I wish we could sit and talk about this over a beer.

I think as we’re breaking it down, we’re getting to some of the same things. I do understand what you mean, and I admit I am stuck on the language, but I agree with this statement:
“Unless the speaker can prove Jesus resurrected from the dead in human terms (to make a rational, scientific case that can be tested), he or she has by taking this rationale undermined the case for faith.” I agree because I’ve seen it happen. Facts edify the believer, but like I said above, the fruits of faith glorify the giver of faith, and the idea that faith is a gift from God is an unprovable statement. But I hold it as truth.

I’ve drawn more of a line between “beliefs” and “faith”. Collins has blurred the line, and I accept that. To illustrate my thinking, I “believe” the resurrection happened as reported. I have “faith” that it will happen again as promised. I’m probably picking nits at this point.

Like I said, I wish we could be face to face so you could see that I’m smiling. Peace,
-Nas

We speak of facts because of our limitations. We divide knowledge into what we can and cannot prove. Facts are in the former category. Just because something is not factual doesn’t mean it’s not true; it’s something we can’t prove.

God doesn’t deal in facts but in reality as it is. Speaking of facts is a human language spawned from our limitations. Facts are not equal to truth.

A key point is that when I say something is a fact, then it’s perfectly fair (according to the rules of this language) for the next person to say “prove it to be factual then.” Then one of two things will usually happen: a) the intensity goes way up or way down (or some other escape route is chosen), or b) the speaker tries to prove the statement of faith (e.g., that Jesus rose rose from the dead).

The author’s point is that once we take this road, trying to prove our faith as factual in human terms, we have already conceded. Unless the speaker can prove Jesus resurrected from the dead in human terms (to make a rational, scientific case that can be tested), he or she has by taking this rationale undermined the case for faith. Sticking with the example of the resurrection, arguments advanced in “The Case for Faith” and “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” don’t cut it. They may convince people who have already taken steps of faith, who are predisposed to be convinced, but they are not proof in the factual sense.

So how do we prove what is true? How do we prove what is reality? Here’s a scriptural answer from Paul: by surrendering our whole lives to God and being genuinely transformed (paraphrasing Romans 12: 1-2).

The evidence of authentic love (not to mention justice and righteousness) is compelling. It points beyond the visible facts to the reality behind them.

I did read the actual article, because I thought I might be missing something. Ultimately, I commented the same way there as here. I grant it’s possibly a case of semantics, but to say counter-factual means opposite-of-factual, or against-facts. I think facts, taken in the standard definition of ‘a thing done’ or ‘the quality of being actual’ are integral to belief. If he doesn’t mean ‘facts’, he might use another word or definition, as other posters there suggested.

Now, thinking about “faith”, which goes deeper, is a similar but different matter. Faith that your belief in the facts will bear out is a gift that is not of ourselves. And when that faith bears itself out, the giver is glorified, not the believer.

It’s late here, and I should stop. Good reference for discussion. Certainly food for thought. Peace,
-Nas

“h/t” stands for “hat tip” which gives the other blogger credit for pointing out the link/info first.

I think if you read the post about “counter factual” beliefs, you’ll see he’s not using the term the same way.

For example, the resurrection is “counter factual” in the sense that it goes against the facts before us (people die and don’t rise again). Some people approach the resurrection by trying to prove it as a fact.

Someone once asked me if the Japanese would believe in Jesus if I proved to them, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus rose from the dead. I was at a loss for words.

Others, including myself, believe in the resurrection without having a need to prove it through some scientific or philosophical argument.

Another example, is when Jesus said “the Kingdom of God has drawn near.” Jesus demonstrated that in various ways, and we may see evidence of God’s Kingdom. But looking around at the world it’s hard to believe the Kingdom of God is that near. Believing that statement, and seeking first the Kingdom, is something I do without proof. (You might say one proof is the resurrection, and then see above.)

So I don’t think the author is denying the facts, but you can read his own words and see what you think.

Second: “In short, beliefs are not placed into danger by being exposed as counter-factual….” Well, they should be. Let’s take an example: The resurrection of Jesus. If there are facts to the contrary, empirical proof that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the Christian Faith is foolishness, and there is no hope. Paul was adamant about this, and in fact presented proof and witnesses to the resurrection, not viewing the event as a good idea to boost conversion or enhance “belief”, but as an event that happened in history and upon which the hope of a future resurrection for all believers was manifest.

Now, the idea that belief through doubt is glorious is true, but I think that manifests itself in ways that are not counter-factual, but certainly counter-intuitive. Obeying God, giving to the poor, laying your life down for the gospel…these are counter-intuitive. The doubt can come from wondering if these things will have any real effect. The glory, the beauty in belief comes when God reveals Himself faithful to uphold the promises He made. Promises like sending the Christ, sacrificing His only begotten Son, and raising Him from the dead as the ancient scriptures said. If anything, the facts should be clung to and embraced, as we have a God who is alive and relevant and vital, not just a “good idea”.

*This comes from guy who wrestles with doubt and belief all the time. Please know that I’m not upset, just trying to concisely share my thoughts on the subject. Peace,
-Nas

A belief can certainly contradict facts, but it will be belief in a lie. Truth can be absolutely absurd (as Christian truth certainly is, when judged by our standards) and we can have grave doubts about our beliefs. And it’s true that beliefs are often not placed into danger by being counterfactual, but as I said, if a belief is counterfactual (whether they are facts that can be “empirically verified” or not makes no difference) it is belief in a something false.

Isn’t it creating a “subculture” when one says that they can learn more about God from hanging with drug addicts than going to church? It’s interesting that people who often rail against “boxed in” subcultures are certainly part of some kind of subculture themselves. I assume they think their subculture is better.