What is Faith?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science doesn't claim to deal with morals, æsthetics or the supernatural. Science is 'relativized' to tangible things, facts and evidence, not to applications. Science and maths do rely on certain axioms, and these have proved reliable. Without starting premises, science, or any knowledge, couldn't make its first step.
Science isn't perfect, but it's absolutely the best investigative modality we have.

We're discussing evidence, what it is, its reliability and application.

Yesh, I understand what you are saying. But I wish you wouldn't claim the bold one, because that is without objective evidence.

 

[Nakosis]

The reason to have faith in God is that it works. And the only way to find out if it works for you is to try it. And keep trying variations of it because like anything else, faith takes practice to become effective.

Keep in mind that faith is not blind belief. It's just choosing to trust in your hope enough to act on it.

The Bible has nothing to do with it unless the God it depicts is a God that you would hope exists. For some people it is, and for others it is not. That's up to you.

That's fine if it works for you. I fine there are other ways that work too.

 

[osgart]

They are evidence only to the experiencer. They are imperceptible to others.
If everyone agreed on meanings or realities, we'd have a homogenous world religion. We don't.

General agreement comes with tangible, empirical evidence, like the evidence for a round Earth or germ-caused disease. Faith-based belief, on the other hand, has created a thousand different religions.

It's true that it is evidence only to the experiencer but it's evidence nonetheless. Not everyone agrees on meanings and realities is why many people talk past each other. Still meanings are realities, and actualities, of which go largely unexplored, and unrecognized for the reality they actually have.

General agreement comes with honest accounts of meanings recognized as important among more than one person. Shared meaning is communication.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's true that it is evidence only to the experiencer but it's evidence nonetheless. Not everyone agrees on meanings and realities is why many people talk past each other. Still meanings are realities, and actualities, of which go largely unexplored, and unrecognized for the reality they actually have.

General agreement comes with honest accounts of meanings recognized as important among more than one person. Shared meaning is communication.

The problem is as far as I can tell that not all subjective meanings can be made universally inter-subjective.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The reason to have faith in God is that it works.

Works at what? Comforting?

And the only way to find out if it works for you is to try it.

Why would one do that if he is already secure and content? What's the motive? It would be the equivalent of putting corrective lenses on when you are already seeing clearly. Or maybe you think I ought to by a pair of glasses and walk around a bit in them to see if that doesn't make life better. If so, no thanks. Same answer.

I think that you're making the case that faith is of value to those who get a psychological benefit from comforting beliefs even if they aren't demonstrably correct. If so, you're also making the case that it has no value for those who have adjusted to their worlds without it and matured outside of comforting belief systems.

faith takes practice to become effective.

Faith is nothing more or less than the willingness to believe without sufficient evidentiary support by the standards of critical thinking. How much practice does that take? Children do it regarding Santa the first time they hear of him with zero practice required. Growing up means learning to do better. Failing to do better is failing to mature, failure to learn to become comfortable with the possibility of one's mortality or the idea that we are not being watched over and either judged or protected, that morals don't come from a book, that there is no magic, etc..

Keep in mind that faith is not blind belief.

Yes it is. Believe is either justified by evidence or it is not. Evidence is called that because it is evident to the senses. Faith lacks that, which is what makes it blind.

It's just choosing to trust in your hope enough to act on it.

Unjustified belief is not only not necessary for that, it's undesirable and possibly costly or dangerous. I hope (and expect) to have a nice restaurant lunch in about an hour. I will act on that, and no faith will be required, just knowledge acquired empirically.

If you use some other definition, it is no wonder, if you don't understand.

I understand perfectly well what you are saying. I just don't accept the biblical definition of faith.

Sorry, I disagree with that.

I wrote, "The Bible praises faith as a virtue. It has to, since it depends on belief by faith. It's central tenets can only be believed by faith, because the supporting evidence is inadequate to justify belief by the standards of critical analysis."

OK, you disagree. Do you have a reason, or is your reason "Just because"? What did I write that you consider incorrect, and what in your opinion makes it incorrect to you? If you have no such answer, what makes you think it's incorrect?

 

[Trailblazer]

You would only know if you looked at the life of a Prophet, if you pondered their scriptures for yourself, all with a heart detached from all the peoples of the earth.

That may or may not work, but you just reminded me of one of my favorite passages:

"These are among the attributes of the exalted, and constitute the hall-mark of the spiritually-minded. They have already been mentioned in connection with the requirements of the wayfarers that tread the path of Positive Knowledge. When the detached wayfarer and sincere seeker hath fulfilled these essential conditions, then and only then can he be called a true seeker. Whensoever he hath fulfilled the conditions implied in the verse: “Whoso maketh efforts for Us,” he shall enjoy the blessings conferred by the words: “In Our Ways shall We assuredly guide him.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 266-267

 

[Trailblazer]

The neuropsychology of faith is researchable, and claims revealed in altered psychic states might be researchable, but the revelations themselves are perceived only by the individual experiencer and don't qualify as testable or observable evidence. True, these revelations may be convincing to the experiencer, but they're imperceptable to everyone else.

I agree that the revelations themselves are perceived only by the individual experiencer and don't qualify as testable or observable evidence.
However, there is no testable or observable evidence for God.

The non-physicality of God is not the problem. We can detect, measure and work with all kinds of things imperceptible to the senses..
Faith in messengers? Storytellers are a dime a dozen, and their stories vary a lot. What distinguishes the ones you follow from the one's you reject?

Maybe we can detect, measure and work with all kinds of things imperceptible to the senses, but it does not follow that we can measure and work with God.

 

[osgart]

The problem is as far as I can tell that not all subjective meanings can be made universally inter-subjective.

Still there is basic common meanings that people do have. I wouldn't expect all meanings to be universal. I'm only talking about meanings that people have natural capabilities with that people rely on; such as the ability to care or not care, or the ability to know or be honest. I'm not making a blanket statement that all meanings are universal. I'm saying some meanings are universally true of all humanity. I can imagine a zombie that didn't have any capabilities with meanings; where they couldn't care or not care.

Where did these capabilities come from? They fall into abstract categories. They can't be explained with tangible evidence. I know they are real and not simply imagined. Meanings that are not invented but discovered. To me having such capabilities represents an intelligible reality that exists within every human, and perhaps many animals.

 

[F1fan]

I had faith that church was safe.
then the detectives called, asked me to ID kids from their videos...

reality changes sometimes. it's always something that happens to someone else, assume it will never be you, not your marriage, not your kids, not your bishop, not your religious community.

Is love really unconditional? You can perhaps have faith that you will never stop loving your spouse/parents/children no matter what they do - faith in love, define what it is to love - principles you can believe in, have faith in ideas and try to live up to it.

Right. The two definitions of faith might be relevant to the same situation but are vastly different. Secular faith means to have trust, usually involving other people and the future. We can only predict the future with what we see in others. So we could be right or wrong, but it involves real people, no supernatural assumptions.

Religious faith is synonymous with trusting dogma and doctrine, which are presented by humans, not gods. There is an assumption that gods exist. It generally requires zero critical analysis or consideration once a person is emotionally invested.

We see theists often try using these definitions out of context.

 

[Trailblazer]

But aren't there lots of honorable and meritorious people, some of whom make religious claims? Aren't such people part of lots of different religions?
These 'prophets' are making contradictory claims, so how can prophecy be reliable evidence?

Many people make claims but claims are not evidence of anything. They need to have evidence that supports their claims.
I do not believe that 'true Prophets' make contradictory claims, as they all claim to speak for God, but they do bring different messages from God, and maybe that is what you are referring to.

 

[Trailblazer]

Disagree. Justification for claims is not a matter of opinion or preference.

It is a matter of independently verifiable evidence.

Maybe you did not read my OP. If not, I suggest you go back and read it.

There is not and never will be any verifiable evidence for God because verifiable evidence is proof, and there will ever be any proof of God.
There is evidence, just no proof.

IMO, it is perfectly justified to believe in God on evidence and faith, because we have faith in the evidence that God provides.
IMO, a rational person believes in the evidence that is available, not in evidence that can never be acquired.
If the available evidence is not good enough then they can choose not to believe in God.

Anyone who thinks that God could ever be independently verified knows nothing about the nature of God.

 

[PureX]

Works at what? Comforting?

All kinds of things. It depends on what we need. Sometimes it's clarity, sometimes it's courage, sometimes it's patience, sometimes it's persistence, sometimes it's change, sometimes it's to forgive, sometimes it's to be forgiven. People need help with nearly every aspect of life at one time or another. And faith in God can and does help a great many of us to achieve those things.

Why would one do that if he is already secure and content?

Why would one wish to deny others that help just because he thinks he doesn't need any help, himself?

What's the motive? It would be the equivalent of putting corrective lenses on when you are already seeing clearly. Or maybe you think I ought to by a pair of glasses and walk around a bit in them to see if that doesn't make life better. If so, no thanks. Same answer.

I think you aren't as perfect and self-sufficient as you think you are. But that's not my call. So you do you.

I think that you're making the case that faith is of value to those who get a psychological benefit from comforting beliefs even if they aren't demonstrably correct.

Demonstrating correctness seems to be quite the obsession of yours. While the rest of us are just doing the best we can. Perhaps you could use a bit of faith, yourself, in that regard.

If so, you're also making the case that it has no value for those who have adjusted to their worlds without it and matured outside of comforting belief systems.

It's sad that 'comfort' (which I'm sure you consider weakness) is all your bias will allow God to help anyone with.

Faith is nothing more or less than the willingness to believe without sufficient evidentiary support by the standards of critical thinking.

Many, many choices and decisions in life, with serious consequences, come to us lacking proper evidentury support for making critically adept choices. Many, many humans on this Earth are not well trained in acquiring such evidence or sifting through it with a critical eye. And by many, I also mean, you. So the arrogant assumption that we shouldn't need faith to make decisions and move forward in life is quite unwarranted in a great many instances. Which is why no matter how many times you make this silly claim, I'm not going to buy into it.

How much practice does that take?

It takes a lifetime, and then a few more for good measure.

Believe is either justified by evidence or it is not.

This isn't about belief. I don't care about belief. And it's not about evidence, either, because if we had sufficient evidence, we wouldn't need faith to determine our course of action. But these basic facts don't clearly serve your biased obsession with "unjustified belief", so you keep on ignoring them.

Evidence is called that because it is evident to the senses. Faith lacks that, which is what makes it blind.

Faith is how we deal with the lack of sufficient evidence (information). It isn't the cause of it. Life as a human is the cause of it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Still there is basic common meanings that people do have. I wouldn't expect all meanings to be universal. I'm only talking about meanings that people have natural capabilities with that people rely on; such as the ability to care or not care, or the ability to know or be honest. I'm not making a blanket statement that all meanings are universal. I'm saying some meanings are universally true of all humanity. I can imagine a zombie that didn't have any capabilities with meanings; where they couldn't care or not care.

Where did these capabilities come from? They fall into abstract categories. They can't be explained with tangible evidence. I know they are real and not simply imagined. Meanings that are not invented but discovered. To me having such capabilities represents an intelligible reality that exists within every human, and perhaps many animals.

There are not universally common in humans as exactly the same. E.g. we can agree we should be honest, but not when, because some will claim that sometimes there is other at play that being honest.

 

[Trailblazer]

Evidence is called that because it is evident to the senses.

Evidence for some things is evident to the senses, but evidence for God will never be evident to the senses.
Evidence for God must be evident to the mind, which is the essential quality of the soul.

The mind is the power of the soul. The soul is the lamp; mind is the light which shines from the lamp. The soul is the tree, and the mind is the fruit. Mind is the essential quality of the soul, as the sun’s rays are the essential quality of the sun.

 

[osgart]

There are not universally common in humans as exactly the same. E.g. we can agree we should be honest, but not when, because some will claim that sometimes there is other at play that being honest.

I agree with the example. My definition of honesty is to give what is deserved. Others will say it's to always tell the truth which I find erroneous. Yet all pursue honesty in their relationships. Honesty and it's many aspects are discovered and perhaps not fully understood. But most people can recognize certain aspects of it.

In some definitions of honesty there would be times it's better to withhold honesty. In other definitions honesty is good always.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is that we don't play by the same rules.
The rules of my exercise require independently verifiable evidence.
Your exercise requires confirmation bias and "just believe". Aka, "faith".

No, that is incorrect.
The rules of your exercise require independently verifiable evidence.
Our exercise requires evidence and faith, faith in the evidence.

Our exercise is realistic, yours is unrealistic, since there is not and never can be any independently verifiable evidence for God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree with the example. My definition of honesty is to give what is deserved. Others will say it's to always tell the truth which I find erroneous. Yet all pursue honesty in their relationships. Honesty and it's many aspects are discovered and perhaps not fully understood. But most people can recognize certain aspects of it.

In some definitions of honesty there would be times it's better to withhold honesty. In other definitions honesty is good always.

That is general so for all concepts of morality. Most humans have a notion of harm, but we can't agree on what it is.
So there really is no one universal meaning for such concepts.

 

[Trailblazer]

Faith is how we deal with the lack of sufficient evidence (information).

What is sufficient evidence to one person is not necessarily sufficient evidence to someone else.
We all determine what is sufficient for our own beliefs, or insufficient to believe if we are nonbelievers.

That said, there will never be 'information' about God because information is based upon facts and God can never be established as a fact.

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

 

[Trailblazer]

And it's not about evidence, either, because if we had sufficient evidence, we wouldn't need faith to determine our course of action.

It is my contention that we can have sufficient evidence to believe in God but we will always need faith to believe in God because the existence of God can never be proven.

As I have said repeatedly on this forum, evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence, but there can never be any verifiable evidence for God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evidence for some things is evident to the senses, but evidence for God will never be evident to the senses.

If it's not evident to the senses, it's not evidence. Evidence is the noun form of evident. That which is evident (adjective) is evidence (noun), just as that which is sweet (adjective) contains sweetness (noun), darkness contains dark things, honesty (noun) refers to honest (adjective) things.

Evidence for God must be evident to the mind, which is the essential quality of the soul.

It's not evidence if it doesn't arrive via the senses. The mind also generates ideas de novo through intuition and imagination. These should not be mistaken for evidence of anything other than the fact that the mind can generate these states. You're probably familiar with the muses, the imaginary Greek gods who were the source of inspiration in man devised before man had a concept of creativity. New ideas were seen as received from outside intelligence rather than generated from within. This still goes on today as people still consider dreams and intuitions messages from beyond. This is what you are calling evidence for a deity - an intuition of your own creation, not evidence.

Why would one wish to deny others that help just because he thinks he doesn't need any help, himself?

Malevolence? I don't know? Why do you ask? Do you think that's my position? I'm not trying to deny you or anybody else whatever comfort they need and find through religious beliefs. I'm telling you that people can learn to transcend belief by faith. I'm telling you that that requires learning and applying a strict program for deciding what is true about the world, one which is designed to exclude faith. I'm telling you how much better that is that relying on faith for answers. And you demean all of that. Why would one wish to deny others that help just because he thinks he needs faith, himself? You make it personal and become emotional as we'll see in the next two comments. And you demean with words like materialist and scientism, calling it myopia, while falsely accusing others of being demeaning.

I think you aren't as perfect and self-sufficient as you think you are.

And here it is.

Demonstrating correctness seems to be quite the obsession of yours.

And again. Tellme again who's being demeaning here? What you call an obsession is a valuable skill many years in the learning. It's what keeps me from believing false and "not even wrong" ideas. It's how I tunneled out of religion - how I knew that I should, how to do it, and what to replace it with.

It's sad that 'comfort' (which I'm sure you consider weakness)

And here you are being demeaning again with a character barb, impugning my motives. It's not a good look for anybody. You seem angry, defensive, and bitter.

Many, many choices and decisions in life, with serious consequences, come to us lacking proper evidentiary support for making critically adept choices.

That's not an argument for acquiring wrong beliefs or to act on them.

So the arrogant assumption that we shouldn't need faith to make decisions and move forward in life is quite unwarranted in a great many instances.

More personal attack. And you are wrong. One NEVER needs unjustified belief, however little he knows. Of course, he probably can't avoid it if he hasn't learned how to avoid it, but that's also true of HIV.

It takes a lifetime, and then a few more for good measure.

To learn faith? Au contraire. That's where we start before we learn to do better. It takes much of a lifetime to learn to recognize and avoid belief by faith.

This isn't about belief.

Yes, it is.

Faith is how we deal with the lack of sufficient evidence (information).

Not we, you. I don't need or want faith, and I have learned how to avoid it. Look at the damage faith does to many people. All of the dead at Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, and Waco had faith in their leaders. Everybody who died or was damaged physically or financially by Covid because they believed by faith that the vaccine was more dangerous believed that by faith. Every J6 defendant in prison or facing prison is there because of faith in Trump's proclamations. It's a terrible way to think if you can learn to do better.