Clarification of "Faith"

[fccool]

Recently I've stumbled over a rather interesting definition of what faith is:

Faith - claiming to know things that one does not know

In essence, faith is a knowledge claim. Faith claims to know with certainty in the absence of knowledge (or evidence that would lead to knowledge), and I think that's what differs the idea from the belief, because belief lacks certainty that faith claims.

In that sense, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it would be fair to define faith as pretending to know things one does not know. I know that it may seem like a rather odd definition, because "pretending" is an active verb that implies a form of deception... but nevertheless, couldn't the faith be fairly viewed as a form of self-deception about knowing things that one does not know?

What do you think about it?

[Bravus]

I've been fighting a valiant rear-guard action to protect a much broader definition of the word 'faith'. It seems to have been being redefined in the past few years as 'belief without evidence', or even 'belief in the face of evidence to the contrary'.

But I would regard it more as being 'belief based in evidence'. I have faith that my motorcycle is well enough designed and built, and well enough maintained, to go around a corner fast enough to scrape the foot pegs on the ground. That requires considerable faith! But that faith is bolstered by evidence of where I bought it and how it was cared for and so on.

I think most religious people would say that their faith in God is likewise bolstered by evidence, from the Bible and from their personal experience.

The notion that faith is belief in the absence of evidence or in the face of the evidence seems to be something religious people have been pushed toward by a 'God Of The Gaps' approach, where science has taken over everything for which there is objective evidence, and subjective evidence (which might be considered oxymoronic, but I don't think so) is discounted, so they fall back on this version of 'faith'.

[teresaq]

I think my 'faith' is based on experience. As I recall my past and see how God has been there for me, then I know the Lord can indeed provide. I don't know how, this last time was most surprising to both of us involved, and it may not be what I wished for, but He does provide.

Negativity destroys faith. The sky is going to fall. Murphy's law. I can be expert at those.

If I may. I have not encountered another position yet, tho I had been communicating with the daughter for 2 weeks and it was certain I was hired---til a niece showed up at the last minute, a week ago. That hurt. Anyway, money has dwindled and I didn't have enough for my storage and really did not wish to ask for a loan since I have no idea when a position will open up.

On awakening something told me to get the money (change bucket) out of my car. Negative immediately hit since my car in on the street, I don't drive it since the 'check engine' light comes on, no money to fix, blah, blah,...Right away the thought came, "they're going to tow my car."

I got the change bucket and started organizing the change when lo and behold I still had enough paper money to pay my storage! I honestly did not know I still had anything left.

So yeah, get rid of the negativity and 'faith' develops.

If the chair hasn't broken the last 100 times I sat on it, it won't this time either. If God hasn't failed me in the past, He won't this time either.

[Tom Wetmore]

I would understand ones experience as part of the evidence upon which one builds faith. Yes much of it is subjective, since the God providing help requires some serious subjective assessment of the evidence. SOmetimes it is quite clear and convincing. Most times not. I think the difficulty for many, if not most, people is that they have sketchy and inconsistent evidence of God's involvement in their life. That can be frustrating. And it requires a greater resolve to hang on to a sense that God is there and listening even. Some say that grows or tests faith, ultimately making it stronger. I am not so sure I always find that to be a satisfying answer.

[teresaq]

How much of 'faith' has to do with self? Such as the peace and prosperity faith. Anoint and claim the house one wants. We might not fall for that, yet we still have our own version of that.

In other words, is faith about God's business, more than it is about mine? Or both?

[cardw]

Tom,

I would ask you why does one need a "resolve" to have faith?

To me that is simply another word for trying to make something true when you don't have enough evidence.

At what point do you finally decide that a lack of evidence might mean that it's not true?

I came to a point where I realized that I did not have even a starting point to claim that there was a god. And claiming that the god of the Bible is real is even more difficult.

I realized that "I" needed god to be true because I didn't know how to live in a world where I wasn't in control of certainty.

Religion, to me, is driven by humanity's ego and fear. It is our need to have an "answer." It is our need to "know" because we are afraid of not knowing.

That is why religion is like a drug, the opiate of the masses.

If you really want to be free you have to let go of your need to know and stop claiming to know things you clearly don't have evidence for. Calling it faith is simply a way to hide these facts from oneself.

[phkrause]

Well cardw, its good to see you are still around. Have missed your posts. Even though we do disagree on some issues, I do enjoy your opinions very much.

[CoAspen]

I see need to know and religion as two different items. I do not look to religion for answers. I do not believe in God out of fear, of anything. I simlply choose to. I don't need to control everything in my enviroment, but I do seek out answers. Need answers for everything, not hardly!! Can I prove God exists, no, do I need to for a belief, no. If I only believed in things that I can prove, there would be very little to believe in. So, if one chooses to call my belief faith, okay, or if you want to call it something else, thats okay too!

[Woody]

[JoeMo]

Greetings all,

Great discussion. I simply see faith as confidence in events, actions, or things that cannot be empirically proven. As such, it is quite subjective; and driven by one's past experience and world view. For example, some events that I (as a Christian) attribute to God, a pagan may attribute to Odin; or an atheist might attribute to chance. Some things that I would attribute to satan, another more legalistic Christian might attribute to God's judgement.

The big thing about faith is that it always involves things that cannot be proven; so they are not worth arguing about - one of the things that drives me NUTS about some of the threads on CA. People get so emotional and so nasty about stuff they can't prove.

[Woody]

Excellent comments JoeMo. In reality - there is not much of anything that we can prove. So, if the requirement for talking about something was that we could prove it - CA would be very silent.

[JoeMo]

LOL, Woody! I saw on one thread here that people were questioning man's landing on the moon back in 1969. I don't know that Paris even exists - I've never seen it!

[Woody]

Exactly JoeMo. We could get so bogged down into 'proving' things - we would be unable to go about the business of praising God.

[Woody]

That being said - many people here are into 'proving' things. I for one try to buck this tradition. I just state the truth and the others can take it or leave it. ha ha

I prove things for myself.

Another person has to prove it for themselves also . I am not going to do THEIR work for them.

[JoeMo]

Good point, Woody. We were just talking about that in Sabbath School this morning.

My revelation is not necessarily someone else's revelation. I am convicted to hold the Seventh-Day Sabbath as critical to my salvation because it is tied up in my relationship to God. My Catholic mother only goes to church on Saturday when she wants to go to the casino all day on Sunday (I love you, mom . I don't condemn her for believing differently than I do.

Some on CA very strongly believe that good works are a critical prerequisite for salvation; others believe that it is solely grace given by faith in Jesus that is the basis for salvation; and works are totally independent of that grace. Neither side should judge or condemn the other. One is only true to themselves when they follow what they believe; not what someone else believes. Nevertheless, we have no right to judge someone else's belief system. Concern over it is one thing; condemnation of it is a different animal.

[Woody]

Well stated Joemo

[Bravus]

I would say nothing (except possibly within mathematics) can be 'proved'. Things in science, certainly, are said to be 'supported by the evidence' rather than 'proved'.

They are, however, said to be 'falsified': and while we can have faith in things where there simply is not enough evidence to decide, in my view having faith in things that are falsified by the evidence is a problem.

[cardw]

To say that one simply chooses to believe in something negates the meaning of belief. No one simply chooses to believe in god without any influence. There are many motivations to do so and to deny these motivations is to hide from complete honesty.

As Bravus pointed out, it is difficult to choose to believe in things that have been negated. You can do your own thought experiment and see if you can choose to believe that you can fly. That will come to a halt as soon as you try and do so.

It is the same with the concept of the Christian god. There are so many self negating aspects to what is claimed about this god that it negates the believability for me.

There are a number of problems I see with Christians. They either deny that these conflicting ideas exist or they chock it up to god's mysterious ways or they appeal to the authority of the bible without questioning it or they don't understand the problem or they hold both ideas in conflict and call it spiritual.

None of these work for me. If I am committed to what is true then I can only claim to know those things I have evidence for. That doesn't mean I can't function without understanding everything. I certainly use thousands of functions without understanding them completely on a purely empirical basis. And because they are mysterious doesn't mean I have any basis to say that god did it. I simply don't know.

I am considered an atheist by Christians because I don't believe in the Christian god. Technically I am agnostic to the idea of "god" in general. And as an atheist I don't believe in chance because there is no evidence for chance. As fas as I know no one has been able to prove that anything is truly random. We have very complex processes that occur that appear to be random, but our understanding of the universe would suggest that our universe is very ordered. Our universe doesn't appear to be moral, but it plays no favorites when it comes to cause and effect.

Now I have faith that whatever I am going to place my efforts toward is going to work out. That is the rational thing to do, because it makes no sense to start something in despair. Now my faith changes when I have more information and my faith with continually shift with my knowledge. Christianity doesn't appear to value this idea of shifting ones faith. There is a tendency to lock on to some very immature rigid concepts and hold on to them because Christianity considers this a virtue.

I don't. I consider it immaturity. It is based in ego and fear.

[CoAspen]

To each their own! What you believe doesn't hurt me and what I believe doesn't hurt you! We are both happy with our own beliefs, so where is the fear and ego?

[cardw]

CoAspen,

When you over simplify something, it is much like putting your head in the sand. That is a form of fear and fear comes from ego.

Being happy with your belief doesn't make it true. I'm not particularly happy with my understanding of things because it's incomplete. That's why I still want to learn and why I'm skeptical of people who settle.

I have no interest in forcing you to believe as I do. What I will confront you with is when your belief is inconsistent with reality or when your explanation reveals a paradox.

The nature of belief doesn't allow one to choose that belief. Belief is formed by a complex process of influences and awarenesses.

As soon as someone claims that they have the truth, they are under obligation to provide evidence for that claim. I am assuming that you believe that you have the truth.

My ethics tell me to live and let live, but my search for truth won't stay silent and let you state things that don't make sense because everyone's words have an influence. And confronting you should not hurt you. Confrontation is how we learn and how we self correct.

If you can't hang with that, then that is a sure sign that your ego is involved.

[CoAspen]

Aha.....

Me thinks we have some ego showing here in the above statement! You don't want to accept my satisfaction with my outlook on life but rather disparage it! You have also forgotten my statement about not having to make everything I believe in, provable or a truth for others.

My beliefs are a truth for me! Others are free to seek out their own truths. All I ask is that others don't try to force or coerce me into their belief or view point. That doesn't mean I have stopped searching but rather that I am content with my belief while continuing to seek more answers.

And who are you to determine when that takes place for another individual? What make your criteria the only criteria for determining truth? I am not asking you to accept my truth and I am not under obligation to you, to prove it! I see truth as subjective, but get the feeling that you are after an objective or absolute truth. You can accept or reject my reasoning for my truths or beliefs, that does not validate or invalidate them for me.

That is your issue! That is up to you as to how you relate to your world and others. When you say that you are skeptical of others who do not see it your way and call it 'settling', than your ego has become evolved, implying that your point of view is the correct one. Is that not what you accuse christians of?

[JoeMo]

Where faith is concerned, can "truth" be anything but subjective? The very fact that it is faith makes it subjective. Can faith-based "truth" even be called "truth for more that the individual(s) holding such faith? I am what some would call charismatic, so I see miracles and God's presence where more traditional Christians see nothing. * * * My faith leads me to see Jesus' grace as the all encompassing and complete solution to the sin problem; while others' faith leads them to rely on their own works to manage their sin problem; and still others rely on other deities for spiritual growth.

In this country, we have faith that we can become anything we put our minds to becoming; in certain 3rd world countries ruled by despots, there is no faith for a better life; or any control over their destinies. Prevailing local worldview and past experiences are the primary foundation of most people's faith; and only live-changing experiences (including direct divine manifestation) can change that. None of us has the right to confront or discount anyone else's belief system. It'f fine to discuss it; but belittling it or condemning it is wrong.

[cardw]

I am not denying that I have an ego. I have no interest in trying to prove to people that I'm good. My interest is in what is true because, in my experience, knowing truth reduces my suffering. And investing in deceptions tends to increase my suffering. So humbleness, truthfulness, kindness, etc. are not things I consider to be virtues. They are survival mechanisms.

I do accept your satisfaction with your beliefs. Your satisfaction does not make them true.

You have made the statement that you believe that there is a god and that it is not provable. That means you have no basis for your belief other than your satisfaction.

This is strangely the same reason people take drugs.

When you state that your "reasoning" for truth is subjective you are abandoning reason. Truth, by its nature, is objective. Belief is subjective, but truth is objective. Things that are true are that way because we understand how they work and they provide a consistent outcome when we apply those truths.

When we have an empirical truth we don't understand how it works but we can observe the cause and effect. In this case we don't claim to know how it works and we are skeptical of the cause and effect relationship because there may be factors involved we are unaware of.

Even when we apply empirical methods of truth to the idea of god we have no case to claim that a belief in god is true. It is clear to me a belief in god does not prevent poor behavior or stop suffering. Reason and the observation of reality tells me that it is more likely the individual is the deciding factor, not their belief.

So no matter how much you claim that your belief makes your life better, reality would argue against you. It is more likely it is the person you are that makes the difference.

[cardw]

JoeMo,

When you make your broad exaggerated statements of belief you are belittling other people's belief according to your definition. This is the definition of hypocrite.

* * *

I won't go into the many logical fallacies you present, but you have no understanding of the idea of truth.

It is extremely frustrating to have a dialog with people who don't know the rules of truth. There is no basis for being mistaken, because your definition of truth is basically whatever you want to make up.

[cardw]

JoeMo,

I am smarter than most people, but that doesn't mean that I can't be wrong. What I have been pointing out is not my opinion. It is the standards we as a modern culture use to determine truth. And I get tired of apologizing for being smarter. Being smarter doesn't mean I'm better. It has no relevance to the topic.

Whether or not I am smarter than you makes no difference to what is true. We are both accountable to objective reality.

When you willfully bury your head in the sand and call it "subjective truth" you are lying to yourself. That is my point about ego. It kicks all our asses every time.

If you don't want to recognize that then you will suffer the consequences.