PureX
Veteran Member
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"
Most of us have seen, read, and heard this proposition from modern biblical scripture. And many of us, both theists and atheists, base our understanding of what faith is, on it. Which is why the term "faith" is so badly misunderstood, in my opinion. I mean, just look at the quote, and think on it for a minute.
"... The assurance of things hoped for" ... Huh? Why would I need to hope for something that I am assured will be forthcoming? That just doesn't make any sense. It's an inherently duplicitous and contradictory position for my mind to hold together. And then it adds to that ... "the conviction of things not seen". Why would anyone choose to stand convinced of something they have no direct experience of? That's fundamentally an act of self-deceit, for cryin' out loud!
What both of these definitive exemplifications of "faith" are suggesting to us is an unfounded and even illogical elimination of doubt. "Assurance" and "conviction" are words that belie doubt. And yet they are being aimed at a subject that has no specified content and no current manifestation: "things hoped for", and "things not seen". Things with no basis in our present experience of reality!
I can certainly see why atheists would object to "faith" as this kind of self-blinding foolishness if this is the definition of it they've been given. And I would agree with them. Yet this IS the definition that many religious bodies propose to both their adherents and to the world in general. And it is a definition that many of them accept as their pathway to a better alignment with their God.
But is it? Or is it just an admonishment for blind, unquestioned adherence to a religious dogma coming from a religious organization that wants nothing more than it wants to control everyone it can get under it's banner? Because the definition of "faith" being quoted from this version of the Bible is clearly not a definition of faith. It's the definition of blind allegiance. Blind to the point of defying one's own right to be skeptical, and to doubt. And in fact, this IS the way many of these religious groups propose that their adherents follow their dogma ... with no doubt and no questions asked.
Whereas I would propose an entirely different definition of "faith". A definition NOT coming from any religious organization and not even directly related to any religious belief. And that would be that faith is the exercise of our ability to choose to trust in, and to act in anticipation of, an outcome that we are NOT assured of, NOR convinced will be manifested. But to do so based on the possibility that it could, and on our hope that it will.
A very different definition from the commonly held religious one, above. A definition that does not promote the denial of one's own unknowing, or of reasonable doubt, or of honest skepticism. And one that does not demand that we blindly presume results that we have no way of presuming.
Most of us have seen, read, and heard this proposition from modern biblical scripture. And many of us, both theists and atheists, base our understanding of what faith is, on it. Which is why the term "faith" is so badly misunderstood, in my opinion. I mean, just look at the quote, and think on it for a minute.
"... The assurance of things hoped for" ... Huh? Why would I need to hope for something that I am assured will be forthcoming? That just doesn't make any sense. It's an inherently duplicitous and contradictory position for my mind to hold together. And then it adds to that ... "the conviction of things not seen". Why would anyone choose to stand convinced of something they have no direct experience of? That's fundamentally an act of self-deceit, for cryin' out loud!
What both of these definitive exemplifications of "faith" are suggesting to us is an unfounded and even illogical elimination of doubt. "Assurance" and "conviction" are words that belie doubt. And yet they are being aimed at a subject that has no specified content and no current manifestation: "things hoped for", and "things not seen". Things with no basis in our present experience of reality!
I can certainly see why atheists would object to "faith" as this kind of self-blinding foolishness if this is the definition of it they've been given. And I would agree with them. Yet this IS the definition that many religious bodies propose to both their adherents and to the world in general. And it is a definition that many of them accept as their pathway to a better alignment with their God.
But is it? Or is it just an admonishment for blind, unquestioned adherence to a religious dogma coming from a religious organization that wants nothing more than it wants to control everyone it can get under it's banner? Because the definition of "faith" being quoted from this version of the Bible is clearly not a definition of faith. It's the definition of blind allegiance. Blind to the point of defying one's own right to be skeptical, and to doubt. And in fact, this IS the way many of these religious groups propose that their adherents follow their dogma ... with no doubt and no questions asked.
Whereas I would propose an entirely different definition of "faith". A definition NOT coming from any religious organization and not even directly related to any religious belief. And that would be that faith is the exercise of our ability to choose to trust in, and to act in anticipation of, an outcome that we are NOT assured of, NOR convinced will be manifested. But to do so based on the possibility that it could, and on our hope that it will.
A very different definition from the commonly held religious one, above. A definition that does not promote the denial of one's own unknowing, or of reasonable doubt, or of honest skepticism. And one that does not demand that we blindly presume results that we have no way of presuming.
Last edited:
