Dear Dr. Craig, in many conversations with atheists and agnostics, they insist that faith means belief without evidence.

Virtually every atheist I've known defines faith in that way. It is like an axiom in the

atheistic and infidel communities, and it is one of the main reasons why they reject religious

beliefs. When I ask them for the biblical basis of such a definition,

the overwhelming majority of atheists like to quote Hebrews 11-1. Now faith is confidence in what we

hope for and assurance about what we do not see. They put strong emphasis on the what we do not see part of that passage,

as implying or meaning without evidence. Some atheists even dare to say that apologists like

to bypass or ignore such passage in discussions about faith. It seems to me such a passage

doesn't have such a meaning or implication,

because we could have evidence for hoping for or believing with confidence in something that we

don't see. For example, that my body is composed of subatomic particles, or that an asteroid

will pass near the Earth in the year 3000, or that Aristotle was a man instead of a

woman. Current scientific and historical evidence justifies hoping for or believing with confidence

those things even if we can't currently see them. But they are still cases of confidence in what we

hope for and assurance about what we do not see, and therefore

satisfies the biblical definition of faith. Hence, this biblical definition seems compatible

with having good reasons and strong evidence for what we hope for and assurance about

what we do not see. Can you comment on the proper meaning of Hebrews 11-1

and its relation with the issue of faith and evidence? Thanks. Anna, United States.

Anna, I'm honestly surprised to learn that the attitude you describe is still prevalent among

unbelievers. I thought this old canard had gone

the way of the dodo. In our present generation, the idea of having a reasonable faith,

...