What is Faith?

[Magic Man]

You can make the point whatever you want. Doesn't mean every viewpoint is right, or constructive. Just means there are as many viewpoints as there are people.

Again, I have to ask, if you're not going to actually say something that is relevant or even makes sense, why are you posting? Do you go to history classes to learn how to paint?

 

[Meow Mix]

Again, I have to ask, if you're not going to actually say something that is relevant or even makes sense, why are you posting? Do you go to history classes to learn how to paint?

I wonder what sort of marks I'd get in a debate class if I "debated" like some people do here? I'd dread showing that report card to my parents for sure.

Edit: I guess this isn't a debate forum, but my statement goes for the forums that are debate forums. I usually stick to them to avoid vagueness but it hasn't been working.

 

[Magic Man]

I wonder what sort of marks I'd get in a debate class if I "debated" like some people do here? I'd dread showing that report card to my parents for sure.

Edit: I guess this isn't a debate forum, but my statement goes for the forums that are debate forums. I usually stick to them to avoid vagueness but it hasn't been working.

Actually until you said this, I didn't even realize this was in "comparative religion". It's impossible to avoid vagueness on this site. It's just part of the deal when you discuss religion, I'm afraid.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Again, I have to ask, if you're not going to actually say something that is relevant or even makes sense, why are you posting? Do you go to history classes to learn how to paint?

I said something that is relevant. That it doesn't make sense is on you, not me. I have said something. It means something. If you try to derive a meaning you want from it, you will run into problems.

I don't know what you want things to mean, so the things I say, by extension, will rarely ever mean what you want them to mean.

 

[Magic Man]

I said something that is relevant.

No, you haven't.

That it doesn't make sense is on you, not me.

Sorry, but no. That's not how it works. You have to first communicate clearly. If I still don't understand, it might be on me, but you have to put the effort in to speak clearly first. Do that, and then we'll talk.

I have said something. It means something. If you try to derive a meaning you want from it, you will run into problems.

I'm just trying to derive any meaning from it at all in the context of our discussion. There is none that's relevant. You've basically answered my question of "Where do you live" with the response "Blue is a better color than green". Sure, your response means something, but it doesn't answer my question and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I don't know what you want things to mean, so the things I say, by extension, will rarely ever mean what you want them to mean.

I just want them to mean something relevant. Can you say something that means something relevant?

 

[Meow Mix]

Hello? Is this thing on?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Hello? Is this thing on?

Should be, I just rechecked the plug.

 

[mayacrisol]

It depends. There are several definitions of faith. Generally when speaking of faith in God, the definition is "belief without evidence".

Huh? belief without evidence?
But the Bible says:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
(From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse.)


Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi All,

I have not read all (I read quite a few though) of the posts between MM, mball, strikeviper, Willa etc. discussing the use of language sorry1, but I noted that somewhere above someone pointed out that this is in Comparative Religion, rather than debate. Just for my 2c, because it is my thread , I would not stifle healthy debate anywhere and everywhere it crops up (so long as people are being civil of course). But, one reason for choosing this particular subforum is so that people feel like it is a place to try to understand other POVs, and not just try to win arguments.

Apologies for butting in, but just wanted to let everyone know some of what I had in mind for the thread.

luna

 

[lunamoth]

For my part, I will grant that MM and mball have a point, to an extent, in that at the bottom of my faith there is a leap where I accept a model of my place in the universe without much in the way of 'objective evidence.' I feel like this is a reasonable thing to do because the model is about questions like 'why am I here?' As I said, it is leap about my worldview.

I would not use the same kind of criteria for a model that I hope to tell me something about the material universe. I am a scientist. I have been very successful in my area of research and I have the respect of my colleagues. I would never depend upon special revelation or Goddidit in my work - of course that would be inappropriate and useless.

Just as I would not use a scientific approach to my relationships with family and friends, I don't feel like I need to use an objective approach to the topic of how I relate to God, and what my faith and religion mean. Faith is not what you use to get to belief in God. Faith is what you have after you choose to believe in God.

Faith is not to 'make me a better person.' I spent many years rather oblivious to God and religion, and I was a fine person then. Faith is not to explain things about the natural world that at the moment we do not understand. As many have pointed out, science is the right approach for those questions. Finally, faith is not about getting into heaven after I die. I don't know what happens after I die. Regardless of what many other people think and say, even scripture does not have a lot to say about that, and frankly I have no idea whether we go on after this life or not. My faith is about how I live my life right now.

Anyway, I guess in this post I've said more about what faith is not. Thanks to all who have shared their views so far, whether faith plays a role in your life, or not.

 

[Meow Mix]

Huh? belief without evidence?
But the Bible says:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
(From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse.)


Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

But nothing about nature explicitely evidences the existence of any gods -- and particularly any specific gods even if it were argued that it does. The universe doesn't appear to need any gods to explain it; indeed it appears as though it operates without the involvement of a personal god.

 

[Meow Mix]

For my part, I will grant that MM and mball have a point, to an extent, in that at the bottom of my faith there is a leap where I accept a model of my place in the universe without much in the way of 'objective evidence.' I feel like this is a reasonable thing to do because the model is about questions like 'why am I here?' As I said, it is leap about my worldview.

I would not use the same kind of criteria for a model that I hope to tell me something about the material universe. I am a scientist. I have been very successful in my area of research and I have the respect of my colleagues. I would never depend upon special revelation or Goddidit in my work - of course that would be inappropriate and useless.

Just as I would not use a scientific approach to my relationships with family and friends, I don't feel like I need to use an objective approach to the topic of how I relate to God, and what my faith and religion mean. Faith is not what you use to get to belief in God. Faith is what you have after you choose to believe in God.

Faith is not to 'make me a better person.' I spent many years rather oblivious to God and religion, and I was a fine person then. Faith is not to explain things about the natural world that at the moment we do not understand. As many have pointed out, science is the right approach for those questions. Finally, faith is not about getting into heaven after I die. I don't know what happens after I die. Regardless of what many other people think and say, even scripture does not have a lot to say about that, and frankly I have no idea whether we go on after this life or not. My faith is about how I live my life right now.

Anyway, I guess in this post I've said more about what faith is not. Thanks to all who have shared their views so far, whether faith plays a role in your life, or not.

Regarding the red, what do you call what causes you to believe in God then? Did you use reason? Did you use metaphysical, empirical or otherwise objective evidence?

I don't object to giving someone "the benefit of the doubt" to behave in a certain way; such as having faith a superior officer will guide you skillfully (unless you have many reasons to doubt it), or having faith that you can loan a friend $10 or faith that a friend won't betray you. Most of those are based on reason/induction/inference anyway.

What I object to, and I think others like mball object to, is this notion of believing in the existence of something without solid justification (be it metaphysical, empirical, or otherwise objective).

 

[lunamoth]

Regarding the red, what do you call what causes you to believe in God then? Did you use reason? Did you use metaphysical, empirical or otherwise objective evidence?

I would say that I chose to believe in God; I take God as an axiom. This is not just hanging out there in space, but based upon personal experience. I have always felt what I refer to now as the More, and I have had specific experiences where I feel like God is putting what I need right before me and experiences that seem more like the experience of a presence, a comfort or a strength, and experiences where I feel I have been called and/or given direction. I have also been been blessed with much needed assistance in a time of difficulty that I attribute to help from God. I don't usually feel a need to discuss these things because I know very well that there are alternative explanations and my subjective experience is not going to be compelling to others.

Along with this, I believe my life to have meaning, and that all life has inherent value. I think it is reasonable to accept that there is 'something' more than will ever be scientifically measurable or accessible to human inquiry; in short that there is something 'super' (beyond) - natural. And a little more 'out there' as a hypothesis, I think it is reasonable to consider that we are conscious, sentient, intelligent beings because there is a pre-existing pattern that molds us toward consciousness, sentience and intelligence.

I don't object to giving someone "the benefit of the doubt" to behave in a certain way; such as having faith a superior officer will guide you skillfully (unless you have many reasons to doubt it), or having faith that you can loan a friend $10 or faith that a friend won't betray you. Most of those are based on reason/induction/inference anyway.

But I am not talking about having faith in people. I was just saying that when it comes to relationships with people, I don't use a scientific approach. I know some people will go so far as to say that love is just a neuro-physiological reaction honed by evolution for the preservation of our species, but even if I agree with that to a large extent, my relationships with people are much more than that. And I'm pretty willing to bet that even those who will claim that all that all of our relationships etc. can all be explained by social dynamics and evolutionary psychology etc. will not be asking their girlfriends for genetic tests before getting engaged. So, is this love reasonable or are we being irrational when we have relationships not based upon optimal conditions for the survival of our species?

This has nothing to do with faith. It is just to illustrate that we don't base many of the most important aspects of our lives on objective evidence and logic.

What I object to, and I think others like mball object to, is this notion of believing in the existence of something without solid justification (be it metaphysical, empirical, or otherwise objective).

Well, existence is strange stuff. I'm not sure God is stuff, although I believe that God is real. I think one can choose to believe that God is real in the same way we can choose to believe that it is good to be good, even when we know that goodness is not a value that can arise from nature if nature has no purpose or meaning.

 

[mayacrisol]

But nothing about nature explicitely evidences the existence of any gods -- and particularly any specific gods even if it were argued that it does. The universe doesn't appear to need any gods to explain it; indeed it appears as though it operates without the involvement of a personal god.

but us Christians,we believe what the scripture says, the words of God is enough and we are satisfied. we believe in God and he made the heavens and the earth and all that is in it and we exist through Him.

 

[Meow Mix]

but us Christians,we believe what the scripture says, the words of God is enough and we are satisfied. we believe in God and he made the heavens and the earth and all that is in it.

But how do you know it's the word of God? Because it says so?

 

[Meow Mix]

This has nothing to do with faith. It is just to illustrate that we don't base many of the most important aspects of our lives on objective evidence and logic.

I would say we do to an extent; there are almost never times when we take actions that are completely sporatic and without some sort of reasoning involved. "I like the color green" is a good example of a decision made without the use of reason (and a rare case in which it's not irrational), but if I choose a green sweater over a pink one because I like the color green that is indeed the use of reason: it's the hypothetical imperative, in Kant's terms.

Well, existence is strange stuff. I'm not sure God is stuff, although I believe that God is real. I think one can choose to believe that God is real in the same way we can choose to believe that it is good to be good, even when we know that goodness is not a value that can arise from nature if nature has no purpose or meaning.

Presuppositionalism though is problematic, and it usually conflicts with any attempts to build a good epistemology after the fact. You either have to turn a blind eye to your presuppositionalism when you build your epistemology or else you end up with a Frankensteinian monster with loopholes and exceptions that can't possibly lead to truth or knowledge.

For instance, when constructing our epistemologies we have to ask "Is it acceptable to believe without justification?" It's a simple question, the answer is usually just "yes" or "no." Presuppositionalistic notions of God conflict with epistemology because you'll find yourself saying something absurd like "No, unless we're talking about the existence of God in which case it's ok." Why the loophole; why the exception?

 

[mayacrisol]

But how do you know it's the word of God? Because it says so?

among other reasons (which i dare not discuss with non-believers)...yes because it says so.

 

[Meow Mix]

among other reasons (which i dare not discuss with non-believers)...yes because it says so.

Well, in lieu of hypothetical "unmentionable reasons (to non-believers)," do you believe any book which says it's true? Or just that one? Why that one, and not the other ones?

 

[darkendless]

Well, in lieu of hypothetical "unmentionable reasons (to non-believers)," do you believe any book which says it's true? Or just that one? Why that one, and not the other ones?

There are books that say aliens are true, dragons are true etc etc.

Does God deserve more respect than any myth just because their book is 2000 years old?

 

[lunamoth]

Presuppositionalism though is problematic, and it usually conflicts with any attempts to build a good epistemology after the fact. You either have to turn a blind eye to your presuppositionalism when you build your epistemology or else you end up with a Frankensteinian monster with loopholes and exceptions that can't possibly lead to truth or knowledge.

For instance, when constructing our epistemologies we have to ask "Is it acceptable to believe without justification?" It's a simple question, the answer is usually just "yes" or "no." Presuppositionalistic notions of God conflict with epistemology because you'll find yourself saying something absurd like "No, unless we're talking about the existence of God in which case it's ok." Why the loophole; why the exception?

I have not formally studied philosophy beyond Philosophy 101, over 25 years ago, so I get a bit lost when we start discussing espitemologies and presuppositistionalistic notions. However, the philosophers I have read a little of all seem to start with presuppositions, and sometimes some pretty wild ones (monads - now what was that all about?!). Which epistemologies have no presuppositions? Further, I did offer my data for justification. However, I offer my experiences as justification with the notation that I hold in tension the objective uncertainty with "the infinite passion of the individual inwardness."