What is Faith?

[blackout]

I don't really understand what a couple of those definitions are attempting to say.

For me, faith is the act/ion of
Living "As If"
or suspending disbelief
at the bequest of an inspiration, hunch or curiousity.

In my experience
Belief (with a capitol 'B')
and "exercizing faith"
can have little
or even nothing at all
to do with one another.

Because I often engage in
"as if" activities of a metaphysical nature
some would liken it to some kind of "religious" faith.
But in that
I don't really "Believe" much of anything
(with a capitol B)
I could be seen as even less "believing"
than the average athiest.
(in terms of any kind of BeliefFaith in any "world view" at all- including societal)

I personally am more interested in the experience of life
than explinations for/of it.
I generally shrug off the "dont's" "can'ts" "should's" and "Is'es"
of every camp,
especially when it come to the nature of Reality,
and people/society.

(though I sometimes "try them on"
for the sake of an "as if")

 

[MoonWater]

Yeah, actually it does have to do with bias, but not mine. That's the problem. People who think faith is a good thing want to keep thinking that, so they use all of the different definitions as if they're all one single word, so that it sounds like their faith is actually a good thing.

I'm not trying to tell people what faith must mean. I'm trying to tell you what it does mean in a certain context. I mean, hell, you can go around using "car" to mean "flying elephant". Should I not try to explain to you that that word doesn't mean that?

The simple fact is when talking about faith in God, what is meant is "belief without evidence". I understand that you and others don't want to admit that. I understand that you'd rather carry on believing it means "trust and confidence" because it's supposedly the same thing as having faith in your friends. I understand that you like your poetic definitions that are ultimately meaningless, other than to help you keep pretending that faith in that sense is a good thing. I understand that I'm not going to get through to you. I just feel I have to try.

So, thanks for playing.

Why can't faith in god mean the same thing as trust in your friends? And why is such a definition ultimately meaningless? And while we're at it what EVIDENCE do you have that the definition you propose is the only "proper" or "correct" definition of belief in god?

 

[MoonWater]

I chose trust as the closest definition. Working with the gods in my tradition is seen as working with beings who are equal to us(exceptionally more powerful, of greater wisdom, and deserving of deep respect, but still equals) and that ultimately it's not about whether or not these beings literally exist but what we get out of the experience. Working with the gods is to work with ourselves and so in that since(at least this is what I believe) when I trust the gods to help me I am, in a roundabout way, teaching myself to trust me to help myself.

 

[blackout]

I chose trust as the closest definition. Working with the gods in my tradition is seen as working with beings who are equal to us(exceptionally more powerful, of greater wisdom, and deserving of deep respect, but still equals) and that ultimately it's not about whether or not these beings literally exist but what we get out of the experience. Working with the gods is to work with ourselves and so in that since(at least this is what I believe) when I trust the gods to help me I am, in a roundabout way, teaching myself to trust me to help myself.

That works for me also.

Very well expressed.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Yeah, actually it does have to do with bias, but not mine. That's the problem. People who think faith is a good thing want to keep thinking that, so they use all of the different definitions as if they're all one single word, so that it sounds like their faith is actually a good thing.

Your own bias is talking here. You think faith is bad, so you keep you definition to make it stay bad. You only look at the context in which faith is bad, so that's all you see.

I'm not trying to tell people what faith must mean. I'm trying to tell you what it does mean in a certain context. I mean, hell, you can go around using "car" to mean "flying elephant". Should I not try to explain to you that that word doesn't mean that?

Who are you to explain what something does or does not mean? All you can tell someone else is what you think something means. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them wrong. It doesn't make you wrong either, it just means you both disagree.

The simple fact is when talking about faith in God, what is meant is "belief without evidence". I understand that you and others don't want to admit that.

I will freely admit it. Belief in God is belief without evidence. it frustrates the hell out of me constantly, but that doesn't mean I just stop doing it. Sometimes life requires a little faith to have faith. It's circular, stupid and irrational. But still, that's life.

I understand that you'd rather carry on believing it means "trust and confidence" because it's supposedly the same thing as having faith in your friends. I understand that you like your poetic definitions that are ultimately meaningless, other than to help you keep pretending that faith in that sense is a good thing. I understand that I'm not going to get through to you. I just feel I have to try.

So, thanks for playing.

If you believe something without evidence, say that a friend who is completely unreliable is going to be one time for once, and that friend does show up on time, does that not foster trust?
Doesn't seem so meaningless to me.

 

[Erebus]

I tend to think of faith simply as a particularly strong expression of trust. Sometimes with good reason, sometimes without. You can have faith in anything from gods, to science to friends.

 

[Magic Man]

Why can't faith in god mean the same thing as trust in your friends?

Because we know your friends exist. You know them personally in a real sense, and you know their qualities. You don't know that God exists, and you don't know him personally or his qualities, although I realize there will be many people who disagree with that.

And why is such a definition ultimately meaningless?

Because it doesn't accurately describe what it's attempting to.

And while we're at it what EVIDENCE do you have that the definition you propose is the only "proper" or "correct" definition of belief in god?

The reasons I've already explained. People believe God exists without evidence, and then they claim it's a virtue to do that.

 

[Midnight Pete]

The biblical definition in Hebrews 11:1 is the one I prefer over all the rest.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

[Midnight Pete]

I tend to think of faith simply as a particularly strong expression of trust. Sometimes with good reason, sometimes without. You can have faith in anything from gods, to science to friends.

You agree that science can be an object of faith?

But what is more unscientific than unsupported belief?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The reasons I've already explained. People believe God exists without evidence, and then they claim it's a virtue to do that.

I personally think that a lot of this comes from a confusion between the different definitions of "faith".

Looking at the Bible, I think a lot of its descriptions of faith are written based on the idea of faith as trust, or faith as loyalty. IMO, most of the Bible takes the existence of God as a given. There's never any question of whether intellectual assent is required.

Now, however, I think there's been a re-interpretation of many of the Bible passages that talk about faith. Where (IMO) they previously praised something closer to trust in God, now people interpret these passages as praise for belief without evidence.

Basically, if you say that "belief without evidence" is the only valid definition for the term "faith" in a religious context, then I think you give support to this mistaken interpretation that, IMO, too often leads to religious people considering ignorance to be a virtue.

So... I don't think you have a valid argument here, and I think that if we accept your argument without proper support, we arrive at a very negative conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You agree that science can be an object of faith?

But what is more unscientific than unsupported belief?

It's possible to put an unwarranted level of trust in anything. This doesn't mean that the thing doesn't warrant trust at all.

 

[Magic Man]

Your own bias is talking here.

Sorry, but no. It's exactly my objectivity on the subject that's talking.

You think faith is bad, so you keep you definition to make it stay bad. You only look at the context in which faith is bad, so that's all you see.

No, I know faith is bad because of what it is. I use the definition that's correct because I'm not in the business of apologizing for faith.

Who are you to explain what something does or does not mean? All you can tell someone else is what you think something means. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them wrong. It doesn't make you wrong either, it just means you both disagree.

That can be true in certain cases, but it's not here. When people use "trust" or "confidence" when talking about their belief in God's existence, it is an incorrect use. That's not what faith means in that case.

I will freely admit it. Belief in God is belief without evidence. it frustrates the hell out of me constantly, but that doesn't mean I just stop doing it. Sometimes life requires a little faith to have faith. It's circular, stupid and irrational. But still, that's life.

Exactly. That's all I'm saying. The only part I disagree with is that life requires it. It doesn't. I go through life without that kind of faith. I have faith in friends and family and such, but that's the "trust" kind of faith, not the "belief without evidence" kind.

If you believe something without evidence, say that a friend who is completely unreliable is going to be one time for once, and that friend does show up on time, does that not foster trust?
Doesn't seem so meaningless to me.

Does it matter whether you believed he would show up or not? What is fostering trust there is his actions, not your faith.

And what I said is meaningless is the poetic definitions of faith people give. Saying "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." may sound cool, but all it really means is "belief without evidence". Actually, speaking of that, that's where a lot of people get their ideas of what faith is. Here is the rest of that part from the Bible and an explanation of it from this site:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Heb 11:1 (NEB) Faith... makes us certain of realities we do not see.
Heb 11:1 (Mof) Now faith means that we are confident of what we hope for, convinced of what we do not see.
Heb 11:1 (Wey) Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.


While faith requires being convinced that what we believe in is true, just knowing the truth is only half of faith. God's word must be hoped for, embraced, seized! Luke 17:5 (NIV) The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!" He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you."

Believing is not exactly the same as faith. For belief to be faith, it must light on what is certainly true. Yet Scripture gives examples of situations where belief alone is required, even commanded. There's no time for evidence collection, to wait, to hear, for certainty. Just believe. Like Peter walking on the water--don't think, act! God even requires us to believe in him when, temporarily, the evidence looks bad: to trust. [We will study belief and trust separately.] God requires belief and trust in moments of human weakness, but faith is what makes us strong. Faith is the state of being convinced about what we hope for.

EDIT: OK, don't know why it cut this out the first time, but:

This is a perfect example of the equivocation. He even says that faith is "belief without evidence" when he says it's "belief in things unseen" and "There's no time for evidence collection, to wait, to hear, for certainty. Just believe". That's why I use the definition I do. The problem is that he also tries to make it mean something different. But believing in something without evidence is not well-grounded, and believing despite the only evidence there is looking bad is not trust.

The idea of faith here is that you should just believe even when it doesn't seem like your belief has any good reason for it because God considers that to be a good thing. The biggest problem is that this is only a good thing when applied to God. You should only believe in God in this way, not Allah, or any other gods, and not leprechauns or other things.

 

[Willamena]

Basically, if you say that "belief without evidence" is the only valid definition for the term "faith" in a religious context, then I think you give support to this mistaken interpretation that, IMO, too often leads to religious people considering ignorance to be a virtue.

While that may be the case, I think it's also possible that it's a case of over-reductionism. The reason for trust, in many instances of faith, is lack of evidence; but to say that faith relies on that lack of evidence rather than the trust is simply to miss the mark.

 

[Willamena]

It's possible to put an unwarranted level of trust in anything. This doesn't mean that the thing doesn't warrant trust at all.

Just so.

 

[Magic Man]

I personally think that a lot of this comes from a confusion between the different definitions of "faith".

Looking at the Bible, I think a lot of its descriptions of faith are written based on the idea of faith as trust, or faith as loyalty. IMO, most of the Bible takes the existence of God as a given. There's never any question of whether intellectual assent is required.

Now, however, I think there's been a re-interpretation of many of the Bible passages that talk about faith. Where (IMO) they previously praised something closer to trust in God, now people interpret these passages as praise for belief without evidence.

Basically, if you say that "belief without evidence" is the only valid definition for the term "faith" in a religious context, then I think you give support to this mistaken interpretation that, IMO, too often leads to religious people considering ignorance to be a virtue.

So... I don't think you have a valid argument here, and I think that if we accept your argument without proper support, we arrive at a very negative conclusion.

As I just posted, the Bible praises belief without evidence. It says specifically you sometimes need to believe in something when there is no evidence, and that sometimes it's good to believe in things unseen. We can all agree that trust and confidence are good things, but you don't have trust or confidence in God like you do your friends.

And many religious people do consider ignorance to be a virtue; it's just that they call it "faith" instead because it sounds better, and because they can equivocate with the other definitions of faith. It's a bait-and-switch. "Faith is a virtue." "Belief without evidence is a virtue?" "No, faith as in trust and confidence, like you have in your friends." "Oh, so faith in God is not a virtue?" "No, that's the same thing." "No, it's not."

 

[sandandfoam]

As I just posted, the Bible praises belief without evidence. It says specifically you sometimes need to believe in something when there is no evidence, and that sometimes it's good to believe in things unseen. We can all agree that trust and confidence are good things, but you don't have trust or confidence in God like you do your friends.

Getting hung up on what the Bible says is limiting you to a narrow band of those who profess faith - isn't it?

 

[Willamena]

We can all agree that trust and confidence are good things, but you don't have trust or confidence in God like you do your friends.

Re many images of "God", god is as real as your friends. In fact, to the pantheistic types, god is just as real as your friends.

 

[Magic Man]

Getting hung up on what the Bible says is limiting you to a narrow band of those who profess faith - isn't it?

Not really. It pretty much goes for anyone who believes in something without evidence and praises faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I just posted, the Bible praises belief without evidence. It says specifically you sometimes need to believe in something when there is no evidence, and that sometimes it's good to believe in things unseen. We can all agree that trust and confidence are good things, but you don't have trust or confidence in God like you do your friends.

Midnight Pete gave the first verse from Hebrews 11. It might be good for you to read through the whole chapter.

It does touch on faith as assent to factual matters, such as the creation of the world and belief in God, but it also describes many other things as "faith":

- loyalty, as in the case of Abel and Enoch.
- trust in God, as in the case of Noah, Abraham and Sarah.

And the "things unseen" that Paul is talking about is, for the most part, the promise of eternal life. IOW, he's not saying "believe God is there even though you can't see him"; he's saying "believe God will do what he says he will even though you haven't seen Heaven yet."

And many religious people do consider ignorance to be a virtue; it's just that they call it "faith" instead because it sounds better, and because they can equivocate with the other definitions of faith. It's a bait-and-switch. "Faith is a virtue." "Belief without evidence is a virtue?" "No, faith as in trust and confidence, like you have in your friends." "Oh, so faith in God is not a virtue?" "No, that's the same thing." "No, it's not."

And this is what I'm talking about. When "faith" only means "belief without evidence", a person who considers the Bible will be true will have no choice but to interpret all the praise of faith as praise of ignorance. But when we allow a wider spectrum of definitions for "faith", we allow for people to actually talk intelligently about matters of faith.

 

[Erebus]

You agree that science can be an object of faith?

But what is more unscientific than unsupported belief?

Certainly, some people will believe something simply because a scientist claims it to be true. In fact, some people go as far as to say they refuse to believe in anything which hasn't been verified scientifically.

For the most part though, faith in science tends to be a trust that scientists have got something right when we ourselves only have their word for it. I for example have faith that the Earth orbits the sun, not the other way round, yet I don't have the means to prove this for myself and indeed to the naked eye it appears that the sun simply moves across the sky. In this circumstance I place my faith in the scientists.