What is Faith?

[sandandfoam]

It pretty much goes for anyone who believes in something without evidence and praises faith.

Is there such a person?

I don't have the answer - but I imagine that no-one believes in something without reason. (Is a 'reason to believe' different from a believers perspective than evidence? I don't think it is.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Actually, even a department-store telescope will let you see the shadows on Venus that demonstrated to Galileo that the geocentric model is wrong. A bit of logic and math can lead from that to the conclusion that the Earth orbits the Sun.

And it's fairly straightforward to build a Foucault Pendulum to demonstrate the fact that the Earth is rotating.

 

[Midnight Pete]

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.

Fair enough.

 

[Willamena]

... we allow for people to actually talk intelligently about matters of faith.

On behalf of everyone who thinks they're intelligible (despite evidence to the contrary), thank you.

 

[Erebus]

Actually, even a department-store telescope will let you see the shadows on Venus that demonstrated to Galileo that the geocentric model is wrong. A bit of logic and math can lead from that to the conclusion that the Earth orbits the Sun.

And it's fairly straightforward to build a Foucault Pendulum to demonstrate the fact that the Earth is rotating.

Fair enough, but until you said that I didn't know how to determine that the Earth revolves around the sun for myself, yet I still trusted the scientists.
You could replace my example with any number of others, I only chose that one because it was pretty straightforward

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough, but until you said that I didn't know how to determine that the Earth revolves around the sun for myself, yet I still trusted the scientists.
You could replace my example with any number of others, I only chose that one because it was pretty straightforward

Yeah, but what I was trying to get at is that many of the scientific concepts that we might take on "faith" are actually pretty easy to demonstrate.

Usually, the really hard work is in developing the theories in the first place. Confirming that a theory is true is usually a lot simpler... and is within the grasp of the average person a surprising proportion of the time.

 

[sandandfoam]

Confirming that a theory is true is usually a lot simpler... and is within the grasp of the average person a surprising proportion of the time.

I reckon that when truth walks in the door the scientific approach slips out the window.
The researchers I think have the most interesting things to say see knowledge as provisional.

 

[MoonWater]

That works for me also.

Very well expressed.

thanks, and here I thought it would come off as rambling nonsense considering I was half asleep when I wrote it

 

[BruceDLimber]

The Baha'i scriptures state "Faith is conscious knowledge!"

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Willamena]

This came up in another thread: Faith as Hope.

In this regard, I see the trust that has been placed in optimistically expecting that circumstances will turn out well.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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

Keep thinking that.

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.

And of course, this 'what it is' definition is based on your expert, objective opinion.

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.

Again, this is you 'objective' opinion speaking here. Faith means different things to different people, even within the same examples. Did your 'objectivity' miss that or something?

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.

Belief without evidence is trust. Why is that a problem for you to accept?

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

It is much easier to breed trust between friends when you first have faith, than without. Between God, it is impossible.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Faith is what remains. Don't give me that atheist crap, belief without evidence; that's for those idiots who believe America is a democracy.

Generally, Faith = sincerity. It's in the dictionary.

 

[Magic Man]

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

I did. I posted it above. I think it might be good for you to go back and read it again.

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.

Right, and it equivocates them like people are doing here. That's my point. It doesn't talk about them as if they're separate things. It talks about them as if they're all one and the same, when they're not. And there is no "trust in God". It's faith.

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."

Regardless, the point is to believe without evidence just because someone says so.

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.

There are other definitions of faith, but people need to remember that they are other definitions. As long as that's kept in mind, it's not a problem, but when we're talking about Christianity, the definition that's appropriate is "belief without evidence" as that passage from the Bible illustrates.

 

[Magic Man]

Is there such a person?

Yes, there are many such people. There are such people on this very thread.

I don't have the answer - but I imagine that no-one believes in something without reason. (Is a 'reason to believe' different from a believers perspective than evidence? I don't think it is.)

No, people generally don't believe stuff without reason, but they do without evidence. And yes, "reason to believe" is different. Maybe not from a believer's perspective, but objectively, it is.

 

[sandandfoam]

when we're talking about Christianity, the definition that's appropriate is "belief without evidence" as that passage from the Bible illustrates.

I've got to disagree Matt, Christianity goes beyond biblical literalism.

 

[sandandfoam]

objectively, it is.

I don't accept that either you, I or anyone else are capable of knowing objectivity

 

[Magic Man]

Keep thinking that.

Thanks, I will. I do generally like to think the truth.

And of course, this 'what it is' definition is based on your expert, objective opinion.

Oh, I'm no expert. There's no such thing. But you agreed to it yourself, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Again, this is you 'objective' opinion speaking here. Faith means different things to different people, even within the same examples. Did your 'objectivity' miss that or something?

Nope, it's my objectivity that lets me see that it's an incorrect use. I mean, heck, people use the word "literally" incorrectly all the time. Is it correct simply because they're using it that way?

Belief without evidence is trust. Why is that a problem for you to accept?

Well, it's usually a problem for me to accept things that aren't true.

It is much easier to breed trust between friends when you first have faith, than without. Between God, it is impossible.

This has nothing to do with anything, though.

 

[Magic Man]

I've got to disagree Matt, Christianity goes beyond biblical literalism.

Sure, it is, but that's beside the point.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't accept that either you, I or anyone else are capable of knowing objectivity

I know that. I disagree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right, and it equivocates them like people are doing here. That's my point. It doesn't talk about them as if they're separate things. It talks about them as if they're all one and the same, when they're not. And there is no "trust in God". It's faith.

So the response is to throw out all definitions but one? That strikes me as unreasonable.

Regardless, the point is to believe without evidence just because someone says so.

No, it's not. It's to believe in your own resurrection on the basis of the evidence of Christ's resurrection.

Whether or not you think it's valid evidence (and I'd wager you don't) doesn't really matter. IMO, Paul and the people he was writing to considered it to be evidence, so I don't believe they would've described their own faith as "belief without evidence".

Were they mistaken? I think they probably were. However, this is a separate question.

There are other definitions of faith, but people need to remember that they are other definitions. As long as that's kept in mind, it's not a problem, but when we're talking about Christianity, the definition that's appropriate is "belief without evidence" as that passage from the Bible illustrates.

Except that's not what it does illustrate. I really don't know how you can read that into it.