This was the original post:
Two things that require “faith” to wear
And this was my reply:
So what would be the claim for the effects of the second one then? The claim should be stated if one wants to suggest that lack of data support makes the believer a fool for believing something without reasonable evidence. The type of data support required must be congruent with the nature of the claim. So if the claim is not stated, why should I be surprised for the lack of data?
Of course believing without reasons is despicable, but the type of reasons that one should demand must be proportionate or congruous with the nature of the belief. The belief behind the wearing of a cross does not require measurements of electromagnetic fields to be validated. Expecting this kind of evidence from Christianity is epistemologically wrong, it is the application of the wrong method for the knowledge of a given object. And the method is not set by the knower, but by the object we wish to know. If I insist to know the size of an apple with a thermometer I will not get much out of it. This mistake in methodology is sometimes unintentional, sometime convenient I think. “Since there is no videotape of the resurrection, then I shall not believe”. It seems to me as an easy way out of the problem.
[By the way, if such videotape existed, I really doubt today we would have more Christians.]
If one wishes to reach a certainty about truth or falsehood or Christianity (and there is no in-between, almost an inescapable challenge – unless one is content with not caring), I am afraid one has to do a little more. The Christian belief is based on a (claimed) fact happened at a precise time and location, foretold by a tradition, and with massive historical consequences which reach us today. The claim could be briefly stated like this: Christ, son of God, became a man and told that by entering into a living relationship with him, one can bring one’s own life to fulfilment. This is the claim, and this is the claim that one should verify. No magnetic fields involved. And what is the method? It is set by the object, and the object is a fact. So did this fact really happened? If someone tells you that a fact happened, how can you verify his/her claim? You have to investigate the reliability of the testimony who delivered you the news of the fact, cross-check with other testimonies, access available historical data, both internal and independent, examine the consequences of the supposed fact, engage with the life of those who claim the fact happened to assess the nature of the testimony. It is an accumulation of evidences upon which one ultimately expresses a judgement: believing or not believing. It is hard work, sure. But if you want to reach a judgement, I am afraid it is the work to be done, there are no shortcuts. And it requires also another condition: to start with a positive hypothesis: openness to the possibility that the fact may be true. If you start with a negative only hypothesis, well, the final answer is already set from the beginning. This is true for any enquiry, of course, not only a religious enquiry.
Sorry for the length, but the social networks are flooded with suggestions that faith equals silliness, so I wanted to – hopefully – offer a view that this may not be so.
Having said this, I also laughed at the picture, of course… it was quite funny!
One may object that a joke should be taken only for what it is: a joke. Well, I would say, this is certainly a joke with more behind. So, I laugh because the joke is good actually, no problem with that, but I will not go away just with the hidden slap in the face which is intended after the joke.
One final thing: believers who are not able to accept some good irony (really not uncommon) show weakness, and do no good service to their cause.
So, I am looking forward to the next joke…