Can You have Complete Faith in God and Simultaneously Believe You Could Conceivably Be Wrong?

[Sunstone]

Is it possible to have complete and total faith in God and yet simultaneously believe you could conceivably be wrong? Why or why not?

If not, is there no significant distinction between faith and belief?

If so, is there a significant distinction between faith and belief? And if so, what is it?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm about as unqualified to answer this as possible, but that's never stopped me before.

I'm going with 'No'. To have complete and total faith, you need complete and total belief. Otherwise there is always a part of you (let's call it 1%) that has to be aware you might be putting your faith in something that doesn't exist.

If the question was 'Do you think it's possible to live a faithful life (towards God), whilst still acknowledging that you might be wrong' then I'd say yes, most definitely.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm about as unqualified to answer this as possible, but that's never stopped me before.

I'm going with 'No'. To have complete and total faith, you need complete and total belief. Otherwise there is always a part of you (let's call it 1%) that has to be aware you might be putting your faith in something that doesn't exist.

If the question was 'Do you think it's possible to live a faithful life (towards God), whilst still acknowledging that you might be wrong' then I'd say yes, most definitely.

Interesting distinction! Thanks!

 

[Thrice Great]

This has always been 'my' definition of agnostic (though most will argue) that both theists and non-theists (atheists) are in the same boat in that they have accepted their faith as belief.

I am a non-theistic Luciferian, I don't believe there to be gods and devils, I have my own Belief System in place and this is what I 'believe' is the Truth. However, I have enough sense to realize I could be wrong about all my beliefs as they are non-evidenced (as all are).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This has always been 'my' definition of agnostic (though most will argue) that both theists and non-theists (atheists) are in the same boat in that they have accepted their faith as belief.

I am a non-theistic Luciferian, I don't believe there to be gods and devils, I have my own Belief System in place and this is what I 'believe' is the Truth. However, I have enough sense to realize I could be wrong about all my beliefs as they are non-evidenced (as all are).

I'd argue it. You're equating a positive statement with a negative one. Since when does a negative statement require acceptance of faith as a belief?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is it possible to have complete and total faith in God and yet simultaneously believe you could conceivably be wrong? Why or why not?

I have absolutely no idea. However, people of faith often seem capable of feats of incongruity and contradiction that I couldn't even dream of achieving.

 

[Thrice Great]

I'd argue it. You're equating a positive statement with a negative one. Since when does a negative statement require acceptance of faith as a belief?

I don't follow . . . which are the positive & negative statements?

 

[Breathe]

Is it possible to have complete and total faith in God and yet simultaneously believe you could conceivably be wrong?

I think so.

I'm one of RF's theists (surprise!) but I acknowledge that my beliefs could be wrong about Its existence.

I have the courage to accept I could be wrong, and the wisdom to change my views if so.

So far, though, so good. I prefer this side of the fence to the other, anyway. Grass is greener here.

 

[michel]

Is it possible to have complete and total faith in God and yet simultaneously believe you could conceivably be wrong? Why or why not?

If not, is there no significant distinction between faith and belief?

If so, is there a significant distinction between faith and belief? And if so, what is it?

Your question spurred me into thinking about the difference between faith and belief; I looked up a random definition on: -http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/faith-and-belief-51736.html
(which may or may not be a good definition of the two words) - but it seems to "work" for me..

Belief = The personal knowledge of truth. The undoubtable.
Faith = Willing something to be true, and acting as if it is, without evidence.

The only problem with these two answers is that it makes faith sound rather lacking, whilst (theologically), belief is something that sounds quite unattainable.

As I am going through a rather nasty stage of doubt at the moment, it isn't helpful...

 

[Sha'irullah]

As a Deist everything I know falls upon skepticism of what I do think I know. So any change in reality in relation to god is not something I would worry about.

One of the many rules of Deism is that "we know nothing"

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't follow . . . which are the positive & negative statements?

Well, you're saying the theists and atheists have both accepted their faith as belief.

A belief in God is a positive statement. There is a God.
A lack of belief in God is a negative statement. I don't believe there is evidence for God.

These aren't equal. Nor is an atheistic position held by faith. Weak atheism (at least, and strong atheism dependent on definition) is a position based on LACK of evidence.

If I said there was intelligent blue aliens on the third planet in the galaxy closest to us, would you put belief and non-belief as equal statements based on faith?

 

[Reverend Rick]

If a person cannot entertain the possibility that they could be wrong, what does that say about them?

What I enjoy is, if I am wrong, I will never know.

 

[Agnostic75]

If a person cannot entertain the possibility that they could be wrong, what does that say about them?

What I enjoy is, if I am wrong, I will never know.

But you are assuming that if the God of the Bible does not exist, no other God exists. If some other God exists, he might punish you after you die.

 

[George-ananda]

Is it possible to have complete and total faith in God and yet simultaneously believe you could conceivably be wrong? Why or why not?

If not, is there no significant distinction between faith and belief?

If so, is there a significant distinction between faith and belief? And if so, what is it?

I'd like to discuss a difference between faith and belief.

I call my position 'belief' and not 'faith'. 'Faith' without certainty sounds dangerous to me.

'Belief' is based on reason and evidence hence it can evolve as you grow.

 

[Katzpur]

Is it possible to have complete and total faith in God and yet simultaneously believe you could conceivably be wrong? Why or why not?

That's a hard question. A lot of people may dismiss it entirely, but I would say this describes me perfectly. I am convinced that there is a God. I have tried to get my brain around the concept that there was no Creator involved in my existence, but I simply cannot do it. At the same time, because I cannot prove that I am right, I have to concede that I could be wrong.

If so, is there a significant distinction between faith and belief? And if so, what is it?

I'm going to told off on answering this for the time being, while I try to find something I once read that explains what I believe to be the difference between faith and belief better than I can (off the top of my head).

 

[sojourner]

As a Deist everything I know falls upon skepticism of what I do think I know. So any change in reality in relation to god is not something I would worry about.

One of the many rules of Deism is that "we know nothing"

Sooo...
You're a Schultzist??

Rather than a Klinkist?:areyoucra

 

[sojourner]

Doubt is part of the journey of faith, as Fowler has shown. But I think you have the paradigm backwards. One cannot have utter faith in something whose existence is doubted. But one can have a lack of faith in something whose existence is totally believed.

 

[Thrice Great]

Well, you're saying the theists and atheists have both accepted their faith as belief.

Or the other way around, that they accept their Beliefs on faith instead of fact.

A belief in God is a positive statement. There is a God.
A lack of belief in God is a negative statement. I don't believe there is evidence for God.

Thank god you're not making the rules . . . statements are neither positive or negative until you assign that meaning to them.

These aren't equal. Nor is an atheistic position held by faith. Weak atheism (at least, and strong atheism dependent on definition) is a position based on LACK of evidence.

Theists have no evidence that god exists, atheists have no evidence god doesn't exist . . . they both lack evidence yet believe they are correct.

If I said there was intelligent blue aliens on the third planet in the galaxy closest to us, would you put belief and non-belief as equal statements based on faith?

Of course I would, until I visit that planet I don't believe you, I also wouldn't know if you were wrong.

Let me ask you this . . . I bet you think the world is round? How do you know? Because of pictures people have shown you? Because of what people have told you? Maybe they're lying? The fact is, until you personally go up high enough you will never know what shape this planet is.

Believe Nothing, Question Everything

 

[Kilgore Trout]

'Belief' is based on reason and evidence hence it can evolve as you grow.

Not all beliefs are. I'd go so far as to say most beliefs are not based on reason at all. Now, they may or may not be based on evidence, but that evidence is highly likely to be emotional or psychological in nature, and not fact or knowledge based. Not all evidence is created equal.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Sooo...
You're a Schultzist??

Rather than a Klinkist?:areyoucra

Schultzism has a more rational viewpoint to be honest. I claim to know nothing and I find no reason to claim such to other :yes:.

Klinkists are a bunch of arrogant idiots if ya ask me