What is Faith?

[lunamoth]

About faith:

When subjectivity is the truth, the conceptual determination of the truth must include an expression for the antithesis to objectivity, a memento of the fork in the road where the way swings off; this expression will at the same time serve as an indication of the tension of the subjective inwardness. Here is such a definition of truth: An objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation-process of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth attainable for an existing individual. At the point where the way swings off (and where this is cannot be specified objectively, since it is a matter of subjectivity), there objective knowledge is placed in abeyance. Thus the subject merely has, objectively, the uncertainty; but it is this which precisely increases the tension of that infinite passion which constitutes his inwardness. The truth is precisely the venture which chooses an objective uncertainty with the passion of the infinite. I contemplate the order of nature in the hope of finding God, and I see omnipotence and wisdom; but I also see much else that disturbs my mind and excites anxiety. The sum of all this is an objective uncertainty. But it is for this very reason that the inwardness becomes as intense as it is, for it embraces this objective uncertainty with the entire passion of the infinite. In the case of a mathematical proposition the objectivity is given, but for this reason the truth of such a proposition is also an indifferent truth.

But the above definition of truth is an equivalent expression of faith. Without risk there is no faith. Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual's inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith.

Excerpts from Concluding Unscientific Postscript, translated by D. Swenson and W. Lowrie, @ 1941 by Princeton University Press (renewed). Reprinted by permission of Princeton University Press.

 

[lunamoth]

More Kierkegaard:

Faith...cannot be any sort of provisional function. He who, from the vantage point of a higher knowledge, would know his faith...has ceased to believe...for precisely the relation to or the repulsion from the unintelligible, the absurd, is the expression fo the passion of faith.

- Concluding Unscientific Postscript, S. Kierkegaard

 

[strikeviperMKII]

No, it was an act of reason which caused me to abandon the utility of faith. Rather than believing things without justification anymore I used reason to determine that I should have justification for things in order to believe them.

I know that's what you did. I didn't say otherwise. Why did you pick reason? Just because? That's faith. Because reason said so? That's circular. Because you thought it was a good idea? That's faith.

:sarcastic But I asked "In what sense is it a statement of faith to decide things based on a critical evaluation of their truth rather than believing things simply because they're comforting?"

Rather than answering the question you've merely repeated your assertion.

It is a faith statement for the same reason that your example is an example of faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is a statement of faith.

No, it's a statement of preference.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I've never denied the use of faith in my past. It's precisely that I've done so that I'm able to understand from experience its shortcomings, its irrationality, and why it doesn't seem to me as though it could possibly be a valid path towards truth. It's because I slowly learned why faith isn't a valud approach to truth that I neglect to engage in it anymore; just as a scientist might reject a failed hypothesis after discovering it doesn't work.



In what sense is it a statement of faith to decide things based on a critical evaluation of their truth rather than believing things simply because they're comforting? This is a statement against the supposed utility of faith, not a faith statement in itself.

I disagree. That Vucan disguise of yours doesn't fool me anymore, Meow. I'm pretty sure you're just as human as I am.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Faith is subjective to everyone to a degree...

Faith ultimately is a belief that sustains or in some way assists you in certain situations.

Faith in oneself helps one successfully negotiate a job interview for example.
Faith in the protection of Jesus when the predators are circling outside lends courage and resolve in another example.

Faith is very powerful...it makes flesh stronger than steel....

 

[Magic Man]

I get what you are saying, although that is how a lot of words mean what they do today. When you look back things had different meanings. A friends teenage son now uses 'book' to mean 'cool', because on predictive text that's what cool first comes up as. So now, his school knows 'book' to mean 'cool'.

Language evolves over time, always has one and always will do.

Yes, language evolves, but using a slang term for "cool" is different from equivocating all the meanings of "faith". It would be like using book to mean cool and a thing with pages and words at the same time as if they were the same thing.

 

[Magic Man]

I didn't say we can change words whenever and wherever we want. Why would you jump to that conclusion?

You've been changing several words in this thread to mean things that are completely different than the accepted meanings.

 

[Magic Man]

That's the time trust is most important, and trust is at the root of loyalty. Soldiers follow their leaders with trust that their leaders are doing the right thing for the benefit of the country. They've no guarantee that that's the case. When we trust in a friend to do a certain thing, it's trusting because there's no guarantee. When we trust in the future to bring us something in particular, we trust because there's no guarantee that the future will be what we anticipate it to be.

But those things are all guaranteed to exist. You know the soldiers' leaders exist; you know the friends exist, etc. You trust them because you know them personally or because you understand their position, but most importantly, your first qualification for trusting them is their actual existence.

 

[Magic Man]

I know that's what you did. I didn't say otherwise. Why did you pick reason? Just because? That's faith. Because reason said so? That's circular. Because you thought it was a good idea? That's faith.

She chose reason because it became obvious that faith wasn't leading her to reality, while reason was. There was no faith involved in her decision to pursue reason rather than faith.

It is a faith statement for the same reason that your example is an example of faith.

But that was not an example of faith and the statement is not a faith statement. It seems you're incorrect on both counts because of some misunderstanding of faith and reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But those things are all guaranteed to exist. You know the soldiers' leaders exist; you know the friends exist, etc. You trust them because you know them personally or because you understand their position, but most importantly, your first qualification for trusting them is their actual existence.

In the case of the soldier, the thing he's trusting specifically is his leader's sense of honour. He doesn't necessarily know that it exists.

 

[Magic Man]

In the case of the soldier, the thing he's trusting specifically is his leader's sense of honour. He doesn't necessarily know that it exists.

No, the thing he's trusting is the leader. In the one case you're "trusting" God; in the other you're trusting a human leader.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

No, it's a statement of preference.

Are you saying they are equal before making the decision? Then how does one decide?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You've been changing several words in this thread to mean things that are completely different than the accepted meanings.

Yes, I have. I did not do so just because I wanted to. If you claim that, you are making a wild speculation.

 

[Willamena]

Those are all reasonable things though because you have at least some justification that what you're putting trust in is doing the right thing or going the right way -- else you wouldn't have put trust in them to begin with.

That's 100% different from somehow putting trust in something that you don't even have justification for its existence.

How can I "trust" bumpfizzits?

We have faith reasonably.

 

[Willamena]

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

I really like those emphases, they speak to luna's Faith as Worldview definition.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

She chose reason because it became obvious that faith wasn't leading her to reality, while reason was. There was no faith involved in her decision to pursue reason rather than faith.

It became obvious? Are you saying that reason told her to pursue reason? Circular logic.

But that was not an example of faith and the statement is not a faith statement. It seems you're incorrect on both counts because of some misunderstanding of faith and reason.

The blind leading the blind. Your way of understanding faith and reason allows you to create a dichotomy, and a false one at that. My way allows reason and faith to be used equally, and even simultaneously. Because you think it impossible does not mean it is.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, I have. I did not do so just because I wanted to. If you claim that, you are making a wild speculation.

You changed the meanings of words so that they're meaningless. Why would you say you did it?

 

[lunamoth]

I really like those emphases, they speak to luna's Faith as Worldview definition.

Interesting the way it is phrased - faith is the evidence.

 

[Magic Man]

It became obvious? Are you saying that reason told her to pursue reason? Circular logic.

It's not circular logic. Circular logic would be "I believe God exists. I believe it because the Bible says so. I believe the Bible because it's the infallible word of God. I believe it's the infallible word of God because I believe God exists". Using reason to realize that reason helps you understand reality better than faith does is not circular. It's using a tool to realize how well the tool works.

The blind leading the blind. Your way of understanding faith and reason allows you to create a dichotomy, and a false one at that.

No. Faith being the belief in something without evidence and reason being the method of logically considering evidence or lack thereof to come to a conclusion about something is not a false dichotomy. You can say it is all you want, but that's not going to make it true.

My way allows reason and faith to be used equally, and even simultaneously. Because you think it impossible does not mean it is.

Sure, you can use them simultaneously. My mom is a psychologist and a church-going Catholic. She uses reason in performing her job and faith in believing in God. You could say she uses them simultaneously. That doesn't mean they're equal in their ability to discern truth, though.