Comment of the Week Christian Conflicts over Faith and Proof

If you've ever debated a Christians, it's a certainty that they've tried to defend the value or even necessity of having faith. It's also a certainty that they've tried to offer proof and evidence to support their religious beliefs.

Finally, it's a certainty that they didn't for a second recognize the conflict between these two approaches.

OZ Atheist writes:

It seems to me that Christians are in a state of internal conflict, extolling the virtue of having faith without proof on the one hand, and yet trying to find proofs to support their beliefs.

The Bible gives mixed messages on this subject as it does with so many others. According to the gospel of John 20:29, Jesus was quite accepting of the skeptical doubting Thomas - who wanted proof - and at the same time praising those who would believe without this reinforcement.

Modern day Christians are hungry for miracles to prop up their faith. They find bleeding statues, buns that look like Mother Teresa, visions of the Virgin Mary by gazing at the Sun, the likeness of Jesus on a piece of toast, and a multitude of other supposedly miraculous phenomena.

They hold all this baloney up as evidence of the existence of their god, and in the same breath extoll the virtue of believing on faith alone.

[original post]

Part of the problem for Christians is the development of modern science. People today have come to expect at least a pretense of rigor when it comes to evidence and proof. But this conflict has always existed in Christianity -- before science, theologians worked hard to provide logical proofs for their beliefs while also extolling the value of faith.

I really do wonder why Christians never notice the conflict between these two positions. If faith is so virtuous and sufficient, then proof -- logical or empirical -- is irrelevant. It may exist, but why worry about it? On the other hand, if proof exists, then what's the point of faith? Why talk about it?

Either way you approach it, if you have one then not only do you not need the other but it's implausible that you'd even bother to think about the other.