Julius Ceasar, or the rebellion of the Iceni under Boudicca against the Romans.
First, we have four independent accounts written by either eyewitnesses or those who were known to have close access to eyewitnesses. What you claim as “inconsistencies” are simply the normal variation in accounts that occur with multiple witnesses. They view things from different angles, are impressed with different aspects and decide that different things are worth recording in written memoirs. None of those variations are contradictory. None of them look like a conspiracy to write supporting documents for a fictional narrative.
Secondly, those writings are obviously not written to glorify the authors or sources. There are times when the Apostles look timid, cowardly and faithless. Not what you would write if you were making up a grand narrative.
Thirdly, the recorded reactions of both those reporting the Resurrection, and those seeking to suppress it.
The witnesses underwent a dramatic change in behaviour, from hiding in terror to being prepared to die to maintain its truthfulness.... and did so in a matter of days, not “years”. Many of them did.
The authorities could have easily quashed mere “rumours” by producing the body. That they didn’t, argues that they couldn’t. The tomb itself was guarded by specialist Roman guards, whose normal work was guarding Roman officials and their property. The penalty for falling asleep on duty or similar dereliction of duty was execution....
Fourthly, there is zero sign of any kind of veneration of a burial site, as would have been natural and expected had the body of Jesus really been secretly reburied.
Like it or mot, that *is* the available historical evidence.
A I is not a problem... untill it can fix a mistake it has made ..
In almost every discussion I have had with theists of any age going back before CZcams the theist would revert to the "Well you just have to have faith" argument when they have run out of what they call proofs for the existence of a god... Going by your Argument of faith it is the theists who got it wrong first and still do. Yet again john Lennox deliberately misleads his audience or is it lying.
‘Faith’ means trust, confidence, assurance, and belief” (p. 1315). The Bible also defines Pistis in Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
A bank manager having faith in you and your ability to repay a loan can be based on physical evidence. There is yet , no convincing evidence for your god or any god or gods. billions of theists believe in a god that none of them has been able to prove exists. I think it can be easily accepted that faith in an everyday secular world such as A bank loan order a plane will fly, has a different meaning to the word faith when used in a religious context. Trying to conflate the two is just a method to remove a sensible argument that an Atheist would put to a theist in a discussion about the existence of God.
The Hebrews passage points out that people are looking forward to what they cannot see. That is certainly true, but it is not an exhaustive definition. The same passage goes on to illustrate that their faith had justification and that it was rational. Faith being blind is only true in a cultural environment that passes it on without examination. That was not the environment in the NT days, and arguably is not the environment in today's West.
Further, I see atheists routinely wriggling out of the way of the evidence presented to them. This is willed blindness.
Lennox is spot on, although he does not use the Greek word from the NT, probably because it hasn't been carried forward into English words.
@@davidhawley1132 What was it that they couldn't see that gave justification to their faith And made it rational? To me, this is a nonsensical statement. Surely if the Hebrews and could see what was coming they wouldn't need faith.
@@scatton61 I suggest you read the entire chapter. But if you insist on basing your thesis on one sentence without context, you might consider that everybody looks forward to things they can't see because they haven't happened yet. By definition.
@@davidhawley1132 And some things that people look forward and do happen are the based in the real world and can be described by the witness and refrequencey of it happening or the scientific method. Others are things that people look forward to which have not been proven to happen require faith...
@@scatton61 There are lots of things that haven't happen yet to which people look forward, even things that are very unlikely e.g a vaccine that will get rid of COVID, general AI, the Inflection Point. So now it's down to evidence isn't it, and your facile reading of that 1 verse in Hebrews is void, as a cursory reading of the rest of that chapter would have told you.
But no, forget the core of the scientific principle, which is based on the contingent nature of creation, which IS TO LOOK TO UNDERSTAND, and instead just speculate based on a polemical formulation of 'faith'.
And I'm done here.
Ephesians 6:12
It is beyond my comprehension how 2 intelligent people can be talking about nonsense and actually claiming to know what they can not know.
Then obviously your comprehension is sadly lacking
@@lindaharper2870 I tend to speak pn evidence. Go and watch the debate between Lennox and Professor Dawkins. He loses in the voting of the audience in the end.
Is that the same Lennox who lost to Professor Dawkins in every debate?
Faith: To believe something without evidence. Often despite the evidence. Not a virtue.
Incorrect.
You book a flight on a jet aircraft, not knowing that it will get you there safely, because it is in the future.
You have a reasonable expectation that it will, because so many such flights have been successful in the past.
But you do not KNOW, until after the event.
Faith is that reasonable expectation, not telling yourself lies.
Unless you are claiming that you are omniscient, you cannot know everything that others know, therefore your claim that Christians have no evidence - no reasons for their belief - is based on faith, and you condemn yourself.
@@peterwebb8732 Two definitions of faith. One is reasonable: "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something." I might add, based on impiricle evidence and past experience. I have a reasonable assumptoin that my plane will arrive savely or at least get to the ground safely based on over 100 years of statistical evidence. But in this case, you are conflating the first with the second definition. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. This is an unreasonable assumption based on zero evidence, often despite the evidence. You belive that say, Christianity is true. Christianity stands atop Judaism and if the former is true then the second can not be true. If the former is not true then Christianity also can not be true. Bit of a pickle that. The earth is not flat, Fact. The earth is not c.6000 years old. Fact. Shall we leave it there? A single Male and Female can not creat a vable population due the well known insest issues (the Habsburg jaw).
@@peterwebb8732 I claim no foreknowledge, I am not all knowing. I just know that air travel (in a comercial airliner) is the safest mode of travel known to man. I also know that they crash. I don't have to have a detailed knowledge of the statistics to know that it is highly unlikely that I will be on a comercial airliner that will crash while knowing some do. This is a reasonalbe expectation. You perhaps, on the other hand believe that your religion is true. Not just that your religion but your sect of that religion is the correct one. You were probably just remarkably lucky that you were born into the one true faith in the one true sect of that faith. Given the number of religions and the plethora of sects within those religions, is it not entirely reasonable to expect, that I will land safely and that you are in a false sect, quite possibly if not probably, of a false religion.
@@peterwebb8732 I do not know, but I believe on balance that Mark was a work of fiction. A very good reimagining of the Odyssey based on Old Testament prophecies. It has numerous parallels and elusions to this work. All other books, Mathew, Mark, Luke are heavily derived from Mark (with the possible exception of the Q source which I have never been quite able to get my head around but cleverer more knowledgeable people than me say that there is a Mark and a Q source. We do know for a fact that Mathew couldn't read Hebrew as he copies prophecy as though reporting Jesus doing something only it is a known mistranslation in the Greek Septuagint. How could this be if Matthew was reporting events he claims to have seen with his own eyes rather than just cribbing from the Old Testament. Riding a Donkey and a Colt like a circus rider perhaps. One foot on the back of each. All the smart kids in the class snigger. Paul doesn't seem to have ever heard of an Earthly Jesus. I do not have the burden of proof in this matter but the New Testament and the gospels pretty much disprove themselves. Because I am rational, I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few untrue things as possible. If I can be shown to be wrong, with evidence, real evidence. Not anonymous authors of texts with additions and interpolations over the centuries. I will be grateful for your correction. Your testimony isn't going to cut it.
@@peterwebb8732 Correction. I don't have faith that my plane will safely get to the ground. I have a reasonable assumption that it will. I would not think to use the word faith and I don't think I do use the word faith outside of discussion on religion. As best as I can manage I believe things based on facts and when I receive additional fact or what I thought were facts are corrected, I struggle to ensure that my world view changes appropriately. My belief can encompass the sure knowledge that some planes do crash. When I say I believe that my plane will land safely I do not say that I believe it is impossible that it may not. There is very little in life of which I am 100% certain. I am certain that the Old Testament describes a flat Earth. A world existing in what might best be described as similar to a snow globe. It isn't. Judaism and all religions derived thereof are false. I am near certain but not to the degree I would deny it was true if it was proven to me that it turns out I do live in a giant snow globe after all.
I thought this was going to be an intelligent discussion about the nature of faith in a religious context. Instead it was tedious proselytising.
Oh, for heaven's sake. This is wordplay gobbledygook. Spoken by someone who expects to be deferred to, and hasn't been challenged much because - what's the point of arguing with him? Thank God I'm an atheist.
@@david4peace The word 'God/god' has different meanings, depending on who is using it.
I've never met anyone who considered Darwin's Origin a 'holy' book - but it is a seminal work in the understanding of evolution. It moved the whole field of human understanding on in ways nothing before it and little since have done.
Lennox does debates (this isn't one of them). Thank the universe you don't do them.