Is Faith Certainty?

[Kenny]

Let me put it this way: it isn't necessary to have faith that some benevolent supernatural agent exists to have faith in oneself, in the sense of self-confidence.

I accept that there's testimony that some people with very low morale and self-esteem. with eg drug problems and criminal histories, have been helped back to a more normal way of life, and of self-control, by being persuaded to a view that such an external agent can be invoked to aid them. If that's correct then the outcome is a good thing, both for the individual and for society.

This is true. Certainly Jesus said that it is not the healthy that need a doctor or, in other words, if you have no need for an external agent, you won't seek it.

However, this is not to say that there are those of high moral and self-esteem who also find a benefit of the external agent.

However, I query whether the true source of such changes is any external supernatural agent, or simply the support of the real humans who urge the message and the better conduct (though in most cases what they do is admirable).

Which you have every right to. However, according to those who sought the doctor, it was a supernatural agent and there is no way to prove to them it wasn't.

 

[blü 2]

You have got to be kidding.

I think of it as an attitude, a way of approaching the world. I don't think there's any place called 'truth' that can be arrived at, but keeping an eye on what's true in reality is in general my way of proceeding.

I already think I have arrived at this lofty goal of conformity with reality. Please have a good laugh at my expense.

Who, moi?

what do you think would happen if after the churches have been attacked (which we are told they shall be, just not the extend of it) and been erased, that some event would prove without a doubt to atheists that they have been wrong all this time?!

Unlike Mr Spock, I'd say Gosh! Then, like Mr Spock, I'd say, Interesting. And continue enquiring. (But if you want to know what other nonbelievers would do, you'll need to herd those cats up yourself.)

 

[blü 2]

However, according to those who sought the doctor, it was a supernatural agent and there is no way to prove to them it wasn't.

If they're in equilibrium, that's a good thing, nothing I'd wish to disturb.

 

[Grandliseur]

Who, moi?

Of course! If you cannot have a good laugh after an exchange then perhaps it was too serious.
Enjoy your day, or evening.

 

[Ponder This]

Let me put it this way: it isn't necessary to have faith that some benevolent supernatural agent exists to have faith in oneself, in the sense of self-confidence.

I agree.

However, I query whether the true source of such changes is any external supernatural agent, or simply the support of the real humans who urge the message and the better conduct (though in most cases what they do is admirable).

I agree that having support from others is immensely helpful, but I disagree that support from others is the true source of change for an individual. This is contained in the adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." No matter how helpful people are, true change comes from within the individual.

 

[ChristineM]

Also @Mister Silver there is no such thing as a belief not based on proof. All belief is based on proof.

Nope, belief is based on belief, unless of course you can prove a God exists

 

[Falvlun]

Personally, I consider the notion that faith is certainty to be the biggest misdirection in religion. I think that is false faith, and an attempt to dodge reason.

These claims that religion makes, many of them are absurd and lack any supporting evidences. It is reasonable to doubt them, and it is reasonable to be uncertain of them. Plunging yourself into forced certainty and denying what any rational mind should find as uncertain is nothing but forced ignorance. And I refuse to accept forced ignorance as genuine faith, certainty, in this respects, is an illusion and a deceiver.

The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard said, "Without risk there is no faith." There is no such risk in blindly asserting certainty; the risk comes from facing that uncertainty. To take your faith in God and place it on the altar of reason without restrain, to embrace the absurd so that faith and reason do not end each other but walk hand in hand, that is genuine religious faith.

I am going to suggest that if you can't have faith with uncertainty then you don't really have faith at all, what you have is a poorly reasoned position that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. I think a true believer should both have the doubt of an atheist and faith in God.

I would also like to point out that declaring faith as certainty is just an attempt to rationalize the position, which is counter-intuitive to the notion that things like God cannot be reached with reason.

I always considered faith to be belief in something despite uncertainty. One may have doubts but still choose to believe that it is so. In some (many?) cases, faith will calcify into certainty. The edge between "things hoped for" and reality becomes blurred.

In fact, this does seem to be one of the methods by which some religions counsel conversion: first have faith, and then the truth will come to you.

I do think that faith and certainty can co-exist, if faith is what created the certainty.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Nope, belief is based on belief, unless of course you can prove a God exists

That is a circular argument; obviously beliefs encompass a broader scope.

 

[ChristineM]

That is a circular argument; obviously beliefs encompass a broader scope.

That is a nonsense argument, otherwise you would have proved gods existence so obviously beliefs are beliefs as defined. Oh here we go again

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That is a nonsense argument, otherwise you would have proved gods existence so obviously beliefs are beliefs as defined. Oh here we go again

You are defending a circular argument. . . . so much for basic reason. At this point I am fairly certain you are just disagreeing to disagree.

 

[ChristineM]

You are defending a circular argument. . . . so much for basic reason. At this point I am fairly certain you are just disagreeing to disagree.

Please explain why you claim that belief is based on belief is a circular argument are you saying that a brick is a brick is a circular argument?

I am disagreeing because you are looking for confirmation to bastardise accepted dictionary definitions just to mollify your faith

 

[blü 2]

No matter how helpful people are, true change comes from within the individual.

That's not in dispute between us.

But since there are other ways than belief in a supernatural agency to arrive at the same improved place, and they produce no worse results than the alternative, this doesn't demonstrate the existence of the supernatural agency, only the use of belief in one for certain cases.

I'm not sure that we're disagreeing on this. Are we?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Well I clearly said proof, so your rant about evidence is a straw man. At any rate you are very confused about the broad nature of evidence and also confuse on your scope and limited position to define such standards for other people.

There is no strawman. "Evidence" and "proof" are irrevocably linked. You stated that there is no belief without "proof". A body of evidence substantiates "proof". Thus, as people believe much without proper "evidence", they certainly believe much without "proof".

A strange picture of a monstrous-looking, serpent-like object in Lake Champlain is definitely "evidence" of "something". It is not necessarily "evidence" of "champ"; but "evidence" of "something"; and it certainly does not constitute "proof" of "anything", let alone "Champ".

Yet in spite of inferior "evidence", which negates any idea of "proof", people still believe many things, including the absurd; so to postulate that there is no belief without proof is a desperate attempt to win points in a discussion using an argument that is utterly without merit.

 

[blü 2]

Of course! If you cannot have a good laugh after an exchange then perhaps it was too serious.
Enjoy your day, or evening.

I see I'll have to read that 'dry wit' page in my How to Joke manual more carefully. Sorry that one missed.

But thanks for the conversation. Live long and prosper!

 

[Thief]

There is no strawman. "Evidence" and "proof" are irrevocably linked. You stated that there is no belief without "proof". A body of evidence substantiates "proof". Thus, as people believe much without proper "evidence", they certainly believe much without "proof".

A strange picture of a monstrous-looking, serpent-like object in Lake Champlain is definitely "evidence" of "something". It is not necessarily "evidence" of "champ"; but "evidence" of "something"; and it certainly does not constitute "proof" of "anything", let alone "Champ".

Yet in spite of inferior "evidence", which negates any idea of "proof", people still believe many things, including the absurd; so to postulate that there is no belief without proof is a desperate attempt to win points in a discussion using an argument that is utterly without merit.

ok...the two words are synonyms

prove to me you're right
show me the evidence

and in matters of faith
no evidence is required
so tell me your belief

you need not present evidence

but I may be able to prove you ....wrong

 

[Grandliseur]

Live long and prosper!

I loved that series too. It is a better goodbye greeting than many we use.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

There is no strawman. "Evidence" and "proof" are irrevocably linked. You stated that there is no belief without "proof". A body of evidence substantiates "proof". Thus, as people believe much without proper "evidence", they certainly believe much without "proof".

A strange picture of a monstrous-looking, serpent-like object in Lake Champlain is definitely "evidence" of "something". It is not necessarily "evidence" of "champ"; but "evidence" of "something"; and it certainly does not constitute "proof" of "anything", let alone "Champ".

Yet in spite of inferior "evidence", which negates any idea of "proof", people still believe many things, including the absurd; so to postulate that there is no belief without proof is a desperate attempt to win points in a discussion using an argument that is utterly without merit.

I'll tell you what, when you learn how to use quotation marks correctly then maybe I'll listen to your opinion on the semantics.

The OED is the recognized authority on such matters; you are just a guy with an opinion; cherry picking definitions.


Proof:

I. Senses relating to the establishment or demonstration of truth or validity

a. Something that proves a statement; evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of anything, or belief in the certainty of something; an instance of this.†to make proof: to carry weight as evidence (obs.). proof positive n. definite, absolute, or incontrovertible proof

b. Law. Evidence determining the judgment of a tribunal. Also spec. (a) a document or documents so attested as to form legal evidence; (b) a written statement of what a witness is prepared to swear to; (c) the evidence given and recorded in a particular case.

c. A person who gives evidence; a witness.

d. Sc. A piece of scriptural text cited to support a particular doctrine adopted in a Presbyterian catechism, esp. the Shorter Catechism.

2. The action, process, or fact of proving or establishing the truth or validity of a statement; the action of evidence in convincing the mind; demonstration.

3. Math. and Logic. A sequence of steps by which a theorem or other statement is derived from given premises.

4. Sc. Law. In a civil case: evidence given before a judge, or a commissioner acting as a judge's representative, in determining what is at issue in a trial or establishing the disputed facts; the taking of such evidence. Hence: trial of a civil case before a judge without a jury.This distinctive development of sense has gradually taken place since the introduction of trial by jury into Scotland in 1815.

II. Senses relating to the trying or testing of something

5.

†a. That which anything proves or turns out to be; the issue, outcome, result, effect, or fulfilment of something; esp. in phrase to come to proof.

b. The fact, condition, or quality of proving good, turning out well, or producing good results; thriving; goodness, substance.

†6. The action or fact of experiencing or having experience of something; knowledge derived from this; experience

7.

a. The action or an act of testing or making trial of something; the condition of being tested; examination, experiment; test, trial; (also) an instance of this. Often in phrases, as to bring (set, etc.) (a thing) in (also on, to) (the, †a) proof. Now usually as to put to (the) proof.the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

b. Math. An operation to check the correctness of an arithmetical calculation.

†8. Striving, effort; an attempt or endeavour.

9.

a. The condition of having successfully stood a test, or the capability of doing so; proven or tested power, strength, etc. (originally and chiefly of armour and arms). Hence fig. and in extended use: impenetrability, invulnerability.

Home : Oxford English Dictionary

There are a few more but those are not relevant. The word has a much larger scope than you realize. I liked this one in particular: "The action or fact of experiencing or having experience of something; knowledge derived from this; experience." I know you and @ChristineM believe that you own the word but you two don't, and neither of you are an authority on this subject.

 

[ChristineM]

I'll tell you what, when you learn how to use quotation marks correctly then maybe I'll listen to your opinion on the semantics.

The OED is the recognized authority on such matters; you are just a guy with an opinion; cherry picking definitions.


Proof:



Home : Oxford English Dictionary

There are a few more but those are not relevant. The word has a much larger scope than you realize. I liked this one in particular: "The action or fact of experiencing or having experience of something; knowledge derived from this; experience." I know you and @ChristineM believe that you own the word but you two don't, and neither of you are an authority on this subject.

Told you before, seem you like to ignore what you disagree with. The definitions are precise you seem to be the one bastardising those definitions for your own gratification. I and others you condemn have as much right to the word as anyone so your hyperbole is pretty pathetic. What you, i or anyone dies not have the right for is to corrupt a word then have tantrums when you are called out for it.

P.s. a link to a dictionary home page is no help in demonstrating a particular definition, perhaps that was your intention.
Btw, the oed is the one i prefer and use when quoting definitions.

 

[Windwalker]

I usually do not read what other Christians write in their books. It tends to be boring.

Yet, you claimed that, "As most unbelievers, you are most likely ignorant as to the definition of faith as it comes through to us over ca 2000 years. Your definition is probably as defined by atheists." You just said your definition of faith comes to you though Christians over 2000 years, yet now you say you don't read them? Where did you get your definition of faith then, if not from reading or listening to the teachings of other Christians.

A lack of motivation to listen to other Christians who have deeper thoughts into these things is no excuse. Laziness is not an excuse for you assuming these things came from atheists.

I read my Bible, and try to explain to those who have questions about the Bible how things are, end of story.

I chuckle when I hear Christians claim that it's the Bible telling them what it means. If you take someone with absolutely zero exposure to Christian thought coming to them that provides the backdrop and context for what they read on the pages, ie,, "This means x,y,z", you would have some very strange idea of Christianity that probably no one else on the planet would share with you.

It so pliable in fact, you have over 40,000 different denominations each reading the exact same text and concluded different schools of thought. Your ideas in fact reflect large swaths of Christian thought, and were not arrived at independently by you reading inside of some imaginary vacuum. What you conclude from what you read is heavily influenced by other Christians -- end of story.

Since my authority for what the faith should be is found in scripture, in the Bible, using a Harmonious Interpretation of All Scripture, it is possible to determine who is and who isn't an unbeliever.

No. All you have is someone who doesn't "believe" or rather agree with your group's reading of the scriptures. If that qualifies them as an "unbeliever", then you yourself are an unbeliever because you don't agree or "believe" in how they read it! That has zero to do with their faith in God. But when you brand them as an unbeliever in God, because they don't think and believe the same as you about God, then you are in fact in judging them in their relationship with God using yourself as the standard.

And that, is exactly why Jesus warned you about judging others. To quote, "Judge not, lest you be judged. For as you judge, you will be judged." If you judge another with yourself as the standard (which you are), then you will be judged using others as the standard against you. Then let's see how well that will fair for any of us. I prefer the standard to be the one Jesus set. It's pretty straightforward and simple, "By their fruits you shall know them". Not by how they think about God, or how they agree or disagree with you. It's much easier, and Christian, to not judge others.

Large latitudes must be given due to the number of churches that exist; so, while I personally may form an opinion, I am sure that the Lord Christ might be stricter than I am in who he accepts.

Quite exactly the opposite. Not stricter, but more loving, more generous, more graceful, more compassionate, and here it is.... more forgiving.

I find it quite telling that you view God as a strict parent with a harsh standard. When I read the NT, it tells us the opposite story. Spend some time reading Hebrews if you want to see how God is now to be understood as a God of Grace, versus strict law.

Legalism is the opposite of Grace. Legalism leads to you judging other Christians with your own "performance" as the standard. Legalism is what the Pharisees did in judging others as 'sinners' or 'unbelievers'. Then Jesus comes along and sets them straight in his welcoming the 'untouchables', whom they saw as unfit for the kingdom of God. That's the core message of the entire NT, actually. Not this "strict Jesus" distortion.

I belong to no church any longer. I am too demanding.

By "too demanding", do you mean harshly legalistic, and that you find the 'tolerance' of other Christians to be 'weak' and compromising of the high standards of the strict Jesus? I'm genuinely curious to understand this from your perspective.

Snake-handlers in particular, I frown upon. They are not holy in my book.

So you have your own book by which you judge others? Again, the standard of your interpretation of the Bible is the measure of another's faith for them?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Told you before, seem you like to ignore what you disagree with. The definitions are precise you seem to be the one bastardising those definitions for your own gratification. I and others you condemn have as much right to the word as anyone so your hyperbole is pretty pathetic. What you, i or anyone dies not have the right for is to corrupt a word then have tantrums when you are called out for it.

P.s. a link to a dictionary home page is no help in demonstrating a particular definition, perhaps that was your intention.
Btw, the oed is the one i prefer and use when quoting definitions.

Please learn how to write.