What is Faith?

[darkendless]

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".

What they consider evidence is irrelevent. These days if someone came out with something similar to the bible they'd get laughed all the way to the crazyhouse.

I don't think weight of numbers believing and 2000 years of superstition adds weight to "evidence."

Why does evdience mean something different when faith is considered? Do we throw out common sense and logic to make faith stand up when ordinarily it wouldn't?

 

[Willamena]

What they consider evidence is irrelevent. These days if someone came out with something similar to the bible they'd get laughed all the way to the crazyhouse.

I don't think weight of numbers believing and 2000 years of superstition adds weight to "evidence."

Why does evdience mean something different when faith is considered? Do we throw out common sense and logic to make faith stand up when ordinarily it wouldn't?

Because we don't take it literally.

 

[darkendless]

Because we don't take it literally.

A lot of people do, others do when it suits them. Its still used somewhat as an authority ruling and as a justification.

How can something we don't take literally be used to influence laws and our way of life?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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

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.

I'm just making sure that's what you think. And you've proven me correct in your responses.

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?

It just makes it the way they are using it. Just because it's not the way you use it, doesn't mean it's wrong.

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

Your 'objective' opinion talking again, I assume.

 

[Willamena]

How can something we don't take literally be used to influence laws and our way of life?

I don't know --how is "liberty and justice for all" taken literally?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Faith is often discussed on this board, so I thought I would start a thread that discusses what faith means. I took the following from The Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg.

Which of the meanings of faith do you most identify with?

Four Meanings of Faith (M. Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pp. 28 - 37)

1. Faith as Assensus - giving one's mental assent to a proposition. Believing a claim or statement is true. 1) Orthodoxy - important to believe in the 'right' things as opposed to the 'wrong' things. 2) This view gained prominence during the Enlightenment, which identified truth with factuality. From Christian perspective, leads to the conclusion that God cares that we 'believe the right things.'

2. Faith as Fiducia -faith as trust. Not trusting in a particular set of statements about God, but trusting in God. "Faith is trusting in the sea of being in which we live and move and have our being." Opposite would be anxiety.

3. Faith as Fidelita - loyalty, faithfulness to our relationship with God. Being attentive to God and God's covenant by worship, prayer, practice, and a life of compassion and justice.

4. Faith as Visio - worldview; how we see the whole. Borg offers that we can choose among three ways to see the whole of our existence in the universe. First, see reality as hostile or threatening (can be expressed by the view held by some Christians that God is going to judge and punish us if we don't get it 'right.'). Second, to perceive the whole as indifferent to human purposes and ends (most common secular viewpoint; can be accompanied by the strong aesthetic of caring deeply for one's world and humanity). Third, to view 'what is' as life-giving and nourishing; expressed sometimes as trust in God's providence. Generates a willingness to 'spend and be spent;' for the sake of a vision that goes beyond ourselves. It is not based on a demonstration that reality is nice; rather it is the point that how we see reality affects how we experience and live our lives.


Borg goes on to describe the first form of trust to one 'of the head' and the following three as 'of the heart,' or relational. He sums this section by acknowledging that we cannot easily give our hearts to something that our head rejects, and by the Christian beliefs, or creeds, have roots in the meaning, 'I give my heart to.' Faith is about beloving God and all that God beloves, loving God and our neighbors.

I really find it difficult to assign any of those definitions to faith as it lives in me, for it seems to be beyond conceptual representation. Perhaps this piece of scripture best succinctly expresses the faith that inspires my mortal existence.

That which mortal man has never seen,
That which mortal man has never heard,
That which mortal man has never imagined,
That is what awaits those who love God. - 1 Corinthians 2:9

 

[Erebus]

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.

Good point, it always does surprise me how much you can discover for yourself.

 

[Magic Man]

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

No, the response is to make it clear that that one definition is the one being used, not the other ones.

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.

They're telling people that it's OK to believe even when there's not time for the collection of evidence, that sometimes you just have to believe even when you can't do that or even when the evidence there is looks like you're wrong.

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

I really don't know how you can't get that out of it. It's pretty explicit, and in the quote I gave, the person explaining it says it. I honestly don't understand how someone as smart and reasonable as you doesn't see it.

 

[Magic Man]

It just makes it the way they are using it. Just because it's not the way you use it, doesn't mean it's wrong.

OK, I guess this means we're done. If you think language should be arbitrary enough that people can use words to mean whatever they want, and they're not wrong, there's no real conversation to be had here.

Your 'objective' opinion talking again, I assume.

Yup, your attempt at witty comebacks instead of addressing the issue again, I assume.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, the response is to make it clear that that one definition is the one being used, not the other ones.

Really? Tell me how the following stories describe someone "believing without evidence":

- Enoch, who "walked with God" his entire life, was taken up to Heaven without dying in recognition of his loyalty to God.
- Noah, who heard the voice of God directly, followed God's commands and trusted that this would protect him from the destruction to come.
- Abraham, who also heard the voice of God directly, out of loyalty to God, followed God's command to kill his son as a test of his faith (only to be stopped by an angel when it was clear he passed).

They're telling people that it's OK to believe even when there's not time for the collection of evidence, that sometimes you just have to believe even when you can't do that or even when the evidence there is looks like you're wrong.

No, they're not. It's not a matter of not having time... it's a matter of trust: Paul is saying that even though you can't see Heaven with your own eyes now, Christ's resurrection shows that you can trust that your resurrection is to come. If there's anything about believing without evidence in there, it's secondary: Paul's whole thesis is that trust in God and loyalty to God (i.e. faith) should be enough. Maybe that sometimes implies factual assent, but it doesn't necessarily, and factual assent certainly isn't the limit of what Paul's talking about.

Paul recounts stories of people who were face-to-face with direct evidence of God their entire lives and refers to their faith. If "faith" means "belief without evidence", then how is this definition valid for these cases?

I really don't know how you can't get that out of it. It's pretty explicit, and in the quote I gave, the person explaining it says it. I honestly don't understand how someone as smart and reasonable as you doesn't see it.

Maybe it's because I know a bit of the Old Testament stories that Paul alludes to. Do you?

 

[Magic Man]

Really? Tell me how the following stories describe someone "believing without evidence":

- Enoch, who "walked with God" his entire life, was taken up to Heaven without dying in recognition of his loyalty to God.
- Noah, who heard the voice of God directly, followed God's commands and trusted that this would protect him from the destruction to come.
- Abraham, who also heard the voice of God directly, out of loyalty to God, followed God's command to kill his son as a test of his faith (only to be stopped by an angel when it was clear he passed).

They don't. That's why I said people need to remember the differences. The problem, as you said, with an example like Abraham is that it's a given that God exists and talks to him. Unless the same is true for the average person these days, that story isn't analogous to them, and they're not having faith in God the same way a fictional story's character is.

As I've said, the biggest reason faith in God is different from faith in your friends is that we all know your friends exist. Abraham's faith in that fictional story is like faith in your friends, but that's because God was as real in that context as your friends are now.

No, they're not. It's not a matter of not having time... it's a matter of trust: Paul is saying that even though you can't see Heaven with your own eyes now, Christ's resurrection shows that you can trust that your resurrection is to come. If there's anything about believing without evidence in there, it's secondary: Paul's whole thesis is that trust in God and loyalty to God (i.e. faith) should be enough. Maybe that sometimes implies factual assent, but it doesn't necessarily, and factual assent certainly isn't the limit of what Paul's talking about.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. The passage I posted says specifically to just believe even when there isn't time to collect evidence. You're just supposed to believe without evidence because someone told you so.

Paul recounts stories of people who were face-to-face with direct evidence of God their entire lives and refers to their faith. If "faith" means "belief without evidence", then how is this definition valid for these cases?

If you're talking about people who had direct and clear relationships with God, then none of it applies to today, since no one talks to God like in those stories.

Here's what I'm saying. These days, people don't talk to God directly, like they describe in those stories. If you want to praise faith in that sense, then you're praising something different than the belief in God in the modern-day sense, since the belief in God has no evidence.

Maybe it's because I know a bit of the Old Testament stories that Paul alludes to. Do you?

Here's the problem: Those stories are telling you to have faith in your friends and other people you know exist. They are not telling you to have faith in God, because that's something completely different. Again, there is a huge difference between having faith that your friend who you know exists will honor his promise and having faith that something for which there is no evidence exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They don't. That's why I said people need to remember the differences. The problem, as you said, with an example like Abraham is that it's a given that God exists and talks to him. Unless the same is true for the average person these days, that story isn't analogous to them, and they're not having faith in God the same way a fictional story's character is.

I disagree. A person today can still have trust in God, or loyalty to God. Maybe that leads them to believe things without evidence, but this is often the result, not the cause.

Heck - you almost can't swing a dead cat in the English-speaking part of North American without hitting someone who says they have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". Now, we probably both think that the person is mistaken, but that doesn't mean they're not sincere.

Many people do think they have evidence for God. Maybe they're wrong (actually, I'd bet good money on them being wrong), but these definitions of faith are entirely based on the mindset of the person holding the faith, so what only matters is what they believe to be true about God, not what actually is true about God.

As I've said, the biggest reason faith in God is different from faith in your friends is that we all know your friends exist. Abraham's faith in that fictional story is like faith in your friends, but that's because God was as real in that context as your friends are now.

There are any number of believers who will tell you that they're more certain about the existence of God than they are about anything else. And on this issue, it's their mindset that matters, not whether that mindset is well-founded.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. The passage I posted says specifically to just believe even when there isn't time to collect evidence. You're just supposed to believe without evidence because someone told you so.

But it doesn't only say that, and it only talks about believing without evidence in the context of trusting in God.

If you're talking about people who had direct and clear relationships with God, then none of it applies to today, since no one talks to God like in those stories.

But in this case, we're in the story! We're talking about Paul's point of view. Dismissing his use of the word faith based on your understanding of the evidence is like saying that when Darth Vader says "Death Star", he must mean an actual star, because nobody could really build a space station like that.

Here's what I'm saying. These days, people don't talk to God directly, like they describe in those stories. If you want to praise faith in that sense, then you're praising something different than the belief in God in the modern-day sense, since the belief in God has no evidence.

And what I'm saying is this doesn't work, because you can find countless people who are sincerely convinced that the existence of God is proven by evidence. Whether they have good reason to do so is irrelevant. If a person believes that God is certain, then those other forms of faith like "trust in God" and "loyalty to God" are available to them.

IMO, to argue that these forms of faith no longer exist is to argue that many, many believers are dishonest - not just honestly mistaken, but actually lying about what they believe about the world and the evidence for God.

Here's the problem: Those stories are telling you to have faith in your friends and other people you know exist. They are not telling you to have faith in God, because that's something completely different. Again, there is a huge difference between having faith that your friend who you know exists will honor his promise and having faith that something for which there is no evidence exists.

And again, I think you're missing the mark: the question of whether not a person's "faith" can take the form of trust in God doesn't depend on whether objective evidence for God actually exists; it only depends on whether the person holding the faith believes that it does. It's a question of sincerety, not correctness.

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree. A person today can still have trust in God, or loyalty to God. Maybe that leads them to believe things without evidence, but this is often the result, not the cause.

I don't think you can have trust or loyalty in something that's not even guaranteed to exist.

Heck - you almost can't swing a dead cat in the English-speaking part of North American without hitting someone who says they have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". Now, we probably both think that the person is mistaken, but that doesn't mean they're not sincere.

Sure, but regardless of that, they still don't have the same relationship with Jesus that they do with their friends.

Many people do think they have evidence for God. Maybe they're wrong (actually, I'd bet good money on them being wrong), but these definitions of faith are entirely based on the mindset of the person holding the faith, so what only matters is what they believe to be true about God, not what actually is true about God.

I disagree. I understand that this is why people misuse the word faith, but the fact that they're mistaken about what is evidence doesn't make their faith any less "belief without evidence". That's why you have to use a consistent definition of evidence. those same people wouldn't accept the same kind of evidence for most other things. Heck, they don't even accept the same kind of evidence for other gods.

There are any number of believers who will tell you that they're more certain about the existence of God than they are about anything else. And on this issue, it's their mindset that matters, not whether that mindset is well-founded.

I disagree. I don't think it's their mindset, but the truth that matters.

But it doesn't only say that, and it only talks about believing without evidence in the context of trusting in God.

Right, and therefore it's a misuse of "trust". Unless the person has the same sort of contact with God that they have with real people, what they have it faith in God, not trust.

But in this case, we're in the story! We're talking about Paul's point of view. Dismissing his use of the word faith based on your understanding of the evidence is like saying that when Darth Vader says "Death Star", he must mean an actual star, because nobody could really build a space station like that.

I'm not dismissing his use of the word. I'm saying his use only applies when the person actually knows God personally like they know their friends and other real people. If the person doesn't know God like the people in the story did, then his definitions don't apply.

And what I'm saying is this doesn't work, because you can find countless people who are sincerely convinced that the existence of God is proven by evidence. Whether they have good reason to do so is irrelevant. If a person believes that God is certain, then those other forms of faith like "trust in God" and "loyalty to God" are available to them.

No, whether they have good reason to do so is the heart of the matter. I understand why they use the definitions they do, but the point is they're using them wrong. Again, unless they have the same relationship with God as they do with their friends, trust and loyalty are not the right terms.

IMO, to argue that these forms of faith no longer exist is to argue that many, many believers are dishonest - not just honestly mistaken, but actually lying about what they believe about the world and the evidence for God.

I think they're a little of both. They are mistaken, but also dishonest, but mostly with themselves.

And again, I think you're missing the mark: the question of whether not a person's "faith" can take the form of trust in God doesn't depend on whether objective evidence for God actually exists; it only depends on whether the person holding the faith believes that it does. It's a question of sincerety, not correctness.

And again, I disagree.

 

[Meow Mix]

When I ask a basic question to people such as "What justifies your belief in God?" I will often in my experience get at least a few responses that boil down to the word "faith," which -- when pressed further -- becomes "belief without evidence," in support of what mball has been saying.

I've also discussed with people about why they believe in God and some will openly admit that their belief is not based on reason and furthermore can't/shouldn't be based on reason -- further supporting what mball is saying.

I'm not saying that's the only definition of "faith," but that it does indeed seem to me to be a very common (certainly THE most common around me geographically and with many I've directly engaged with on the subject) definition of "faith" to mean essentially a somehow "virtuous" belief in the lack of evidence or reason.

Here's an experiment you can do: enter or start a discussion regarding the existence of God and how people know about it and count the number of times people talk about faith.

If as some are arguing "faith" has nothing to do with unevidenced belief, why on earth would we be talking about "trust" in an entity when we're questioning whether or not the thing exists to begin with? I think it's fairly obvious that very, very many people do actively use the word "faith" to mean belief in lieu of evidence. The fact that a great number of people will start talking about "faith" in response to a question like "How do you know God exists" is powerful evidence for that.

If "faith" doesn't mean belief without evidence, then there's no reason the word should even come up in a discussion about the ontological existence of God -- no more than the word "faith" should come up in a discussion about whether or not your parents or friends exist. Yet it does come up in such discussions; and it comes up pretty much unfailingly -- which implies a strong correlation between the word and the concept of belief without evidence or at least as some kind of alternative to normal reasoning.

I agree with mball from there -- that often, these same people that will talk about "faith" for whatever reason in an ontological discussion will then later on usually equivocate it to its other meanings.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

OK, I guess this means we're done. If you think language should be arbitrary enough that people can use words to mean whatever they want, and they're not wrong, there's no real conversation to be had here.

Language is arbitrary, whether we think it is or not. Words are labels, merely our perceptions of things, not what those things really are. If you start identifying the thing the word describes as the word itself, you'll run into all sorts of problems. When our perceptions about a thing change, what we mean when we describe the thing changes as well. That doesn't mean the word we use changes, however.

Yup, your attempt at witty comebacks instead of addressing the issue again, I assume.

I was illustrating a point. An objective opinion is not only about know the 'right' answer.

 

[LuisDantas]

I chose "other". All the proposed definitions revolve around belief in God, and are therefore useless to me.

Faith is useful, but only under certain circunstances which include not relying on the belief in the existence of God.

 

[lunamoth]

I chose "other". All the proposed definitions revolve around belief in God, and are therefore useless to me.

Fair enough.

Faith is useful, but only under certain circunstances which include not relying on the belief in the existence of God.

Well, I put this in comparative religion for a reason. I assumed those interested would accept a basic validity to religious views.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, so do I, Luna. Belief in God is not a basic religious concept.

At least, it is not basic in the sense of being needed. Unlike Faith.

 

[idea]

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

the devils believe....

(New Testament | James 2:19)
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the adevils also bbelieve, and tremble.


I see faith as trust. Because of the holy Spirit, I know God is real - however knowing He is real, and trusting Him, are two different things. Trust comes with experience... after following promptings of the Holy Spirit (or not) after awhile, you gain trust in it.

 

[Nothing]

4. Faith as Visio - worldview; how we see the whole. Borg offers that we can choose among three ways to see the whole of our existence in the universe. First, see reality as hostile or threatening (can be expressed by the view held by some Christians that God is going to judge and punish us if we don't get it 'right.'). Second, to perceive the whole as indifferent to human purposes and ends (most common secular viewpoint; can be accompanied by the strong aesthetic of caring deeply for one's world and humanity). Third, to view 'what is' as life-giving and nourishing; expressed sometimes as trust in God's providence. Generates a willingness to 'spend and be spent;' for the sake of a vision that goes beyond ourselves. It is not based on a demonstration that reality is nice; rather it is the point that how we see reality affects how we experience and live our lives.

This is the one I identify with most, especially the part about how we see reality. I have no doubt that my perception of reality precludes my experiences.