Is Faith Certainty?

[Jeremiahcp]

Hogwash.

Care to give an example?

 

[shmogie]

But you do understand that many people in religious circles consider faith as certainty, right? And that to them it is a question of philosophical inquiry and not mere semantics.

The Bible defines faith as ¨" the evidence of things hoped for, the assurance of things not seen ¨. So called blind faith is not Biblical. There is ample evidence to support the Christian faith. Belief is based upon evidence. There are few Christian;s who don;t deal with doubt once in a while. It is a good thing because reaffirmation through reflection and study is healthy.

 

[blü 2]

The paradox at the heart of religious faith is sharply shown in the words of the Pisco burial service, which refers to 'our' ─

sure and certain hope​

of the resurrection. Though at least they don't pretend it's anything but a hope.

Likewise when Karol Wojtyła was pope, at one stage he proposed a declaration to the faithful that included the assertion that the RCC message was proved beyond doubt, or words to that effect; and wiser heads had to point out quietly to him why his religion is called a faith.

 

[blü 2]

The Bible defines faith as ¨" the evidence of things hoped for, the assurance of things not seen ¨.

When you hope for something, that may be evidence that you'd like it. But liking something is not evidence that the something exists. Otherwise those of us with the right genes could go to Hogwarts and learn magic.

Things not seen, in the sense of not detected, are not evidence of anything except their own absence.

Hardly a winner, that.

So called blind faith is not Biblical. There is ample evidence to support the Christian faith. Belief is based upon evidence.

Not evidence acceptable to the impartial onlooker. Just personal states of mind, nothing more. Otherwise there wouldn't be the doubt that you speak of.

 

[shmogie]

When you hope for something, that may be evidence that you'd like it. But liking something is not evidence that the something exists. Otherwise those of us with the right genes could go to Hogwarts and learn magic.

Things not seen, in the sense of not detected, are not evidence of anything except their own absence.

Hardly a winner, that.
Not evidence acceptable to the impartial onlooker. Just personal states of mind, nothing more. Otherwise there wouldn't be the doubt that you speak of.

Baloney. The evidence is more than adequate for millions of impartial observers who have become Christians. Do you believe sperm whales dive deep into the ocean to eat large and giant squids ? It has never been observed, you have never seen it, sorta like abiogenesis but a trillion times more likely. So, things not seen are not evidence of anything, apparently, including these two things

 

[blü 2]

Baloney. The evidence is more than adequate for millions of impartial observers who have become Christians.

No, not the evidence, the indoctrination, for most of them. As for the volunteers, I can only speculate, but I know it wasn't an objective appraisal of examinable 'evidence' because you have none.

Do you believe sperm whales dive deep into the ocean to eat large and giant squids ?

I understand that is indeed the case. I also understand that the conclusion is reached by examination of the stomach contents of whales, and the nature of scarring on their skin. That makes the conclusion reasonable, no?

So, things not seen are not evidence of anything, apparently, including these two things

You may wish it so, but evidence is evidence, and wishing is not evidence.

But if you say you have evidence, don't hint about it with whale similes ─ set it out plain.

Oh, and as for abiogenesis, this is a work in progress and I've never pretended that at present we have a description of the process. But you make that claim for your religion, so, as I said, the evidence, please.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

2.
belief that is not based on proof:
Faith is the veritable lack of evidence. If there was any real evidence of something that requires faith, then obviously faith would not be needed for the evidence would cancel the need for faith.

Biblical faith is based on Scripture as evidence and proof. Blind faith is credulity, and is Not scriptural faith.
We have the written evidence as recorded at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13 and Luke 21:11, etc.

If you were driving in a car to go see someone you go there because you have faith and trust and confidence that when you arrive that person will be there. That can be true even if that person was someone you never met before.

It is possible to purchase a house without seeing it. A title deed shows you now own that unseen house.
The Bible is our title deed to God's promises that ALL families and ALL nations of Earth will be blessed.
Blessed with the benefit of healing for earth's nations as found at Revelation 22:2; Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18.
Faith is needed in order to picture that beautiful paradisical healthy new world of righteousness coming to Earth.
I find there is an abundance of scriptural evidence ( Bible does exist as evidence ) that we are nearing that soon coming ' time of separation ' to take place on Earth as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33,37 before Jesus, as God's Commander in Chief, ushers in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill. Hail to the Chief !

 

[blü 2]

Biblical faith is based on Scripture as evidence and proof. Blind faith is credulity, and is Not scriptural faith.

How can I, an onlooker, distinguish faith from blind faith?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

How can I, an onlooker, distinguish faith from blind faith?

The example of the people of Acts of the Apostles 17:11 searched or researched the Scriptures daily to see if what they were hearing, or what they were learning, was really found in Scripture and Not credulity.
Since the Bible is Not written ABC as a dictionary is, then the Bible needs to studied by subject or topic arrangement.
That can be done by comparing the corresponding or parallel cross-reference verses or passages and then we can see the internal harmony among its many writers and thus see what the Bible really teaches.

 

[blü 2]

The example of the people of Acts of the Apostles 17:11 searched or researched the Scriptures daily to see if what they were hearing, or what they were learning, was really found in Scripture and Not credulity.
Since the Bible is Not written ABC as a dictionary is, then the Bible needs to studied by subject or topic arrangement.
That can be done by comparing the corresponding or parallel cross-reference verses or passages and then we can see the internal harmony among its many writers and thus see what the Bible really teaches.

That only works for insiders.

And all religions say it.

And I can't tell the difference. I suspect there isn't one. Can you suggest a test to distinguish faith from blind faith?

 

[Willamena]

You can't have faith without uncertainty is clearly true but you don't need to doubt like an atheist.

How about like a nihilist?

 

[Grandliseur]

claims that religion makes, many of them are absurd and lack any supporting evidences

You do not give any examples of what is absurd.

Your post is too general to give any intelligent answer to. Your attitude is that of the general unbeliever. That is about it.
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.

 

[Grandliseur]

That only works for insiders.

And all religions say it.

And I can't tell the difference. I suspect there isn't one. Can you suggest a test to distinguish faith from blind faith?

Actually, Yes, there is such an easy to tell difference. Please read the definition of faith as is provided in scripture:

Heb 11;1ASV: 1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.​

When the LHC in Cern collides atomic particles, these are not seen. Sensors only who record their data on a computer tells the scientists what they believe happened, they have in this manner things not seen, and a conviction of things / events not seen. This permits them to construct a theory based on what they think are assured by these things, and they hope that their theory is true, that they predictions hold true.

In this there is a similarity to the Christian and what God has revealed to him, in scripture, in history, in archaeology, by witnesses. Through these things we have a conviction of things not seen, and assurance of what is promised will come to be.

 

[osgart]

faith is a fighter taking cheap shots from the New Atheists.

like having faith in your wife. if you didnt, you would have to check on her 24/7.

faith is grounded in knowledge and evidence.

faith is confidence and trust towards what you have faith in. nothing fairy tale about it.

 

[blü 2]

Please read the definition of faith as is provided in scripture:

Heb 11;1ASV: 1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.​

When the LHC in Cern collides atomic particles, these are not seen. Sensors only who record their data on a computer tells the scientists what they believe happened, they have in this manner things not seen, and a conviction of things / events not seen.

That's no different to reading the thermometer on the outside of your oven. Or seeing a distant something through a telescope. All the interactions are physical and fully described. Nothing is 'unseen' in the sense of 'undetected by the (aided) senses',

Whereas ─ and please correct me if I'm wrong ─ Paul's unseen things exist only in imagination, and can't be detected by the senses, aided or unaided.

That's a fundamental difference.

This permits them to construct a theory based on what they think are assured by these things, and they hope that their theory is true, that they predictions hold true.

That is, they examine the data, they propose a testable hypothesis to account for the data, they run the test and either demonstrate or falsify the hypothesis, and (especially but not only if successful) they publish so that anyone else can do the same test.

In this there is a similarity to the Christian and what God has revealed to him, in scripture, in history, in archaeology, by witnesses.

Alas, I see no similarity at all. No examinable evidence, no testable hypothesis, no successful experiment at all.

 

[Grandliseur]

That's no different to reading the thermometer on the outside of your oven. Or seeing a distant something through a telescope. All the interactions are physical and fully described. Nothing is 'unseen' in the sense of 'undetected by the (aided) senses',

Whereas ─ and please correct me if I'm wrong ─ Paul's unseen things exist only in imagination, and can't be detected by the senses, aided or unaided.

That's a fundamental difference.
That is, they examine the data, they propose a testable hypothesis to account for the data, they run the test and either demonstrate or falsify the hypothesis, and (especially but not only if successful) they publish so that anyone else can do the same test.
Alas, I see no similarity at all, no testable hypothesis, no successful experiment at all.

You might not see the truth of Paul's definition; still, you can most likely see that it claims to do what you cannot verify?!

Just in that fact, we have a definition of faith that isn't the blind-faith definition that atheists like to claim it is. Once we weigh the teachings of creation, BB, evolution versus Goddidit, we run into the fact that much in the atheistic universe is blind faith, much is not falsifiable. Just because the universe does exist - does not an apple of it make, nor does it prove that its existence came to be as is claimed. For example, my BB would have to be caused by God; it would have to be guided by God so that the matter anti-matter cancellation didn't come about, and so forth. Its progress, inflation, would have to be guided by God to cause an orderly universe to form, and so forth. In regard to the DNA programming that needs a DNA program to read the program that is running in the cell, the atheist cause is just natural chemical reactions - which sounds insane once the programs complexity is examined, etc.

What we have here that separates us is a huge gulf, a barrier to understanding what the other side claims to see.

No examinable evidence

For example, the story about the exodus tells us that at the mountain in Arabia the people became impatient with Moses being on the mountain a long time; they began to erect altars to cow worship. Also, the Israelis were told that were their sandals walked, this would be their land. In Arabia, these altars have been found with many stones in which footprints were carved.

There is so much evidence of this kind, archaeological evidence mentioned in scripture that supports Israel's story of entering the promised land. Likewise the stone that was split is also found with evidence of water having flooded from there.

So many times, the Biblical narrative has been cast in doubt, the existence of King David, etc. Yet, time after time, the naysayers have been shown up to be wrong. Just recently, there was an article about the Tabernacle and its early location where they now are finding incredible amounts of animal bones according to what was said was sacrificed there. Thus, the Tabernacle is now seen to have existed, the place of sacrifice found to be there as said, and so forth. Things are indeed containing 'examinable evidence.'

 

[Shia Islam]

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.

As a Shia Muslim, faith is equivalent for me to reason..

In Shia Islam we debate the different ideologies regarding the existence of God..and we teach that anything that is contradicted by reason should be rejected..

During my study in the UK, i noticed that people there consider faith to be believing in something blindly..it is like a heart related action, where you embrace an idea although it might be challenged by reason..

I think, in the west, people found that many biblical teachings were against reason, and consequently religion was defeated and the clerics stopped debating the non-believers and stopped claiming that their views are supported by reason...

In the Muslim world however, religion has never been defeated..it's alive and kicking

 

[LukeS]

I think belief, and faith, are linked to the oxytocin system - just an educated guess. And this hormone gives a sense of security and trust. So, for me in a Muslim community I can trust - this social relationship actually focuses my sense of belief, confidence, security, and trust in the religion. Its not about abstractions, its a lived way.

See also:
'Love Hormone' Oxytocin May Enhance Feelings Of Spirituality

 

[Kenny]

That only works for insiders.

And all religions say it.

And I can't tell the difference. I suspect there isn't one. Can you suggest a test to distinguish faith from blind faith?

CEO says to himself "I can improve the future of this company because I am now its president of the company and a great leader" as he works with the great principles of marketplace success. - faith.

CEO says to himself I can improve the future of this company because I am now its president of the company and a great leader" as he works with horrible principles of marketplaces work ethics - blind faith.

(If you don't want to be an insider)

Actually, you don't have to be an insider to see the difference if you have studied their principles. Many corporations use the "insider principles" because they work whether you are an insider or not.

 

[bobhikes]

How about like a nihilist?

It is true that you need to question to have faith, I don't believe it needs to be vigorous questioning, it is still faith. I cannot rate the amount of questioning required but you definitely don't need to be a skeptic.