Faith

[Bandit]

Why would a person choose to put their faith in something that they hold no belief in to begin with?

As I mentioned to Lunamoth, I see several options out there that a person could "put their faith in" as you put it, but what I can't control is my perception that all of these options are no more valid than any other. Are you suggesting I choose one randomly and see if it works? Or are you saying that I should choose yours because you are a better evangelizer than the Hindu? On what basis should I choose which of the thousands of options to place my faith in?

Dear VT Strain.
I am not suggesting you do anything. You choose for yourself what to believe and not believe. Maybe some feel they need to 'test' everything as in the options you mention.
If someone likes the flow of science or religion, then go with that.

I am just saying your definition in part, is almost opposite of how faith works. In part, It is almost on the lines of persuading someone that faith does not exist. The paper is good and I enjoy your writing, but this one lacks the momentum and movement of what faith is really about.
If I followed your definition on faith, I would get nowhere real fast .

Faith is not static (Having no motion, being at rest, Fixed, stationary) It is interactive, it moves and it works. Maybe I do not understand you definition of static.
Everyone puts STOCK in something or we are like a leaf blowing in the wind with no direction.

In earthly terms...
Faith is 'like' the gears in a car. They are there and they work, You just do not see them, but they are there. What you see is the function(s) after put into gear. Faith and believing (beliefs) is close, but different.
Driving down the street without questioning and looking at every inch because you know how to drive down the street. This is high gear. When you drive a different or new street, you might bring it into low gear.

The gears will not work unless we put them to work. Then later you learn how to slam through the gears and get it up to 80MPH on the freeway and use cruise control, driving with full potential. When you hit the downgrades and steep curves, you bring it into low gear, but they still keep working. Then we learn the gears in slippery and high traffic conditions etc. etc.
Faith is more than a two way street. Faith lets one move up and down, side to side, frontwards and backwards.
However I would not suggest faith in driving through a brick wall or jumping from a 40 story building.

I have always believed I could drive and have different cars. But driving by faith, comes natural over time. You get in and vrooooooooooooom, we are on the road, NOW, not yesterday or tomorrow. Faith is a NOW thing.

Apply this to spirit and see what happens.

Vice or virtue? That will depend on the person. IMO, If it is a vice, then it is not faith. Religion is not faith. If religon is faith then it is indeed a vice.
I wont analyse every sentence of your paper. I am trying to convey something but I dont think I will be able to get it over to you. You leave the reader thinking faith is a vice and not a virtue. But maybe someday you will see it different

[lunamoth]

Hi Bandit, welcome aboard.

I like your analogy of the car. I might consider faith the engine rather than the gears, but hey, I never took auto shop.

cheers,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Hi Again DT Strain,

Before I respond to a couple of your comments I'd just like to point out that, first, I think we are not too far apart in our understanding of faith and reason, but we may be using our terms differently. The opening post described four different facets of faith: belief, trust, loyalty, and worldview, or perspective. My webster's has the following (I will paraphrase somewhat--guess I need to find that online dictionary everyone else uses )1. faith : 1a) allegience or duty to a person, 1b) fidelity to one's promises, 2a) (1) belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion, 2b) (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence, 3) something that is believed, esp. with strong conviction, esp. a system of religious beliefs. 2. faith: believe, trust.

OK, so the point of that is just to show that the dictionary definition of faith does not say to believe in something in spite of contradicting tangible evidence. Your definition "belief without, or despite, evidence" is not the one that is commonly held. I have to guess that you are referring to belief in the literal-facutal interpretation of scripture, such as the young-earth creation story. When I use the term faith, unless I put further qualifiers with it, I mean "2b) (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof ."

Therefore, I have faith in God. I accept the theory of evolution.

The second thing, also just to be clear, I am not discussing this with an eye toward somehow convincing you of the existence of God. I post mainly for the opportunity to examine my own beliefs and to understand the beliefs of others. However, I must say that asserting that faith is a vice is on the provocative side and surely you did not think it would slip past without challenge.

Originally Posted by DT Strain

However, I should point out that, for instance, whether or not "god exits" is a matter of fact. My intention here is to point out that matters of fact are best established by scientific method (albeit imperfect and limited, the best we have it seems).

I alreaady addressed this one above.

As for truths concerning ethics, emotional well-being, family bonds, and so on, this is best accomplished through philosophy (religious or not) but that philosophy should be consistent with facts established through science and not be based on improvable facts. It seems to me that it is possible to have meaningful, beneficial, and even spiritual beliefs not dependent on matters of faith, as I am a living example of such.

I wouldn't challenge at all that you are a spiritual, moral, ethical person living a meaningful and beneficial life without religion (I do know of ethical societies that act as community in much the same way as a church might, not that this is necessary). You don't believe in God, or perhaps you are agnostic, but does this really mean you have no faith as I have defined it? You have faith in the value of human life, even if you say this is a priority and not faith. If you value all human life equally, or anyone's life as much as your own even when they might be a burden to you in some way, then you have belief in something for no objective reason.

I think unstable personalities and environments are key, but I think that faith (in the generic sense of the word) is an element in all forms of fanaticism. In other words, "belief without, or despite, evidence" plays a role, not just in religious contexts, but in political and other contexts as well. It was in this more universal concept of faith as a means to knowledge that I was addressing, rather than merely the religious.

I think I already addressed this. Belief in something when there is objective evidence against it is not faith. It is fanaticism. It might also be insanity.

As for Humanists having "lines in the sand", there are basically two: (1) a valuing of human life and human needs, and (2) the stance that open minded freethought and rational skepticism be applied to the furthering of those needs. #1 is not a statement of fact, but merely a decision of priority, so it is irrelevant to talk of faith vs. evidence. #2 is a "line in the sand" but only so far as to say we "shouldn't have lines in the sand". So, on that count, I think the exception is reasonable.

Those lines in the sand are compatible with faith in God and faith in Christ, as well as faith in many religions. I guess your point is that you don't need religion to hold these beliefs, so why bother when it can lead to intolerance and other abuses. Well, you don't. However I would suggest that the benefits of faith in God come not from intellectual assent but from living a life you know to be not yours to begin with and having that radical trust in Something More than yourself. Not that I am able to do that all, or even most, of the time. The joy is in trying.

As Bandit says, faith is experiential. I think when he, or I, or anyone tries to explain why faith in something you can't prove is beneficial, it can only come across as our personal experiences. That's all we have to offer, not because we have tested every possible option and determined it to be the best, but because faith is personal and subjective.

So, to correct myself, I didn't mean to imply that all faith leads to these things all the time, but that faith makes one more suseptible to these things. The more liberal branches of theology do not suffer as much from this shortcoming but this is because there are less articles and particulars in their teachings that are strictly faith-based.

I don't think that faith, even religious faith, necessarily makes one more susceptible to intolerance, abuses etc. It might be an excuse, but the real reasons are fear, insecurity and a need for control. Accusing faith as the weakness that leads to these abuses is barking up the wrong tree.

Certainly there IS much to learn there. The [Bible] is an important historical text. And the sharing of any ideas is always beneficial. But the thesis of my article on faith is that we should learn about all of what the bible has to teach us in a rational way. This means looking at the circumstances under which the bible was written, the historical background, and the likely nature of its writers, instead of merely taking on the writers' beliefs at face value as our own.

Hey, I agree completely. But for Christians the Bible is also sacred and so holds a station above other books of history or philosophy.

Thanks again for your comments and your reading!

Thank you, too.

lunamoth