The Nature of faith

[ether-ore]

Another thread got off onto the subject of faith in terms of Hebrews 11:1 which says (in the KJV): "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
A debate began over the interpretation of that verse. So I thought it appropriate to start a thread on the nature of faith as a theological concept.
I maintain that faith is not blind; that there are reasons for having faith. Some seem to want to maintain that faith is blind and completely without reason.
In analyzing the verse in question, I think one has to take into consideration to whom Paul is speaking... who is his audience? His audience are those members of the church who are among the Hebrew people... the Jewish members of the church... believers in a Christ whom they have never seen and in His atoning sacrifice. In that context, the faith of the believer may be considered evidence of something unseen. But I do not see that as a definition of what faith is in terms of its origins.
One does not simply say out of the blue that they believe something (as much as others seem to want to say that they do). To say for example: I believe in a flying spaghetti monster for no apparent reason is ridiculous.
Faith is a product of reason and that reason is the report of people who have witnessed the atonement of Jesus Christ and have testified concerning it to others who in turn believe their report. The fact that there is more than one witness to this momentous event is not insignificant as much as some would have it so to be. In a court of law, the testimony of more than one witness to an event carries more credibility a single witness.

Response?

 

[Bunyip]

Another thread got off onto the subject of faith in terms of Hebrews 11:1 which says (in the KJV): "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
A debate began over the interpretation of that verse. So I thought it appropriate to start a thread on the nature of faith as a theological concept.
I maintain that faith is not blind; that there are reasons for having faith. Some seem to want to maintain that faith is blind and completely without reason.
In analyzing the verse in question, I think one has to take into consideration to whom Paul is speaking... who is his audience? His audience are those members of the church who are among the Hebrew people... the Jewish members of the church... believers in a Christ whom they have never seen and in His atoning sacrifice. In that context, the faith of the believer may be considered evidence of something unseen. But I do not see that as a definition of what faith is in terms of its origins.
One does not simply say out of the blue that they believe something (as much as others seem to want to say that they do). To say for example: I believe in a flying spaghetti monster for no apparent reason is ridiculous.
Faith is a product of reason and that reason is the report of people who have witnessed the atonement of Jesus Christ and have testified concerning it to others who in turn believe their report. The fact that there is more than one witness to this momentous event is not insignificant as much as some would have it so to be. In a court of law, the testimony of more than one witness to an event carries more credibility a single witness.

Response?

Faith is the alternative to drawing your beliefs from reason, not the result of the application of reason. The point of faith as the bible describes it, is that it is belief in what we can not see, can not know.

 

[ether-ore]

Faith is the alternative to drawing your beliefs from reason, not the result of the application of reason. The point of faith as the bible describes it, is that it is belief in what we can not see, can not know.

Your very first sentence is what I have difficulty with. You want to suggest that faith is opposed to reason, whereas, my claim is that faith requires reason. Any individual applying pure reason in making a choice between having an eternal nature and not having one... in terms of the alternatives' reasonableness... is by definition applying reason. When one adds the corroborating testimonies of several that claim to have witnessed the same thing; these things provide evidence on which to apply reason.

And one other point of reason: It is the believer who tells the non-believer what the believer believes rather than the non-believer telling the believer what the believer believes.

I will agree with your last statement; that faith is in things we cannot know with certainty. For that would then cease to be faith and become knowledge. But I disagree to the extent that that condition suggests a lack of reason in the process. It may be a matter of degrees, but reason is present. Faith is not blind.

 

[Quintessence]

I maintain that faith is not blind; that there are reasons for having faith. Some seem to want to maintain that faith is blind and completely without reason.

The individuals who conflate "faith" with "blind faith" usually have some particular agenda in mind when they do so, rather than a more impartial, objective, or academic appraisal of that phenomena within a religious context. As for what that agenda is, I'll leave that up to you to observe, as you might have different experiences with this than I have and come to different conclusions about it.

There's something else worth considering here, though, and that's how contemporary Western culture enshrines the idea of "reason" to the point it has difficulty seeing and understanding the value of non-rational activities. Most of our day-to-day lives is characterized by non-rational activities and states or being. You'd think we'd be better at recognizing their value considering how much they dominate our lives. Religious activities in particular have more in common with the act of play, the experience of moments, the tides of emotions from sublime awe to righteous joy or anger.

 

[Valjean]

Faith is a product of reason and that reason is the report of people who have witnessed the atonement of Jesus Christ and have testified concerning it to others who in turn believe their report. The fact that there is more than one witness to this momentous event is not insignificant as much as some would have it so to be. In a court of law, the testimony of more than one witness to an event carries more credibility a single witness.

Response?

I usually think of faith as a belief without adequate cause; a belief based on scant evidence.
If there were adequate evidence the belief would be "knowledge" and would be generally accepted.

As for witnesses to Christ's atonement, as I recall there are gospel accounts of the empty tomb (conflicting), of a mysterious appearance in a closed room and of a belatedly recognised meeting on the road. I don't think any of the accounts are 1st person and all would be ruled hearsay in a court of law.
The actual atonement, presumably, took place in conference with God, in Heaven -- not witnessed.

The evidence for Christ's story is no stronger than the evidence for a hundred other religious mythologies. That would make Christian faith hopeful guesswork, at best.

Re the Hebrews quotation: gobbledygook.

 

[Desert Snake]

,

I usually think of faith as a belief without adequate cause; a belief based on scant evidence.
If there were adequate evidence the belief would be "knowledge" and would be generally accepted.

.

On word meaning. ''Belief'', in a traditional Xian context, has a broad meaning. It does not actually mean , necessarily, that the person thinks there is no eveidence for their beliefs etc.

 

[Laika]

The more I have thought about it, the more I am certian that faith was never meant to be blind. I think the notion of blind faith comes from the protestant reformation and in the insistence on literal interpreations of biblical texts. It is however extremely impausible to argue that for thousands of years mankind did not exercise reason because it had faith based ideologies.
The most "primitive" religions, animism, contain rational elements in which knowledge of the natural world is combined with supernatural attribution of these properties. Philosophy, religion and science were pretty much united under the single discipline of 'natural philosophy'; I think that goes as far back as the Greeks all the way to the age of enlightenment. It was only in the 19th century and the controversy over Darwin that literal interpreations of genisis and scientific rationality went in opposite directions. Thomas Aquinas five proofs were an attempt to use reason to establish the validity of faith. Nor have science and religion been mutually exclusive activities as scientists religious beliefs informed their science and vice cersa. I do not see reason and faith as mutually exclusive or opposed ways of knowing, but that they are two aspects of our knowledge.
Even as an atheist I find myself with levels of uncertianty in my own beliefs that require something that in any other context would be a 'faith'- an acceptance of certian ideas as a working hypothesis for future knowledge because of the high level of abatraction means they cannot correspons to an immediately perceptable object. However, the way of attributing knowledge to the natural world is different (because I'm a materialist and not an idealist).

 

[idav]

The defintion from the Bible is pretty alk encompassing. Things hoped for are good but not always reality. Sometimes the things hoped for also have to be worked towards. God is like that, giving the inner hope and ability to choose our path for the best.

 

[George-ananda]

I maintain that faith is not blind; that there are reasons for having faith. Some seem to want to maintain that faith is blind and completely without reason.

I'll take your side between those two positions. I think you have good evidence/arguments (not proof) for Jesus being a rare advent on earth and you are willing to make that last small leap to declare 'Faith' in Him. Without that good evidence/argumentation you would seem unjustified.

I, for one, don't use the term 'Faith' for my spiritual beliefs (pro-Jesus but Advaita/Hindu). I just consider all evidence/argumentation from all sides and accept the most reasonable position and call it 'the most reasonable position to hold after all consideration is done'.

 

[Bunyip]

Your very first sentence is what I have difficulty with. You want to suggest that faith is opposed to reason, whereas, my claim is that faith requires reason.

I said that faith was the alternative to reason, not opposed to it.

Any individual applying pure reason in making a choice between having an eternal nature and not having one... in terms of the alternatives' reasonableness... is by definition applying reason.

How so? How is that 'by definition applying reason'? They may not use any reasoning and just accept something on faith.

When one adds the corroborating testimonies of several that claim to have witnessed the same thing; these things provide evidence on which to apply reason.

No, personal testimonies are not evidential.

And one other point of reason: It is the believer who tells the non-believer what the believer believes rather than the non-believer telling the believer what the believer believes.

I will agree with your last statement; that faith is in things we cannot know with certainty. For that would then cease to be faith and become knowledge. But I disagree to the extent that that condition suggests a lack of reason in the process. It may be a matter of degrees, but reason is present. Faith is not blind.

Well according to the bible it is blind, but you can sure disagree with scripture.

 

[ether-ore]

I said that faith was the alternative to reason, not opposed to it. How so? How is that 'by definition applying reason'? They may not use any reasoning and just accept something on faith. No, personal testimonies are not evidential. Well according to the bible it is blind, but you can sure disagree with scripture.

You say alternative then. Still, that implies that faith does not employ reason, it being an alternative to reason. I still nonetheless say that faith requires reason. I define reason as those mental considerations using some for mof external evidence to reason upon. I disagree with you that personal testimonies (if corroborated) are not evidential. More often than not (for example) atheists are accepting the testimonies of scientists without having themselves repeated the experiments. You an say that peer review is sufficient reason to consider any scientists' findings objective and valid. I feel I can say the same thing about eye witness accounts of God if the multiple and various testimonies corroborate one another... they then for me become valid and objective.

It always invariably comes down to some claim that a belief in God is wishful thinking rather than reason but there is another factor which is not touched on, but in terms of evidence, is more important than all the eye witness testimony in the world and that is the testimony of the Holy Ghost. You will require that there can be no such thing because you have not experienced it. All I can say to you is please, if you are able to describe for me what salt tastes like, then you would have some understanding of what it would take for me to describe to you the witness of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Bunyip]

You say alternative then. Still, that implies that faith does not employ reason, it being an alternative to reason. I still nonetheless say that faith requires reason.

Not according to scripture it doesn't.

I define reason as those mental considerations using some for mof external evidence to reason upon. I disagree with you that personal testimonies (if corroborated) are not evidential. More often than not (for example) atheists are accepting the testimonies of scientists without having themselves repeated the experiments.

That is just a non-sequitur.

You an say that peer review is sufficient reason to consider any scientists' findings objective and valid. I feel I can say the same thing about eye witness accounts of God if the multiple and various testimonies corroborate one another... they then for me become valid and objective.

It always invariably comes down to some claim that a belief in God is wishful thinking rather than reason but there is another factor which is not touched on, but in terms of evidence, is more important than all the eye witness testimony in the world and that is the testimony of the Holy Ghost. You will require that there can be no such thing because you have not experienced it. All I can say to you is please, if you are able to describe for me what salt tastes like, then you would have some understanding of what it would take for me to describe to you the witness of the Holy Ghost.

I was a believer for 14 years.

You keep referring to what some unnamed atheist thinks faith means, I am just referring to the bible for my definition. So my experience of the holy ghost, or whatever somebody else said to you is not relevant - what I am saying is that the bible defines faith as blind.

 

[ether-ore]

Not according to scripture it doesn't. That is just a non-sequitur.
I was a believer for 14 years.

You keep referring to what some unnamed atheist thinks faith means, I am just referring to the bible for my definition. So my experience of the holy ghost, or whatever somebody else said to you is not relevant - what I am saying is that the bible defines faith as blind.

If you are referring to Hebrews 11:1 as the source for your definition, then you are ignoring a basic distinction involving definitions. Faith as an example (one) of evidence for something unseen is a definition for something that suggests that the unseen is real; that is one type of definition. That statement is not however, a definition about the nature of faith in terms of how one comes to have faith. That kind of definition is something wholly different from which Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, was discussing. The Hebrews reference is not a definition about the nature of faith or its origins, it is a statement that the unseen can be believed because one already has faith.

What reason is and how it operates, is relevant to the discussion if the origins of faith are dependent on it (as I consider that it is). Therefore it is not a non-sequitur.

Based on the kind of statements you are making, my take is that you are an atheist. Not only concerning this discussion, but regarding other topics where we have had exchanges. Did you not just now admit to being an atheist by stating that you were (past tense)... as in... you used to be a believer. You have never come across as a defender of faith. The tenor of your arguments is of someone who has decided that faith is just so much BS.

 

[Bunyip]

If you are referring to Hebrews 11:1 as the source for your definition,

Correct.

then you are ignoring a basic distinction involving definitions. Faith as an example (one) of evidence for something unseen is a definition for something that suggests that the unseen is real; that is one type of definition.

Correct, yes - it is one definition, the one found in the bible. It is the biblical definition of 'faith'. Which is the appropriate definition in the religious context.

. That statement is not however, a definition about the nature of faith in terms of how one comes to have faith. That kind of definition is something wholly different from which Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, was discussing. The Hebrews reference is not a definition about the nature of faith or its origins, it is a statement that the unseen can be believed because one already has faith.

What reason is and how it operates, is relevant to the discussion if the origins of faith are dependent on it (as I consider that it is). Therefore it is not a non-sequitur.

Of course it is a non-sequitur, what other atheists may have said is not relevant. I am not speaking for them.

Based on the kind of statements you are making, my take is that you are an atheist. Not only concerning this discussion, but regarding other topics where we have had exchanges. Did you not just now admit to being an atheist by stating that you were (past tense)... as in... you used to be a believer. You have never come across as a defender of faith. The tenor of your arguments is of someone who has decided that faith is just so much BS.

Yes I am atheist. I did not however say that faith is 'BS', I just gave the biblical definition for it. I think you are misreading my posts - I am not judging 'faith', defining it, mocking it, dismissing it or any such thing, I was just giving the definition found in scripture.

 

[ether-ore]

Correct. Correct, yes - it is one definition, the one found in the bible. It is the biblical definition of 'faith'. Which is the appropriate definition in the religious context. Of course it is a non-sequitur, what other atheists may have said is not relevant. I am not speaking for them.
Yes I am atheist. I did not however say that faith is 'BS', I just gave the biblical definition for it. I think you are misreading my posts - I am not judging 'faith', defining it, mocking it, dismissing it or any such thing, I was just giving the definition found in scripture.

In your response, you completely ignore this: "That statement is not however, a definition about the nature of faith in terms of how one comes to have faith. That kind of definition is something wholly different from which Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, was discussing. The Hebrews reference is not a definition about the nature of faith or its origins, it is a statement that the unseen can be believed because one already has faith." and go right on about the issue of whether or not what I said about reason is a non-sequitur. Your ignoring of my argument concerning differences in definitions suggests that you do not have a good counter argument and would rather just use assertion as your best argument.

I believe you insistence on faith being blind is because that serves your atheist narrative. You will no doubt say that my position does the same for me.

Does anyone else have a comment?

 

[Bunyip]

In your response, you completely ignore this: "That statement is not however, a definition about the nature of faith in terms of how one comes to have faith. That kind of definition is something wholly different from which Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, was discussing. The Hebrews reference is not a definition about the nature of faith or its origins, it is a statement that the unseen can be believed because one already has faith." and go right on about the issue of whether or not what I said about reason is a non-sequitur. Your ignoring of my argument concerning differences in definitions suggests that you do not have a good counter argument and would rather just use assertion as your best argument.

What assertion? I am just quoting scripture. If you think the bible is wrong, say so.

I believe you insistence on faith being blind is because that serves your atheist narrative. You will no doubt say that my position does the same for me.

Does anyone else have a comment?

I am not insisting anything - I am just quoting the bible. It is the BIBLE that 'insists' faith is blind. So how you imagine that I accept the biblical definition because 'it serves my atheist narrative' is beyond me - I am just quoting scripture.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The individuals who conflate "faith" with "blind faith" usually have some particular agenda in mind when they do so, rather than a more impartial, objective, or academic appraisal of that phenomena within a religious context. As for what that agenda is, I'll leave that up to you to observe, as you might have different experiences with this than I have and come to different conclusions about it.

There's something else worth considering here, though, and that's how contemporary Western culture enshrines the idea of "reason" to the point it has difficulty seeing and understanding the value of non-rational activities. Most of our day-to-day lives is characterized by non-rational activities and states or being. You'd think we'd be better at recognizing their value considering how much they dominate our lives. Religious activities in particular have more in common with the act of play, the experience of moments, the tides of emotions from sublime awe to righteous joy or anger.

Whilst you make some good points, there are a lot of people who conflate religion with 'perceived ultimate truth' and they sure as heck don't all sit on the non-believer side of things. It's generally the application of religious values to actual concrete laws/activities/structures which results in push-back from non-believers. Whilst some are just anti-belief, I honestly think they are in a small minority (if a loud one).

 

[ether-ore]

What assertion? I am just quoting scripture. If you think the bible is wrong, say so. I am not insisting anything - I am just quoting the bible. It is the BIBLE that 'insists' faith is blind. So how you imagine that I accept the biblical definition because 'it serves my atheist narrative' is beyond me - I am just quoting scripture.

Yes you are quoting it, but without comprehending its meaning.

 

[Aiviu]

Response?

Faith is a hope of something goin to happen in the future thus it has no evidence yet.

Blind faith: No actions of faith been taken to change the future. Only negotiations with a God. You will not see your faith as evidence in the future (blind).

If you not do ACT in faith who will SEE the evidence.



ayvyu

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Faith isn't blind - it just has its eyes closed.