What Is Good about Faith?

[PureX]

While I agree and disagree with different parts of this, what does it have to do with faith?

You asked "why do you feel it's a good thing to believe something (meaning a religious belief in god) with no evidence at all?"

I replied that holding on to a belief in a "higher power" (god) removes ourselves from the center of our own concept of existence. We (and our desires) no longer become the most important thing in our own universe. We can then see ourselves as a servant of something greater than we are.

I also replied that as we seek to hold this god concept, we are also seeking to define it. And to do that we must look into ourselves for what we believe is a definition of perfection. In so doing we seek out the best in ourselves conceptually, and then as we apply this concept of perfection to our god concept, we will also tend to try and emulate it ourselves, in the way we live our lives. Thus, to strive to define and follow "god" is to bring forth and become that which is divine within ourselves.

And there are other positive reasons, too, for holding to a religious faith, as some of the other posters have already mentioned.

 

[PureX]

No, I mean many people find it good to believe certain things specifically when they don't have any evidence. They feel it's good to just believe anyway. That's what I'm wondering about.

They do it because it works. It frees them from fear. I gives them hope when they are otherwise having trouble hoping. It gives them a method of seeking out the best in themselves and becoming it. It gives them multiple perspectives from which to view their own existence.

Evidence is irrelevant, because in practice it works. In that sense it becomes it's own "evidence".

 

[Magic Man]

They do it because it works. It frees them from fear. I gives them hope when they are otherwise having trouble hoping.

This is probably the best answer. Unfortunately, it doesn't answer my question, but that's my fault. I can't really express what I want to. I think my brain is fried from all of the studyig I've been doing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I mean by the word is "believing something with no evidence supporting it".

For what it's worth, from the OED:

I. Belief, trust, confidence.

1. a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine).​

I know there are many definitions, or variations on the definition of faith. That's why I specified the one I was talking about.

Fair enough. Believing in something with no evidence supporting it reflects an inference deemed reasonable based on one's prior judgment of 'evidence.' Most of us do not stare constantly at the couch as we sit down.

 

[Magic Man]

Fair enough. Believing in something with no evidence supporting it reflects an inference deemed reasonable based on one's prior judgment of 'evidence.' Most of us do not stare constantly at the couch as we sit down.

I see what you're saying. But, even in times when all of the current evidence goes against that inference, some people deem it good to continue to "have faith". For instance, if you didn't see the couch there that used to be there, some people would say you should still sit down. (To use your analogy)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I see what you're saying. But, even in times when all of the current evidence goes against that inference, some people deem it good to continue to "have faith". For instance, if you didn't see the couch there that used to be there, some people would say you should still sit down. (To use your analogy)

You are, of course, correct. But are we not then asking a different question? Believing in the absence of evidence is not at all the same as believing in the face of compelling counter-evidence, and I suspect that few "people of faith" perceive themselves acting in the face of compelling counter-evidence.

 

[Magic Man]

You are, of course, correct. But are we not then asking a different question? Believing in the absence of evidence is not at all the same as believing in the face of compelling counter-evidence, and I suspect that few "people of faith" perceive themselves acting in the face of compelling counter-evidence.

I don't know. I think a fair number of them do believe they're believing in the face of compelling counter-evidence. Like Job, for instance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't know. I think a fair number of them do believe they're believing in the face of compelling counter-evidence. Like Job, for instance.

Excellent. Job would be a great thread!

 

[Ringer]

I don't know. I think a fair number of them do believe they're believing in the face of compelling counter-evidence. Like Job, for instance.

Do you mean that having our lives crumble before our very eyes is compelling counter-evidence?

 

[Magic Man]

Excellent. Job would be a great thread!

What would the question be? Would you ask whether or not Job's faith was good?

 

[Magic Man]

Do you mean that having our lives crumble before our very eyes is compelling counter-evidence?

I mean that it was meant to be taken as such in that story. Unless I'm misinterpreting, I thought the idea of the story was Job keeping the faith in spite of all of those bad things, which would normally serve as compelling counter-evidence. Is that not what you get out of it?

 

[Ringer]

I mean that it was meant to be taken as such in that story. Unless I'm misinterpreting, I thought the idea of the story was Job keeping the faith in spite of all of those bad things, which would normally serve as compelling counter-evidence. Is that not what you get out of it?

You're right. I suppose this is probably the popular interpretation and I misunderstood what you were saying. I jumped the gun a bit but I'll leave it at that as to not derail the thread.

 

[Magic Man]

You're right. I suppose this is probably the popular interpretation and I misunderstood what you were saying. I jumped the gun a bit but I'll leave it at that as to not derail the thread.

You're more than welcome to expound. You have me curious now. It's like saying "Ooo, I have a great joke" and then not telling it.

 

[sojourner]

It also has crippling effects in that many people (I can name twenty of my acquaintances off the top of my head who fit the bill) live in denial of facts (e.g. something in their life sucks) and say "God will see me through" rather than getting off their bums and doing those things that need to be done to make their own lives better.

Then I would say that they'e not relying on faith, but on a crutch disguised as faith. Faith doesn't cripple -- it sets free.

 

[Ringer]

You're more than welcome to expound. You have me curious now. It's like saying "Ooo, I have a great joke" and then not telling it.

I guess I never really thought of Job's misery as counter evidence of God's existence. After all, I don't think Job nor his friends Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar indicate that Job's struggle implies that there is no God. Job's friends all have their theories as to why God did what He did and, for the most part, the consensus is it must have been something that Job did to anger God. Job basically calls them fools as well as calls his wife a foolish woman because she suggest to cure God and die. Job becomes impatient and probably pretty bold and wishes that he can complain to God if he only knew where to find him.

Anyway, that's why I asked about your original comment:

I don't know. I think a fair number of them do believe they're believing in the face of compelling counter-evidence. Like Job, for instance.

I don't know if Job thought of the whole situation as evidence against God but the theme being that he understand God gives and takes away but I don't understand things and I want answers on my terms. As we both know what happens in the later chapters, God shows himself in a whirlwind and grills Job, calling him out to listen to His rhetorical questions, showing how little he actually understands not only about himself but of God.

Who is this that darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
"Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,...

A long answer to your question I'm sure but maybe you know where I'm coming from? I told you I didn't want to derail the thread.

 

[PureX]

This is probably the best answer. Unfortunately, it doesn't answer my question, but that's my fault. I can't really express what I want to. I think my brain is fried from all of the studying I've been doing.

Perhaps it's your idea of "evidence" that is causing you to have difficulty understanding why people would deliberately choose to ignore what you consider to be "evidence" and believe in something that you cannot believe in.

It's my experience that most people really don't know or care about the "evidence" or the "facts" or the "truth" or any of that. All they know or care about is what works for them in their moment of need. They aren't seeking righteousness. They're just trying to survive the day.

 

[PureX]

I guess I never really thought of Job's misery as counter evidence of God's existence....

The interesting thing about the story of Job to me is that if satin really wanted to test Job, he should have lavished him with power, money, and success, rather than with deep misfortune and suffering. Any fool will believe in God when times are desperate. It's when we think we're doing great by our own mind and hand that we fall away from a faith in God at the drop of a hat.

 

[HouseofIsrael]

The interesting thing about the story of Job to me is that if satin really wanted to test Job, he should have lavished him with power, money, and success, rather than with deep misfortune and suffering.

Not really my friend, satan is smart. Job was already a very wealthy man, why test him with wealth -what effect would that have had on him?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What would the question be? Would you ask whether or not Job's faith was good?

No, I would ask: in what did Job have 'faith' and in what way was this 'faith' unevidenced or sustained in the face of compelling counter-evidence? I would also seek to compare "blind faith" and "unconditional trust."

 

[PureX]

Not really my friend, satan is smart. Job was already a very wealthy man, why test him with wealth -what effect would that have had on him?

My point is that we are at our weakest when we think we're strong, and at our strongest when we think we have lost all.