Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?

[Left Coast]

I like this translation:

11 Now faith is the assurance (the confirmation, the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses].

I'm not sure what you mean that there is no "good evidence for them". Is it perhaps you don't understand how it works?

What I mean is that many religious claims don't have evidence for them that's demonstrable and independently verifiable. In other words, the kind of evidence you'd expect to reasonably accept any other proposition.

If you have a title deed to a piece of property that has been signed and sealed, you don't have to see the evidence of the property... the deed declares it.

A title deed would be a solid piece of evidence that the piece of land exists, that's true, because of what we know about title deeds. We have literally millions of examples of title deeds that correspond to actual pieces of property. And if we really want to be sure, we can go and see that, in fact, the land listed on the title deed exists. That's exactly the kind of evidence we don't have for supernatural claims.

Everybody actually uses faith every day to some extent.

It is true that people believe all sorts of things. It isn't necessarily all faith. Sometime it is mental assent and other times it just plain foolishness or presumption.

See my reply to Deeje in Post #57 on the equivocation between different types of "faith."

 

[ppp]

Einstein had to suspend belief in metric space to come up with relativity. He gave up what he didn't need and that took 12 years but he came up relativity, same as my definition.

No. Not even close.

If you believe all morality is relative then of course not. Maybe you should suspend belief in moral relativity .

Maybe you shouldn't make such vapid assumptions.

 

[Left Coast]

The same way someone knows whether he's dreaming, having a vision or messing with his ability to sort out various inputs (hallucinate) using "mind-altering" substances. You simply know, don't you, you are able to tell. This choice, this action leads to this result. I go to bed, I dream. I pop a pill, I hallucinate. Same is true for one's endeavors to plumb the spiritual realms. Knowledge of the use of available tools is all we're talking about here.

We often don't know we're dreaming until we wake up. And many people suffer from mental disorders that give them hallucinations, and they have difficulty differentiating what's real from what's a hallucination. And all these things happen in our minds. What I balked as was the notion that we could experience something...without our mind. That seems almost self-evidently not true. Whatever we experience, is mediated and interpreted through our minds.

 

[Quagmire]

No, because my thoughts(faith) apparently can't cause other things to come into existence.

If faith is evidence of thought, and thoughts can't be seen, then faith would definitely be evidence of things not seen.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Deeje said:
What “tools” do humans have that don’t always involve our mind and senses in the obvious ways?

Left Coast said:
Good question. I'm hoping Sw. Vandana Jyothi will enlighten us.

You're a tease, LC. May your hopes in that regard never be hoped in vain!

Deeje, earlier in this thread I referenced the "third eye" as one of the tools for peering into matters spiritual. You may have heard of it, it exists, that is to say, all human bodies have a third eye with the potential for it to open. But during that experience, contrary to the ordinary waking or dreaming experiences of this world, one's mind is utterly quiet, his five sense telephones are disconnected, even the breath is stilled. The soul at that time is experiencing, using one of the tools built in and designed for it, something other worldly, not of this world, i.e., something "divine."

 

[Brickjectivity]

Interesting context, thanks Brick.

How does faithfulness (ie doing good deeds) provide evidence of things not seen? Do you take him to mean that your actions demonstrate your beliefs?

Beliefs are unseen. Faithfulness can be seen. Its important to start with chapter 10, because 11 (arbitrarily chosen long after the letter was written) appears to start by saying that faith is confidence in what we hope for and is assurance. Its commonly misconstrued to mean that its a sin to doubt, a sin not to accept what you're told or a sin to disagree. These are extremely damaging to people. It goes on to say "By faith we understand the universe was formed by God's command." That's pretty confusing if you just start reading at chapter 11. The issue is complicated further, because Greek Koine only has word for faith and faithfulness. Wherever this word is translated into English its up to readers to pick a meaning. Hebrews 11 by itself and without context can be read like its the Disney song "When you wish upon a star." Wishing is not what Christ is about. Doing is what Christ is about. How can you see the unseen? You can't see belief, but you can see faithfulness. This is what I think chapter eleven is talking about.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

We often don't know we're dreaming until we wake up. And many people suffer from mental disorders that give them hallucinations, and they have difficulty differentiating what's real from what's a hallucination. And all these things happen in our minds. What I balked as was the notion that we could experience something...without our mind. That seems almost self-evidently not true. Whatever we experience, is mediated and interpreted through our minds.

Leftyji, we disagree about how the mind functions and its place in the scheme of experiencing spiritual things. I wonder if you aren't speaking more of the functions of the regular intellect tool (mediating and interpreting)? In either case, the "we" which you say cannot experience without an assist from mind is the "we" of ego, our false identity, the "I." It's the egoistic "I" which operates mind and intellect. Experiencing one's Self (Spirit or God or whatever one calls It) happens outside of and necessarily without the intervention or use of intellect, ego, mind and senses. Those tools won't work and must not be plugged in at all (meditation and/or chanting of mantra helps accomplish this). If someone really wants to obtain spiritual knowledge, he must set aside his usual knowledge-gathering tools and use the tools designed for that purpose, that is, his third eye and/or sacred heart.

 

[Deeje]

It's true, when it comes to science laypeople do often rely on expert opinion. But there's a difference between expert scientific opinion and expert theological/supernatural opinion. Scientific experts can show their work. If pressed, they can demonstrate their views in a way that's empirically verifiable. Not so with religious authorities who opine about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Funnily enough, my studies of the Bible have never even contemplated how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....I'm sure they have better things to do. And the Bible has more important things to teach.

However, science IMV, is a real substitute for religion for many people who have talked themselves out of "believing" and put their faith in science instead. It is argued as passionately as if their life depended on it. I can never quite understand why they need to do this. What does it matter if we believe the Bible rather than the musings of science. Surely all are free to believe as they wish? Is it really that important to pull the rug on believers when these ones have simply swapped one set of beliefs for another? Neither can be proven.

Please understand that I have no problem with substantiated, demonstrable science.....I love it, and what it opens up for us...the many wonders of creation. You see, "expert scientific opinion" is often swayed by theory, not fact. I can see that science has things that it can 'demonstrate' by experimentation such as adaptation....but to suggest that their theory of evolution goes beyond what they can prove, is not promoting scientific facts.....that is offering supposition masquerading as fact.

Not so. Part of the confusion in your equivocation here is that you're using a sort of casual, layperson definition of "theoretical," to mean something purely abstract with no applied demonstration of it. That is not at all what scientists mean when they speak of theories.

I am somewhat amused that science had to give the word "theory" a new definition....if you look it up in a dictionary, it is very obvious what a theory is....a hypothesis...."a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." As far as I can see, evolution has never stepped out of its 'hypothetical' status and on into proven fact. The truth is...there are no solid facts.

A theory in science has to be supported by demonstrable evidence, or else it will quickly be discredited and discarded as useless. So no, much of scientific understanding of the world is not "faith," unless by faith you just mean "confidence" or "trust." And if that's all you mean, then our "faith" has to be proportional to the evidence - and in science, it is.

That is what they claim, but that is not what the real evidence tells us. There is no "demonstrable evidence" for the very foundations of the evolutionary theory. But since it appears to be one of those "Emperor's new clothes" kind of beliefs, no one is game to stand up and say so.

What did the Father of evolution (Darwin) observe on the Galapagos Islands? Was it evolution? or did he observe adaptation? What is a new "species"?...isn't it just a new variety of the same creature?
The finches were all still finches...the tortoises were still tortoises, and the iguanas were all still clearly related to their mainland cousins. They were not morphing into something else. Nothing ever did.....science has no real evidence that evolution, on the scale that they suggest, ever happened.
Their four legged furry critters did not morph into whales, except by their imaginative interpretation of their "evidence".

When it comes to the supernatural (ie things that can't be empirically verified) there is no such evidence, so one's "faith" is given in the absence of evidence. In other words, it's a totally different kind of "faith."

Is it? What if the evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Creator is very personal? It is not 'shown off' as something to make the nightly news, but quietly takes place out of the limelight. Since the "evidence" that science presents is more about what they "believe" took place all those millions of years ago, I can see with my own eyes that we did not pop out of thin air, and neither did our universe, or our very unique home. Evidence for intelligent design is everywhere. It takes a special kind of 'blindness' to miss it IMO.

I'm not going to bother responding to the COVID stuff, because it's just plain inaccurate and would be too much of a rabbit trail.

And that is the point......how do you know that it is inaccurate? Who do you believe?...and why do you believe them? Don't we all have to answer those questions? How easily are our perceptions influenced?
Can we be collectively "conned"? If so....who is doing it?...and why?

 

[robocop (actually)]

No. Not even close.


Maybe you shouldn't make such vapid assumptions.

People will disagree with me.

 

[ppp]

People will disagree with me.

Well, it is pretty arrogant for you to claim that you know someone else's thoughts. Even a dullard like me.

I am thinking of a number between e and a googolplex...

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, earlier in this thread I referenced the "third eye" as one of the tools for peering into matters spiritual. You may have heard of it, it exists, that is to say, all human bodies have a third eye with the potential for it to open. But during that experience, contrary to the ordinary waking or dreaming experiences of this world, one's mind is utterly quiet, his five sense telephones are disconnected, even the breath is stilled. The soul at that time is experiencing, using one of the tools built in and designed for it, something other worldly, not of this world, i.e., something "divine."

It is my belief as a Christian that the Creator gave us two physical eyes because these are the things that help us appreciate his creation....sending messages to the brain that often involve our other senses operating in sync to fully appreciate God;s creation.

Since the third eye is used by religious people outside of my faith, it is not something we seek or employ because the 5 senses we have are more than enough for us....and it puts us all on equal footing, spiritually speaking. We have no "holy men" in our faith, just shepherds who follow the instructions of their ONE Master....Jesus Christ. We are all then servants of the one God...Jehovah. It is a very simple faith, based entirely on the Bible.....an incredible book of God's wisdom in our opinion.

 

[blü 2]

But that does not mean it cannot be said about some religious faiths.
Should I find evidence that I'm wrong about my religion, I'll do my best to adjust to the consequences.

Ah, NOW, my dear Trailblazer, you have my attention!

Yet I can pile evidence for no-God as high as the Andes, and ─ forgive me ─ I suspect it won't shift you.

So what kind of evidence are we talking about?

These kinds of questions sooner rather than later bring up the foundational question, how is 'truth' defined? You know I use the 'correspondence' definition ─ that truth is a quality of statements, and that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. I don't recall any believer here setting out a coherent definition of ─ hence test for ─ truth. So on what basis should we proceed, do you say?

 

[blü 2]

Because if God exist, he would be omniscient, and then he arrives to the fact that atheist know very little and you lie about being smart

How would God know [he] was omniscient? How could [he] be certain there was nothing [he] didn't know [he] didn't know?

 

[ppp]

How would God know [he] was omniscient? How could [he] be certain there was nothing [he] didn't know [he] didn't know?

An even omniscienter god could tell him.

 

[blü 2]

An even omniscienter god could tell him.

You make a very good point.

But how would the even omniscienter god know that [he] hadn't sprung. ex nihilo, into being, memories, environment and all, last Thursday?

 

[_93]

Depending on your favorite translation, Hebrews 11:1 reads:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Some religious folks believe that their faith itself is evidence that what they have faith in is actually true. This is particularly the case, it seems, when it comes to supernatural claims or ones that don't have good evidence for them.

In my view, this is a manifestly absurd and circular position. People believe all kinds of things, some true, some untrue. The fact that I believe, for example, that the world is flat, is not evidence that I'm correct about that.

Do you believe faith is the evidence of things not seen? Why or why not?

You're describing Fideism, not Faith.


Just like Sola Fide itself, it's a piece of garbage.

 

[blü 2]

If faith is evidence of thought, and thoughts can't be seen, then faith would definitely be evidence of things not seen.

But thoughts are (sets of) brain states.

It's true that at this moment they can't be seen as such ─ we can't read a brain state set by looking at it ─ but that's a work in progress. In particular a lot of work is being done to allow quadriplegics to interface by thought with electronics that will then respond as desired, whether by writing, moving a vehicle or tool, or stimulating muscle movement.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

People will disagree with me.

Well, it is pretty arrogant for you to claim that you know someone else's thoughts. Even a dullard like me.

I think this is funny.

 

[Tiberius]

Depending on your favorite translation, Hebrews 11:1 reads:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Some religious folks believe that their faith itself is evidence that what they have faith in is actually true. This is particularly the case, it seems, when it comes to supernatural claims or ones that don't have good evidence for them.

In my view, this is a manifestly absurd and circular position. People believe all kinds of things, some true, some untrue. The fact that I believe, for example, that the world is flat, is not evidence that I'm correct about that.

Do you believe faith is the evidence of things not seen? Why or why not?

If I have faith that my bank account has one hundred million dollars in it, does that count as evidence that I am a multi-millionaire?

Of course not.

Faith is evidence for nothing.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Depending on your favorite translation, Hebrews 11:1 reads:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Some religious folks believe that their faith itself is evidence that what they have faith in is actually true. This is particularly the case, it seems, when it comes to supernatural claims or ones that don't have good evidence for them.

In my view, this is a manifestly absurd and circular position. People believe all kinds of things, some true, some untrue. The fact that I believe, for example, that the world is flat, is not evidence that I'm correct about that.

Do you believe faith is the evidence of things not seen? Why or why not?

Yut cuz it is simply put