If I am expected to believe based on faith alone I first want to know why this is such a superior methodology.
First off, this is a really great topic. Haven't seen a good one for a while :P
When talking about faith, we need to explicate and limit the discussion. Since the quote you gave in the OP talks about Jesus, it makes sense to limit the discussion to a traditional Christian conception of faith.
That being said, we need to define faith - or at least explicate it in terms that are palatable to Christian theologians.
The problem with the conversation I've seen so far is that it doesn't follow the traditional Christian concept of faith, which has both a non-cognitive and cognitive component.
The non-cognitive component generally involves something like love or trust. Martin Luther, for example, thought it was trust in God's perfection and love for humanity. Leibniz, a Lutheran who was more Catholic in his theology, though this component was love. The non-cognitive component is typically manifested in the works of the faithful - helping others, loving God, etc. This is the "important" part of faith - the part that is necessary for true salvation. It is said that even the devils in hell believe in God, but because they lack the non-cognitive component of faith, they cannot be saved.
Many of the attacks I've seen on this thread against faith are leveled against this non-cognitive component. But the cognitive component is just as important. It is a necessary condition for the trust and love in God to manifest itself.
The cognitive component is going to come down to justification for the belief in God. Now, many theologians say that God's existence is a given and trying to argue for His existence is silly. They say that His existence is so apparent that those who don't recognize it are lacking some sort of cognitive faculty. Calvinist, for example, believe is something called a divine sense (or something like that). The idea is that this is an epistemic faculty, like sight or hearing, that allows the perceiver to recognize God's existence. Those who don't believe lack this faculty and, thus, are considered to have some cognitive deficit.
But many other theologians claim that our beliefs must be justified. There are certain truths, such as the divine mysteries (e.g. the mystery of the Holy Trinity) that are beyond human reason. But that's not to say that they are contrary to reason.
Leibniz and Luther would both say that our religious beliefs must conform to reason. In other words, they cannot generate logical contradictions. These beliefs must also be compatible with our empirical evidence and knowledge.
The issue is incredibly complex, and I'm afraid I just don't have the time to lay out the details here. Also the fact that I'm an atheist makes it doubly hard to fairly represent these views. But I thought laying out some basic claims on the cognitive component of faith may help carry the discussion in a more principled manner. So here goes:
- Religious belief cannot be contrary to reason, although some beliefs are above human reasoning capability.
- The cognitive component of faith has as its object the truth, and is directly connected to the volitional (non-cognitive) component of faith by what actions support these beliefs.
- Religious belief conforms with, and is supported by, empirical evidence.
- Using the Bible as a means of justification for religious belief is not circular.
- Belief in God is typically seen as foundational, or self-evident. It is also seen as a necessary truth (true in all possible worlds).
Do with these notions what you will. Just thought I'd try to provide some background for traditional Christian epistemology.
