What is Faith?

[Trailblazer]

I always found that passage poetic gobbledegook. What does it even mean? I can't hake heads or tails of it.
Evidence of things not seen? What evidence? Faith's a lack of evidence.

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

I think that means that we have to have faith in the things we hope for but cannot see.

 

[Trailblazer]

Independent of God or any messenger or any other person - just working on faith in yourself

I could sure use a little of that, since I don't have much faith in myself to effect needed changes.

 

[Truthseeker]

I always found that passage poetic gobbledegook. What does it even mean? I can't hake heads or tails of it.
Evidence of things not seen? What evidence? Faith's a lack of evidence.

The evidence is in the facts of a Prophet's life, and His scripture. Right @Trailblazer?

 

[osgart]

First, you said that if there is absolutely no evidence for something then faith is unjustified.
Secondly, you say that religious faith is unjustified, given that no evidence for the divine has been provided.

The problem is always evidence. Is there absolutely no evidence of God's existence? If so, why do most people in the world believe in God?

84 percent of the world population has a faith

I am not saying that God exists is true because most people believe that God exists since that would be the fallacy of ad populum. I am wondering why that many people believe in God if there is absolutely no evidence for God's existence. It makes no sense that that many people would believe in God if there was absolutely no evidence for God's existence

What would be evidence for God's existence if God existed? I posted more than one thread on this very subject, but no atheist could give me anything that would be evidence, not anything reasonable.

I cannot remember everything that atheists suggested, but I will hit on the ones I remember.

Evidence for God

1. God writes in the sky "I am God and I exist"
2. God drops a Bible down the chimney of every living room in the world
3. God communicates directly to every person in the world.

The problem with each one of these is the same - there would be no way to verify that any of these came from God, thus they would not be proof that God exists. How could we know that God was the one who wrote in the sky, rather than a government trying to cause unrest or an alien from outer space? It is the same with the Bible down the chimney. How could we know God did it? If everyone heard voices in their heads saying "I am God and I exist" how would they know that was God rather than an auditory hallucination? They could not know it was God, they could only believe it was God.

But would 1-3 even be evidence? Maybe, because people would believe in God because of them, but most people in the world already believe in God because of Messengers. You can call them Messengers or Holy Men, but whatever you want to call them, they are men who serve as intermediaries between God and humans.

My point is that Messengers of God who reveal scriptures might have come from God, so the salient question is why any one of the methods listed above (1-3) is a better method than Messengers who reveal scriptures? Why would any of those methods even be as good as Messengers in order to not only reveal that God exists but also convey information about the attributes of God and the will of God?

Another important point is that if God does exist, there is no evidence that God has used any one of these methods (1-3) whereas there is evidence of Messengers who reveal scriptures that establish religions, so it would make more sense to evaluate that evidence rather than talking about 'what God could do.'

Another angle I have heard from atheists is what we would expect to see if God existed. What would we expect to see? Why would you expect to see x, y, or z? What we would expect to see if God existed all boils down to a personal opinion, that is all it is, so who is right and who is wrong? It is all a matter of personal opinion/belief. I would not expect to see what some atheists say they would expect to see if God existed, so why are their expectations right and mine wrong?

I get so tired of this ridiculous debate. Nobody can ever know what we would expect to see if God existed, so all of it is an ego projection.
Moreover, if God exists what we see is exactly what we would expect to see, so all the expectations of atheists fall down like a house of cards. The argument that God does not exist because we do not see what some atheists say they would expect to see is completely illogical, since nobody can ever know what we would expect to see if God existed. It is nothing more than an ego projection because they would expect to see what they want to see, what they believe God would do if God existed, which is nothing anybody can ever know.

God is the master, and authority on all things life and creation. There isn't anything God can't do. I see no reason to believe any of that. I can search til I'm blue in the face, and I have, but I'm far from convinced.

A lesser God might exist, but I don't see the point in worrying about that either. A person does the best they can and let the chips fall where they may, no regrets. Seeing a child go through cancer suffices for me not to believe in God.

God claims are claims of perfection and ideals. I'm not witness to anything perfect or ideal like a komodo dragon perhaps, so I'm much happier to not worry myself about a God.

If I was egotistical about that I'd be rubbing my arguments in God believer's faces. However it's merely that I'm not convinced instead.

I must admit I get annoyed at Gods that try to push themselves on me through other human beings creating rules for me that I'm supposed to follow or be damned if I don't.

I just think that reason and rationality is all humans have to work with. And of course everything on earth has fallibilities and flaws. It's important to mitigate those effects.

Proof from the master would certainly make me enthused though. I see no reason to demand evidence, and I don't see much evidence anyways.

I expect no less than masterful work though from a master. Masters must provide reasons to convince humans. It should be simple enough for a child to understand, and to save any soul from itself. That's all!

Having said all that, I still think you are a very sincere, and kind person.

 

[Trailblazer]

The evidence is in the facts of a Prophet's life, and His scripture. Right @Trailblazer?

We can see the Prophet's life.
I think that verse is talking about faith in things we hope for but cannot see yet.

 

[Trailblazer]

Having said all that, I still think you are a very sincere, and kind person.

Thanks osgart, and the feeling is certainly mutual.

 

[Valjean]

The non religious made up the definition of faith to mean unjustified belief and confidence or belief without evidence; probably to make conversation with religious people more one sided. I suppose another reason they invented that meaning is to label religious people, and deal with them according to that label. Another reason is to avoid spiritual conversations because it might sound like gibberish to them.

We didn't "make up" this definition. The definition accurately depicts the belief-evidence question as it's being used in an epistemic sense.

All belief exists on a spectrum. Some is so well-evidenced that it would be foolish not to accept it. Some, so poorly evidenced that the only reasonable position is to reject it pending further evidence. "Faith" describes the phenomenon of belief despite little or no evidence.
Could such belief not accurately be called be called unjustified?

"Faith" may have various meanings and innuendos in common parlance, but in these religion/evidence/belief discussions we're using it in its epistemic sense.

One sided? Labeling? I don't follow. Avoiding spiritual conversation? When have we done that?

Religious people actually claim spiritual evidence and proof. Anything spiritual is beyond physical explanation. So really no one believes in things without some kind of evident experience regardless of how they interpret such.

We keep asking for this evidence and proof, but it's not forthcoming. You say yourself that faith's beyond physical explanation, so is the "spiritual evidence" or "evident experience" the faithful stand on physically evidenced and explainable, or just an emotional investment?
Can you see why we see this faith as unfounded?

I'm still waiting to see how abstract phenomenon can be scientifically tested and observed physically because that's never been demonstrated, and I can see the impossibility of it. I have no faith that it can be done.

But you just said that anything spiritual is beyond physical explanation. So how do you have faith that it can be done? This is schizophrenic.

So until these phenomena are scientifically tested and observed physically, why would calling them unevidenced or unjustified not be accurate?

 

[Valjean]

When people look for proof, evidence and so on they are referring to what we can see and hear and hopefully provide photographs and witnesses. And that is fine. However, I do not believe that we only have the normal five senses. I believe that some of us, perhaps all can snatch insights via some other way. A sixth sense, a psychic ability, call it what you will. When it happens, it has a quality that distinguishes it from other sensations.

That to me is the basis of my faith. I can offer no proof beyond rarely finding somebody who knows exactly what I am talking about. But I believe.

Understood. Your faith is subjective, with no objective evidence that might be observed, measured or tested. It entirely personal, so can't be adduced as evidence supporting the veracity of the belief.

This is what faith is; belief in something without objective evidence.

 

[Valjean]

I do understand his point but it does not always apply, IMO. My own spiritual beliefs have come about over time and are not the result of some 'special' book.

When people look for proof, evidence and so on they are referring to what we can see and hear and hopefully provide photographs and witnesses. And that is fine. However, I do not believe that we only have the normal five senses. I believe that some of us, perhaps all can snatch insights via some other way. A sixth sense, a psychic ability, call it what you will. When it happens, it has a quality that distinguishes it from other sensations.

That to me is the basis of my faith. I can offer no proof beyond rarely finding somebody who knows exactly what I am talking about. But I believe.

Your faith is subjective, justifiable to yourself, but unevidenced objectively. Yet many believers insist this is evidence, or even proof, and that this evidence is a valid argument for their theism.

Belief based on objectively supported evidence is knowledge. Objectively unsupported belief is faith.
Faith as unsupported or unjustified belief seems an accurate definition.

 

[Valjean]

faith in the familiar - the sun rises each morning, repetition, we have faith in what we are used to, what we grew up with. If there comes a day the sun doesn't rise - faith in the sun is destroyed. If there comes a day when spouse isn't loyal, when scriptures provide the wrong answer, when church/prophet/authority etc - when the secular world responds and helps instead - you change where your faith is.

Confidence, faith, belief, understanding - it changes.

Faith in the sunrise is statistically justified. There is objective evidence of a long, uninterrupted sequence of sunrises. There's also an observable, understandable mechanism explaining it. This is faith in both the colloquial and epistemic sense. You could justifiably upgrade it to knowledge.

 

[Valjean]

I agree, untested it is not really faith, it is only belief. I have been tested so much that I know that only too well.

Untested, it is faith. Tested it's knowledge.
"Not really faith, only belief" is an odd concept. Belief comprises all levels of confidence. It's an all-inclusive term. Faith is the least evidenced, least tested level of belief, not the most.

And what sort of tests are we talking about; observable, repeatable, falsifiable tests, or subjective impressions?
Objective tests would yield knowledge, rather than faith, no?

 

[Valjean]

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

I think that means that we have to have faith in the things we hope for but cannot see.

OK, but how is it evidence?

 

[Valjean]

The evidence is in the facts of a Prophet's life, and His scripture. Right @Trailblazer?

How is this evidence for God, or for the claims of a prophet?

 

[danieldemol]

The evidence is in the facts of a Prophet's life, and His scripture. Right @Trailblazer?

I believe we rarely have the facts of a so called Prophet's life, because there were few that didn't surround themselves with hagiographers and yes men, and neither of those categories are reliable reporters of fact in my view.

In my opinion.

 

[Nimos]

I cannot remember everything that atheists suggested, but I will hit on the ones I remember.

Evidence for God

1. God writes in the sky "I am God and I exist"
2. God drops a Bible down the chimney of every living room in the world
3. God communicates directly to every person in the world.

The problem with each one of these is the same - there would be no way to verify that any of these came from God, thus they would not be proof that God exists. How could we know that God was the one who wrote in the sky, rather than a government trying to cause unrest or an alien from outer space? It is the same with the Bible down the chimney. How could we know God did it? If everyone heard voices in their heads saying "I am God and I exist" how would they know that was God rather than an auditory hallucination? They could not know it was God, they could only believe it was God.

But would 1-3 even be evidence? Maybe, because people would believe in God because of them, but most people in the world already believe in God because of Messengers. You can call them Messengers or Holy Men, but whatever you want to call them, they are men who serve as intermediaries between God and humans.

You are correct, even though these would be amazing things, they are not evidence for God and you hit the head of the nail with what you write about why that wouldn't be the case. Just because something seems too good to be true, doesn't mean that we can draw a conclusion without actually demonstrating that it is also the case. Surely if something like this happened it would raise a lot of eyebrows and would need investigation. I can't remember who made the point that humans most likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a highly advanced alien race and that of God. So it wouldn't be impossible for such aliens to maybe exploit humans' beliefs, knowing that we couldn't tell the difference. Also, we know that humans are easily fooled, which is why magic shows work.

I get so tired of this ridiculous debate. Nobody can ever know what we would expect to see if God existed, so all of it is an ego projection.

To me, the best answer to this is that God would know. He would know what would convince us so there would be no doubt at all and so it could not be misinterpreted as aliens or anything else.

Alternatively, if God is an intervening one, then we should in theory be able to measure or see the effect of such intervention and thereby demonstrate it. However, no one has been able to do that. Even if we are just talking about the supernatural, no one has been able to demonstrate that either, despite having tried to. For instance, you have had experiments at hospitals to see if people that had out-of-body experiences could read stuff placed on top of cabinets etc. yet none have been able to. There have also been studies done trying to figure out if prayers work and so far it has not had any effect.

But in general, investigating these things is not easy, because we don't really have a clear definition of what exactly the divine or spiritual domain is supposed to be, people have vastly different views on what it is.

The argument that God does not exist because we do not see what some atheists say they would expect to see is completely illogical, since nobody can ever know what we would expect to see if God existed.

I don't think it is illogical, because if you want to demonstrate something, as you yourself point out, the demonstration needs to be somewhat conclusive, meaning that you can rule out other explanations and you can investigate the claims being made. A religious person claiming that they spoke with God or he answered their prayers, is nearly impossible to demonstrate. That doesn't mean that the person is lying, but simply that it is not good enough when we are talking about conclusive evidence.

Kind of like if you found a hole in the ground and you claim that it was dug by a fox and I say it was a cat and none of us have seen what animal did it. The only thing we can agree on is that there is a hole. Then we can start looking for evidence like paw marks etc. And eventually, we might be able to reach the conclusion that it was in fact a fox that did it because we found no paw marks from a cat, and we found hair from a fox etc. The same idea holds true for religious claims.

The problem is always evidence. Is there absolutely no evidence of God's existence? If so, why do most people in the world believe in God?

I don't think there is one answer to this, but merely that people believe in all sorts of things or that we seek explanations, it is not particularly easy for humans to say "I don't know" it is not really a satisfying answer to a lot of people.

But maybe a better question than asking "Why do most people believe in God, if he is not real?" would be to ask, "Why did so many people believe in false gods?"

There have been countless gods and religions throughout human history, yet we are left with very few. Why did all these people, ancient Rome, Greek, Egypt, Norse etc. get it wrong? They were just as convinced, if not even more than we are today, that their religions and gods were true as their whole societies were filled with these things and offered the best explanations for what these people experienced.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you elaborate on that, what science are you talking about?

@Valjean

Okay, here is one example. Look up philosophy of science in Wikipedia. It mentions that there are more than one version of science.
Now I have, among the teaching books I have, a book written by a Danish academic, which states that there are in one sense 7 different versions of science in his academic tradition, for which your science is one as natural science.

So let me explain what is going on. If you accept the following about definitions of words, then it is so, that a definition of a word doesn't make the definition a fact. If that was to the definition of God as the creator of the universe would make it a fact that God is the creator of the universe. I don't accept that, but that is not particular to the word God.
So that applies to science as a word, because all understanding what science is, happen in humans and involve different understandings of what knowledge is.
Now for knowledge is not that everything goes or nothing goes.
Rather it is, that what goes on, in practice depends on, if it involves individual cognition and emotions, common same or it is not controllable alone by cognition and emotions. And for the world that is in practice a combination.
So I can know how I live my life in a limited sense subjectively including that I use faith for me as me as to cope, I use the culture I am in and I use how the objective parts of the world work.
But I don't use one kind of knowledge, proof, evidence, science and so on.

 

[Nimos]

I could sure use a little of that, since I don't have much faith in myself to effect needed changes.

Maybe this is helpful:

 

[rocala]

Understood. Your faith is subjective, with no objective evidence that might be observed, measured or tested. It entirely personal, so can't be adduced as evidence supporting the veracity of the belief.

Yes, completely subjective. It is an entirely personal matter and I for one would not consider it proof in the correct meaning of the word, and have never claimed otherwise.
"This is what faith is; belief in something without objective evidence." Again, I have never challenged this statement.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Understood. Your faith is subjective, with no objective evidence that might be observed, measured or tested. It entirely personal, so can't be adduced as evidence supporting the veracity of the belief.

This is what faith is; belief in something without objective evidence.

Yes and so what in the following sense? If it is possible to use objective evidence in at least one case, it doesn't follow that it is possible to do so in all cases.
In other words, just because a person is not a theist, it doesn't follow that that person only use objective evidence for all the person claims about the world.
Further if it is so as it seems that it is fact of the actual world, that theists in fact can use faith in some sense, then it is a fact in part of how the world works, it would seem.

 

[1213]

So, what is the definition of faith?

When we are speaking about Bible and faith, I think we should use the definitions Bible has. Bible has many examples of what fate means. For example Noah was faithful to God, when it was told to him that there will come a flood and he should make the ark. Obviously there were no signs of flood yet, but Noah trusted to God, believed what God had said and was faithful and did the ark, even though it probably looked very weird before the flood.

By faith, Noah, being warned about things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house, through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
Heb. 11:7