Can faith justify belief in anything?

[Fluffy]

If beliefs motivated solely by faith are justified then is there any belief that could not be justified in this way?

If not, how should we choose which beliefs to have faith in?

 

[EtuMalku]

There are no beliefs that are justified by Faith, so no.

 

[Fluffy]

There are no beliefs that are justified by Faith, so no.

What do you believe justifies belief, EtuMalku?

 

[cardero]

If beliefs that are motivated solely by faith justified then is there any belief that could not be justified in this way?

If not, how should we choose which beliefs to have faith in?

Beliefs can be concluded to one of two things. Truth or Untruth. Putting faith in them are not going to make them more appealing, important, respectable or conclude them to a Truth or Untruth any faster. There are many people that will try to persuade you on the belief. They may offer you the 25 year warranty, the protective under-coating and they may even try to throw in every other third oil change for free but what one eventually realizes is that all this can be unnecessary.

 

[EtuMalku]

What do you believe justifies belief, EtuMalku?

For me a belief system is justified when cold hard facts are established. Faith will always create a veil of doubt, thus never raising the belief system above our petty hatred towards others belief systems.
The eradication of Faith and the introduction of Truth will create World peace and an end to hatred (well, maybe )().

 

[idea]

Everything we do, we first do in faith. We are told that cake tastes good, we take the first bite in faith – it is not until we experience through our own physical senses that anything becomes reality for us.

Some “first steps” are harder than others. You tell people to be selfless, humble, to turn the other cheek, to love others as you love yourself – most of us will not just jump in and do such a thing, we are too insecure have too many doubts about what the results will really be like, scared of it, so we don’t do it, and it does not become reality for us just random ideas. The only way to know is to test it, follow it, then by it’s fruits you will know – not just believe – but know. some knowledge is more easily attained than others. Know through doing it, experiencing it – people don’t perform the test and make excuses like “belief” is enough… well, it is not enough….

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Belief does not save you or educate you, following, doing, working, experiencing – that is where you gain true knowledge.

 

[Dunemeister]

It's possible to hold a true belief by accident, but we hesitate to call that knowledge. For instance, I might truly believe that I own a well-functioning blue Ford Taurus (as incredible as that may sound). But unbeknownst to me, my wife got into a horrible accident with the car, destroying it. However, serendipitously, I've also won the lottery (a fact I don't know yet), and in that lottery, I've won a well-functioning blue Ford Taurus. So my belief that I own a well-functioning blue Ford Taurus is true, but we'd hesitate to say that I know it. There's something amiss about the relationship between the truth of the statement "he owns a well-functioning blue Ford Taurus" and my believing it. Somehow, my belief in it hasn't happened in an appropriate way such that we'd privilege the belief with the monicker, "knowledge." We say that my belief isn't "justified."

Philosophers have puzzled over what "justification" might be since Plato, who first suggested that knowledge occurs when someone has a justified true belief. What does it mean for a belief to be justified? What sort of relationship must obtain between my true belief and me and the world such that we can say that I not only believe a thing but know it? We've tried about a billion different formulations, none of which seems to be really satisfactory. Certainly, if a person proposes "faith" as a means for justification, it's a bit puzzling. Let's say that it's true that God exists and that I believe it. What might justify or vindicate my belief so that we could say I know that God exists? Does my faith itself (the fact that I believe it firmly) justify the belief? How so? <scratches head>

But the problem arises for every theory of justification, not just faith. Coherence and verifiability are just two of the most popular, but they have serious problems.

But what if faith were, in the right circumstances (that I'm not going to spell out at the moment), a reliable mechanism by which to arrive at true beliefs? That is, the faith doesn't justify the belief, but causes the belief by a means that is reliable (under the right circumstances). Wouldn't that make beliefs caused by faith (under the right circumstances) privileged in such a way that we'd call them knowledge? If not, why not?

 

[Aqualung]

If beliefs that are motivated solely by faith justified then is there any belief that could not be justified in this way?

If not, how should we choose which beliefs to have faith in?

Is there anything that anybody can possibly prove? I say no. Thus, every single thing we think we know, we actually just believe. Belief is the ONLY justification for anything. There's no proof.

 

[cardero]

Everything we do, we first do in faith. We are told that cake tastes good, we take the first bite in faith &#8211; it is not until we experience through our own physical senses that anything becomes reality for us.

Despite what anyone tells you, the fact remains, the cake is going to taste good or it is not going to taste good. Not everyone lives their life according to a personal or preferential hope. If one does encourage faith into their lives, one should also be prepared for the doubt, discouragement and disappointment that accompanies accurate knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

Faith, itself, is not unjustified. If we have faith in a thing, it is for (what we consider to be) good reason.

If beliefs that are motivated solely by faith justified then is there any belief that could not be justified in this way?

Any belief justified in this way is with (good) reason; so beliefs that are not justified in this way are those that we'd have no faith in.

Perhaps your question needs re-wording.

If not, how should we choose which beliefs to have faith in?

Choose those we have good reason to have faith in?

 

[Fluffy]

For me a belief system is justified when cold hard facts are established. Faith will always create a veil of doubt, thus never raising the belief system above our petty hatred towards others belief systems.

So how do you establish cold hard facts without using faith? Are you familiar with the problem of induction and the problem of perception?

Everything we do, we first do in faith. We are told that cake tastes good, we take the first bite in faith &#8211; it is not until we experience through our own physical senses that anything becomes reality for us.

But we need not take the first bite in faith. You could take the first bite out of curiosity which needs no prior assumption about the outcome. Put another way, you don't need to assume that the cake will taste good to want to find out whether or not it does taste good.

You could be saying that faith is the only way we can be justified in believing a cake to taste good before eating it then I agree if faith justifies beliefs. However, it then seems that I would also be justified in believing the cake to taste bad before eating it. Therefore, faith justifies any belief.

On the other hand, you could be saying that it is the testimony of my friend that justifies my belief that the cake will taste good before I have eaten it. But in this case, faith justifies nothing at all. My belief is justified based on testimony not faith. Therefore, faith justifies no belief.

I guess my point is that if we assume that faith justifies belief then there can only be 2 possibilities:
1) All beliefs, including ones that contradict each other, are justified by faith.
2) No beliefs are justified by faith.

Heya Dunemeister,
I agree that other attempts at justification are problematic as well. However, the particular problem I highlight in this thread appears to be one that is unique to faith. It is not a question about whether faith justifies but whether justifying by faith has utility. It appears that if faith justifies then one of the two possibilities I give to idea must be true. Therefore, the hypothesis that faith justifies has no utility because we are unable to use it to discern between those beliefs we should hold and those beliefs we should not hold. No other theory of justification has this problem.

But what if faith were, in the right circumstances (that I'm not going to spell out at the moment), a reliable mechanism by which to arrive at true beliefs? That is, the faith doesn't justify the belief, but causes the belief by a means that is reliable (under the right circumstances). Wouldn't that make beliefs caused by faith (under the right circumstances) privileged in such a way that we'd call them knowledge? If not, why not?

If we are understanding knowledge to mean that which has the highest amount of epistemic worth then it would require the mechanism instigated by faith to provide a necessary connection between the cause of belief and the truth of belief. If such a necessary connection cannot be demonstrated then clearly the highest amount of epistemic worth has not been demonstrated because there will always be a level of worth higher namely the one I have just identified. Does the mechanism you propose demonstrate this connection?

If we are not talking about the highest level of epistemic worth but of some level of epistemic worth that warrants us to hold beliefs that attain a level of worth higher and discard beliefs that attain a level of worth lower then it would be dependent on two factors:
1) What sort of relationship is established by the mechanism of faith between the cause of belief and the truth of belief.
2) The circumstances that are necessary for such a mechanism to operate.

Is there anything that anybody can possibly prove? I say no. Thus, every single thing we think we know, we actually just believe. Belief is the ONLY justification for anything. There's no proof.

I agree with you Aqualung but if that is the case then what is the difference between saying "Belief is the only justification for anything" and "there is no justification for anything"? If there is no difference then that contradicts the premise "faith justifies". If there is a difference then either:
1) Faith is the only justifier and so anything may be justified
2) Faith is not the only justifier and so faith is irrelevant

Heya Willamena,
If the justifier of beliefs is good reason then how can faith justify those beliefs that are already justified by good reason? If you wish to define faith as "belief in propositions that are justified by good reason" then that is fine but then clearly faith is not itself a justifier. However, some people claim that faith is a justifier.

 

[Aqualung]

I agree with you Aqualung but if that is the case then what is the difference between saying "Belief is the only justification for anything" and "there is no justification for anything"?

It's the same difference between saying "I ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch" and "I ate nothing for lunch." There's always a difference between something and nothing. Faith is often mistakenly labled as knowledge, so if knowledge is a supposed justification, then faith certainly is a justification. But nobody ever asks what the difference is between "Knowledge is a justification for anything" and "there is no justification for anything."

 

[idea]

Despite what anyone tells you, the fact remains, the cake is going to taste good or it is not going to taste good. Not everyone lives their life according to a personal or preferential hope. If one does encourage faith into their lives, one should also be prepared for the doubt, discouragement and disappointment that accompanies accurate knowledge.

Yes, at times we trust and follow and are let down - it is how it works in science too, you test something, and the test does not always turn out as you predict it would. You don't stop though, you change something, then test it again, until you find what you are looking for. If everyone gave up after the first failed test - we would not have lightbulbs or cars or any of the things we now enjoy. You hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, take what you can get from each experience, change a little, then try again. That is how any progress is made. A journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step, and that first step, and perhaps all of those steps are taken in faith. Only hindsight is 20/20, that is just the only way progression is possible.

So how do you establish cold hard facts without using faith? Are you familiar with the problem of induction and the problem of perception?

But we need not take the first bite in faith. You could take the first bite out of curiosity which needs no prior assumption about the outcome. Put another way, you don't need to assume that the cake will taste good to want to find out whether or not it does taste good.

Generally our actions are done in hopes that the result will be a pleasant one... sure there are many reasons you do something, out of fear, because of moral principles, for reward.... there are many things that I do not want to find out about - don't want to know what it feels like to lose a child, don't want to know what it feels like to be a heoion addict, for me to do any action, I have to first have a reason that it would somehow be beneficial in some way, or I will not do it. Curiosity is a great quality, but with everything that you could spend your limited time on, you have to prioritize that you do not miss out on what is best for what is only good, and so we pick and choose what to pursue. - our actions in faith, in hope - that something positive will result...

You could be saying that faith is the only way we can be justified in believing a cake to taste good before eating it then I agree if faith justifies beliefs. However, it then seems that I would also be justified in believing the cake to taste bad before eating it. Therefore, faith justifies any belief.

On the other hand, you could be saying that it is the testimony of my friend that justifies my belief that the cake will taste good before I have eaten it. But in this case, faith justifies nothing at all. My belief is justified based on testimony not faith. Therefore, faith justifies no belief.

I guess my point is that if we assume that faith justifies belief then there can only be 2 possibilities:
1) All beliefs, including ones that contradict each other, are justified by faith.
2) No beliefs are justified by faith.

I guess I lean towards #2. Faith is necessary for taking the first step, but belief needs to come from something real - an actual experience, not just relying in faith on something you have heard...

if you don't mind my throwing in a script

1 Cor 11:3 ...no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

but by the Holy Ghost - ie - unless the Holy Ghost - an actual being - has actually communicated directly to you, you cannot verify anything about the reality of Him. It takes an actual experience - seeing an angle or hearing a voice - to believe - not just words... Faith is hope for things not yet seen - it is hope - not a testimony.

Matt 16:
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

the church was meant to be built upon actual personal revelation from heaven, not through faith in the words of another.

 

[EtuMalku]

So how do you establish cold hard facts without using faith? Are you familiar with the problem of induction and the problem of perception?

With proof.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with 'induction' what kind of induction?
As for perception, someone can describe the color red to a blind man for centuries but until the blind man can see this color he cannot really perceive it's true nature.

 

[idea]

someone can describe the color red to a blind man for centuries but until the blind man can see this color he cannot really perceive it's true nature.

agreed :yes:

 

[3.14]

If beliefs motivated solely by faith are justified then is there any belief that could not be justified in this way?

If not, how should we choose which beliefs to have faith in?

any belief can be justified until commen sense kicks in to bad most extremists lack commen sense

 

[Dunemeister]

Heya Dunemeister,
I agree that other attempts at justification are problematic as well. However, the particular problem I highlight in this thread appears to be one that is unique to faith. It is not a question about whether faith justifies but whether justifying by faith has utility. It appears that if faith justifies then one of the two possibilities I give to idea must be true. Therefore, the hypothesis that faith justifies has no utility because we are unable to use it to discern between those beliefs we should hold and those beliefs we should not hold. No other theory of justification has this problem.

In my view, justification has no epistemological utility, really, so if faith can't justify, that's none the worse for faith. But on my view, faith does not produce justification but warrant. Warrant is that thing enough of which transforms a true belief into knowledge.

If we are understanding knowledge to mean that which has the highest amount of epistemic worth then it would require the mechanism instigated by faith to provide a necessary connection between the cause of belief and the truth of belief. If such a necessary connection cannot be demonstrated then clearly the highest amount of epistemic worth has not been demonstrated because there will always be a level of worth higher namely the one I have just identified. Does the mechanism you propose demonstrate this connection?

It does, but the last time I thought through these things was over a decade ago, and I'll have to revisit them. So begging your indulgence, I'll hit the books. But if you want to save me work (and add to yours!), you can check out Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief, in which he argues that humans, by the exercise of the sensus divinitatus, can reliably arrive at true beliefs under the right circumstances.

If we are not talking about the highest level of epistemic worth but of some level of epistemic worth that warrants us to hold beliefs that attain a level of worth higher and discard beliefs that attain a level of worth lower then it would be dependent on two factors:
1) What sort of relationship is established by the mechanism of faith between the cause of belief and the truth of belief.
2) The circumstances that are necessary for such a mechanism to operate.

All agreed, except that I think these questions come into play for the higher level of epistemic worth, too. I'd only caution that a believer can have warrant whether or not she knows that either of these factors has been satisfied.

 

[cardero]

Idea writes: Yes, at times we trust and follow and are let down - it is how it works in science too, you test something, and the test does not always turn out as you predict it would.

This is just my point. If one isn't encouraging any expectations to an outcome and are satisfied with the conclusion of what a belief can become (a Truth or an Untruth), then there is no reason to experience disappointment or discouragement because someone has introduced faith into the equation. A belief does not support our predictions, they do not coddle or protect our emotional preferences, they cannot connect to our personal wants and desires. The only thing the belief can do is be concluded to a Truth or an Untruth. This process works for any belief. Go ahead, try it.

Idea writes: You don't stop though, you change something, then test it again, until you find what you are looking for. If everyone gave up after the first failed test - we would not have lightbulbs or cars or any of the things we now enjoy.

One&#8217;s failed interest or continuance of escorting a belief to it&#8217;s conclusion is usually not the belief&#8217;s problem or concern. It is the responsibility of the person who has adopted the belief. Failure to further one&#8217;s own understanding or compare the belief to current knowledge, experience or reality is also the fault of the believer. Someone who has sunk a great deal of hope and faith into a particular belief becomes enamored with the belief and is usually cautious and unproductive in concluding a belief to an answer which has the risk of becoming unagreeable to the believer.

If you don&#8217;t mind me throwing in the following script:

Faith is an excuse bestowed on people by themselves or another individual who is supposed to K(NOW), but doesn't.

Faith automatically stops individuals from PROVING UNDERSTANDING for themselves.

HELLO IT&#8217;S ME: An Interview With GOD
Chapter: Belief, Faith, Hope and Joy
Pg: 166