Faith...

[Balthazzar]

Faith motivates perseverance, confidence, and helps secure hope. It keeps us moving forward.

 

[idea]

Hypothesis vs. faith

Testing a Hypothesis, if the conclusion is unexpected it's a discovery.

Testing religious faith, if the conclusion does not support a loving God, it's called apostasy.

Misplaced faith is a painful thing. Best to chalk life's abuses up to the laws of nature than to an evil God who kills innocents.

 

[idea]

Faith motivates perseverance, confidence, and helps secure hope. It keeps us moving forward.

I've found kids, family move us forward... that, and knowing no one and nothing else is there to help - that it is all up to us, which is reality.

Religious people tend to just "pray" - ie - do nothing.

 

[Ella S.]

That’s not a definition of faith you’ll find in any dictionary. Having your own meaning for words must make communication with others difficult.

Beyond the fact that most dictionaries do define faith in that way, at least the ones that I've looked at, "faith" also entered English with heavy scriptural connotations. So how does scripture define faith?

Hebrews 11:1:

"And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction." (Young's Literal Translation)

And here's each verse transcribed from the original Greek if you want to do your own word-by-word analysis:
Hebrews 11:1 Greek Text Analysis

"Is now faith of [things] hoped for [the] assurance, of things [the] conviction not being seen."

Here is a collection of commentaries on this verse, which gives us the definition of faith:
Hebrews 11:1 Commentaries: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Almost every commentary, and the passage itself, equates faith as a confidence in what you hope to be true regardless of what you perceive or observe.

Under science, evidence is an observation that supports a claim. Since faith is the confidence in the truth of something regardless of observation, it is belief regardless of evidence. Which would make it an "insufficiently justified" belief under most models of justificationism that I'm familiar with, since they all tend to be evidentialist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well said, I wasn't alive for billions of years, and it caused me no distress. Death is the price of admission for this ride, and one day it will be "hello darkness my old friend", I just hope the dying part isn't too protracted or painful.

Sheldon, we have no control over that except by living a healthy life. Hoping for easy exit makes things more difficult when we encounter realities. It does not help. We have to accept it in whatever way it comes.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Beyond the fact that most dictionaries do define faith in that way, at least the ones that I've looked at, "faith" also entered English with heavy scriptural connotations. So how does scripture define faith?

Hebrews 11:1:

"And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction." (Young's Literal Translation)

And here's each verse transcribed from the original Greek if you want to do your own word-by-word analysis:
Hebrews 11:1 Greek Text Analysis

"Is now faith of [things] hoped for [the] assurance, of things [the] conviction not being seen."

Here is a collection of commentaries on this verse, which gives us the definition of faith:
Hebrews 11:1 Commentaries: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Almost every commentary, and the passage itself, equates faith as a confidence in what you hope to be true regardless of what you perceive or observe.

Under science, evidence is an observation that supports a claim. Since faith is the confidence in the truth of something regardless of observation, it is belief regardless of evidence. Which would make it an "insufficiently justified" belief under most models of justificationism that I'm familiar with, since they all tend to be evidentialist.

So you take a verse from St Paul, apply your judgement to it’s intent, then submit your interpretation of Paul’s meaning to a test intended for scientific theories in the 20th century? All in order to arrive at a partisan definition of word which is in fairly common use, because you wish to invalidate a concept? Sounds convoluted and dishonest to me.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I've found kids, family move us forward... that, and knowing no one and nothing else is there to help - that it is all up to us, which is reality.

Religious people tend to just "pray" - ie - do nothing.

But that’s not what religious people are generally encouraged to do;

James 2:17-20

 

[Balthazzar]

I've found kids, family move us forward... that, and knowing no one and nothing else is there to help - that it is all up to us, which is reality.

Religious people tend to just "pray" - ie - do nothing.

Once upon a time I viewed "religious" people in a similar way. Most just waited for a better life after death, and made little movement for world betterment while here. I found this to be untrue, but some still wait for something better after. That may be a hope actually and they may be faithing it due to life sucking so badly. Hell, lots of people give up. Drugs, alcohol, crime sprees, etc. I've noticed religious people to be activist, although some more beneficial than others. Some have no families, or are unable to see or speak to them, but yeah, family helps motivate. Faith ... it's going to get better ... keep trying, keep pressing forward. It'll get better...can't quit. That's faith.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What are the benefits of faith?

Faith is not just a religious thing. Sometimes it means just to never give up.

 

[Colt]

I think you mean ensures, and no it doesn't, that's just an unevidenced claim.

Its already been proven by Jesus of Nazareth as well as Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead. Unsure or insure, they both work.

 

[idea]

But that’s not what religious people are generally encouraged to do;

James 2:17-20

Yes, God helps those who help themselves - in other words - God doesn't help anyone, you have to do it all yourself. If you are a poor kid getting abused not strong enough? Tuff.

Have faith in yourself.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I knew what you meant because you provided your definition in the post I quoted. If you were regularly in the habit of assigning your own meaning to words, and had to include a definition every time you did so, you would struggle to write a simple paragraph.

Here's your slippery slope argument. If in a thread about faith I begin by providing a clear and concise definition of faith, soon, nobody will grymph y lexit nym. I guess you were right. It just happened.

Your argument falls apart just in its presentation. You knew what I meant because I was clear, but then you warn me about how this practice might make me unintelligible. Thanks for the concern, but rather than deflecting to how I could be a more effective communicator, about addressing the fact that you claimed that my definition was "not a definition of faith you’ll find in any dictionary" and were then shown that I paraphrased a standard definition. You also said, "Having your own meaning for words must make communication with others difficult" and were shown that both of those is incorrect.

No need. I just did it for you.

Upon what basis do you think “atheist firebrand” Pat Condell asserts that faith is “by definition unexamined”?

I assumed that he means what I'd means what I would mean if I used the same words. Unexamined here refers to the beliefs being untethered to experience and reality. The examination referred to here is critical thought, or the active evaluation of evidence and argument, which precedes all sound conclusions. This is his, my, and every critical thinker's only path to demonstrably correct ideas. He sees the faith-based thinker as skipping all of that and simply choosing to believe anyway. That's what he means by unexamined - imbibed passively and uncritically - and like me, he says he sees no virtue in such thinking.

But I suppose you can assume anything you like when words mean whatever you decide they mean.

You don't really have an argument, do you - just a sense of dissent that you can't articulate, which caused you to make a few misstatements since corrected? Can we just agree that faith is unjustified belief and move on, since you have found no fault with the definition once it was pointed out to you that it was a paraphrasing of a common definition of the word? Perhaps you can explain why unjustified belief - unexamined beliefs - has value to you. Is it because it gives you hope or comfort?

And what do you have to say to those who have told you that their needs are met without faith-based beliefs?

I'll tell you what I tell everybody at this juncture. The person praising the benefits of faith to the person who does fine without it is like the guy who sees better with corrective lenses who thinks everybody should get a pair, unaware that many people see fine without them and would actually have their vision degraded by lenses. Believing by faith would degrade my life.

But that’s not what religious people are generally encouraged to do; James 2:17-20

Scripture is irrelevant to the outsider. If one wants to know what Christianity teaches, look at what Christians are learning, not their book. The two don't correlate very well. This is a common practice in religious apologetics - deflecting to what the book says. Christians are not trained to love one another, and they don't do a very good job of it, which could be why so much of society is rising against the church these days. Christians lie, cheat, and steal with the best of them, but then point to the book. 'Look at our gentle Jesus and his words of love.' I have. That's the problem. As Gandhi noted, it looks better on paper than when rendered in life.

Faith is not just a religious thing.

Agreed. Unjustified belief is seen outside of religion as well, and is just as destructive there. If you believed that the 2020 US presidential election was rigged, you believe it by faith (unjustified belief) in the face of contradictory evidence, and if you didn't end up with legal problems because of it by arranging fake electors and getting caught, or going to prison for insurrection, then you still contributed to the demise of election confidence and hence democracy in America.

How about with vaccines? Look at how many people faith killed there, people who believed by faith (unjustified belief) that the virus was more dangerous than a vaccine that would rearrange their DNA and insert microchips into them and who are now dead or suffering longterm Covid or permanent organ damage, and left children orphaned and families broke. That's also what faith can do.

 

[Link]

What are the benefits of faith?

Signs of God are a proof. Whether affirmed by "reason" or "love vision" seeing God's "beauty", the signs of God can be more vivid and manifest, but God has kept them to a degree hidden.

The light of God if it's the Imam as I believe, of course, God can allow and permit the Imam to perform miracles outwardly at the level of day of judgment, but then what would be the point of day of judgment and what be the point of this life?

God has hid "the hour" or "the clear day" of "his signs" so that "every soul can get what it strives for".

Faith then is to see signs of God while knowing God can manifest them to a greater degree, they are still enough as a proof for him, but it takes some "power" of the soul, to overcome the sorcerers and devils, and see behind the thick veil.

That power on the day of judgment will be purely fear for disbelievers and for that reason while the signs of God's power will be in display and truth will be not doubted about him or his proofs and chosen ones, they will be veiled to God's beauty.

To see God's beauty takes eyes of love. Love can't be forced, if it's forced, it loses potency.

The Angels were created before humans, but they didn't have a heavy trial. They learned from Ahlulbayt (a) when Ahlulbayt were just unseen lights without human bodies, and thought Ahlulbayt (a) would take form of Angels or were of the Angels. When it was said the representation and authority is going to be given to a creature of earth - a human, the trial began for them. They began to argue with God. God teaching all the titles and aspects of Ahlulbayt (a) which includes all aspects and realities of the universe and all creation in it, said to Angels "give me the titles of these if you are truthful". They weren't truthful but rather were vain and being arrogant and about to perish.

Then they humbled when Adam (a) showed he united all understanding of these features and aspects and knew them vividly well and had much higher knowledge then them.

He was created by God's balance of two of his hands, one harsh one soft, one of beauty the other of tremendous awe.

He was blown God's spirit and was chosen above them.

But Iblis looked at his body, which analogously would be us being asked to submit to a bug, and this was a huge trial on all Angels, but Iblis failed it and only did he fail.

He worshipped God 6000 years before that.

He fell from grace all in a moment in arrogancy, but Angels over all, were not "tried" by something and so were not humble before that.

Now when close Angels (a) look at people of hell, they are humble and realize they could've been tried like us, and say "Glory be to you, we did not worship you as you deserved to be worshiped".

The issue is about traveling to God. The women of paradise in the next world - many verses emphasize on their purity, and so the inward beauty of them is what attracts believers, although they will be outwardly beautiful, they are part of the design of "returning to God" and the next world is about traveling to God.

If paradise was about all materialistic pleasures and houral Ayn were just about physical beauty, then, there is no need of trial. Allah (swt) could've created us all in paradise and kept us there and forced the issue.

But the fruits and pleasures and women of paradise are assigned to degrees of faith, and the faith is about love of God and traveling to God and guarding from "other then God".

Sex also will have outward dimension similar to this world, but also have inward dimensions and fusions that are about fusing the soul with inward light and carrying each other to God with our aspects together.

This is why it's not really a dishonor to women if they don't marry "many husbands" in the next world like men do many wives, because, they get more time traveling to God's and tasting his sustenance which is the highest reward and pleasure there.

The man will be fusing more, so it's not a big loss, but if you believe God is the greatest reward, he becomes more of "servant" role to his wife and houral Ayn, and loses time from highest sustenance and pleasure of the Kawthar.

 

[Nakosis]

First how do YOU define faith?
Second in consideration of the first...how many KINDS of faith might there be and which kind are you speaking of?
For instance...might there be first order faith...faith in which there is absolutely no "reason" to hold faith in a particular thing being or happening at one end of the spectrum, and second order faith...faith in which one has reason to have faith given independent evidence with degrees approaching absolute proof of belief?

How, I defined faith,
Faith for 3/4th of my life was the belief that someone was watching out for me. The benefit was that I felt no fear, no regrets stepping into life. I thought that pain and obstacles were lessons put there for me to overcome and learn to be a better person.

Seems naive to me now. Why should God/ the universe give a damn about me? So many good people have so many terrible things happen to them. Maybe it is just ego that feeds a need to feel special.

Funny thing is though it works. As long as you survive whatever happens, you can continue to believe life has a plan for you. It works until it doesn't.

 

[Trailblazer]

What are the benefits of faith?

Hope for what is unseen.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Agreed. Unjustified belief is seen outside of religion as well, and is just as destructive there.

You're right but you missed my point.

 

[Ella S.]

So you take a verse from St Paul, apply your judgement to it’s intent, then submit your interpretation of Paul’s meaning to a test intended for scientific theories in the 20th century? All in order to arrive at a partisan definition of word which is in fairly common use, because you wish to invalidate a concept? Sounds convoluted and dishonest to me.

Not my definition; the definitions of exegesis. It's not a partisan definition. It's the scriptural definition, no matter how much you want to pretend that it isn't.

Unfortunately, you've been listening to too many apologists, who constantly shift the goal-posts and redefine everything they believed decades ago only to pretend that the new status quo is the way their religion has always been. That makes you the one using a modern partisan definition of the word.

It's not motivated reasoning on my part. I don't care what the scriptural definition of faith is. I care about what's true. And now that you know better, you're lying to my face in spite of overwhelming contradictory evidence that you're wrong.

What a waste of time debating is!

 

[Trailblazer]

What a waste of time debating is!

Yeah, it is usually a waste of time to debate.
That's why I prefer discussions to debates.
I only post threads in General Religious Debates because nobody seems to like discussions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I care about what's true. [...] What a waste of time debating is!

Only if you think that your purpose it to communicate and share information with the apologist.

You might agree that the apologist brings a different agenda to the table. Yours is humanist. You care about what is true, and you rely on the only method that can decide such matters we have - empiricism and critical thought. The apologist is there to proselytize. He brings different values to the enterprise. What's true doesn't matter, just what might make the religion seem more palatable, what might get one more soul into heaven. Is it a sin to tell such a lie? Let's ask the father of Protestantism, Martin Luther: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

Also called lying for Jesus and pious fraud, "Pious fraud is a term applied to describe fraudulent practices used to advance a religious cause or belief. This type of fraud may, by religious apologists, be explained as a case of the ends justify the means, in that if people are saved from eternal damnation, then it's perfectly fine to tell a few fibs and perform some magic tricks."

So, yes, it is a waste of time bringing these two approaches together if your purpose is to make an impact on the apologist or to learn anything from him other than how he thinks. There needs to be another reason to have the discussion. Fortunately, there are a few. Your comment was helpful to me. I think I may have learned the term motivated reasoning from you. It was new to me about two months ago when I believe it was you who used the term. I looked it up and discovered it's what I've been calling tendentious argumentation or rationalization, and it characterizes apologetics. I've used the phrase three or four times myself since. So thanks.

Debates because nobody seems to like discussions.

I don't what makes a discussion into a debate by RF standards. Disagreement? Making arguments? I'm sure that I break that rule continually. Can one disagree in a discussion thread?

 

[Ella S.]

Only if you think that your purpose it to communicate and share information with the apologist.

You might agree that the apologist brings a different agenda to the table. Yours is humanist. You care about what is true, and you rely on the only method that can decide such matters we have - empiricism and critical thought. The apologist is there to proselytize. He brings different values to the enterprise. What's true doesn't matter, just what might make the religion seem more palatable, what might get one more soul into heaven. Is it a sin to tell such a lie? Let's ask the father of Protestantism, Martin Luther: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

Also called lying for Jesus and pious fraud, "Pious fraud is a term applied to describe fraudulent practices used to advance a religious cause or belief. This type of fraud may, by religious apologists, be explained as a case of the ends justify the means, in that if people are saved from eternal damnation, then it's perfectly fine to tell a few fibs and perform some magic tricks."

So, yes, it is a waste of time bringing these two approaches together if your purpose is to make an impact on the apologist or to learn anything from him other than how he thinks. There needs to be another reason to have the discussion. Fortunately, there are a few. Your comment was helpful to me. I think I may have learned the term motivated reasoning from you. It was new to me about two months ago when I believe it was you who used the term. I looked it up and discovered it's what I've been calling tendentious argumentation or rationalization, and it characterizes apologetics. I've used the phrase three or four times myself since. So thanks.

I appreciate the sage insight. I suppose a part of me is still looking for the kind of believer that I was, who was merely misinformed and didn't know how mislead she was, easily persuaded with good evidence to the contrary.

I like to try to imagine that many believers are the same way, but I'm slowly realizing that most people who are that way are going to end up atheists eventually, anyway, through their own research. In truth, most of the major steps I've made towards truth have been through my own private research, so maybe it is that I've a wrong-headed notion of the utility of debate.

Thanks for correcting that.