Faith is taught

[Pah]

That's not entirely true, but what you personally might see as inconclusive, other people are more than ready to see as conclusive. Just because you haven't experienced what others might have to make them believe in God, that doesn't mean that the experiences they have aren't legitimate and they might put a different value on their experiences than you do.

Hehehe I have experienced it even to speaking in tounges. I know from whence it came and continues to come for other people.

The question is what were your expections shortly after you first heard of God. Would they be the same if you were taught about Buddha? Would your early atheistic childhood, if it was your's, change if you heard a story from childhood playmates? Quite possible. But the impetus is always external in the overwhelming vast majority of cases.

Faith has to be "born" at sometime in some place and under specific circumstances. Was it a voice of God, a reading of a book, a story told by friends? Was it your voice initiated from a thought given you?

 

[Pah]

Not for me.... faith in God was not predicated on any Biblical account or "authority" of the Bible. Faith, for me, was an encounter with love... an inner sense of a higher power.... I later came to have faith in the Bible as an explaination of what I felt inside. I may be in errror, but the contention that faith must be learned is to me false... how a person expresses that faith with others in religion must be learned, but faith in and of itself can come from nothing more than reason and nature.

It is shown in The First Idea by Stanely I. Greenspan, M.D. and Stuart G. Shanker, D. Phil. that even emotion is learned by interacting with a loving care-giver. It is the very same process that produces a child who speaks in English instead of Spanish or French. It is the same process as when morality and a concept of rights is passed from generation to generation.

 

[Pah]

....
True. But my faith in the existance of an unknown originator erupted spontaneously, i believe, prior to that one evening of thought i was quite anti-theist.

Before there was faith, was there a thought that God existed/didn't exist and you confirmed that he did?

 

[Scott1]

It is shown in The First Idea by Stanely I. Greenspan, M.D. and Stuart G. Shanker, D. Phil. that even emotion is learned by interacting with a loving care-giver. It is the very same process that produces a child who speaks in English instead of Spanish or French. It is the same process as when morality and a concept of rights is passed from generation to generation.

I get ya... but I didn't think Locke's thesis was just a mere observation of human behavior but questioning the validity of faith/morality etc.... I guess I missed the point.

 

[Pah]

You are talking about one specific type of faith.... and so I would say that yours/Lockes opinion is only true to a point.

Mysticism, in its classic form, is a "firsthand" experience... the mystic receives some form of "wisdom" or experience. Those who then follow this mystic, then would fall under your theory as well as those who come to faith in a monotheistic religion. I would also suggest that ancient peoples who had some form of faith (thunder and lightning being some form of "power from above" etc.) did not learn it from anyone.

Peace in Christ,
S

I agree that there was an "original thinker", several in fact, that explained natural phenomia as appropriate to a god. It was the god(s) of the gap between ignorance and knowing scientific fact. I'd even say that at the time of the creation of gods there was no science as we know it

 

[Pah]

I get ya... but I didn't think Locke's thesis was just a mere observation of human behavior but questioning the validity of faith/morality etc.... I guess I missed the point.

Actually, Locke, after giving argument that all thought was not innate, went on to say it came from God and exerpience. Locke, in that chapter, was only addressing thought that is present at birth. He was also wrong to imply that thought does occur only after learning. Kohlburg and others show there is ego-centric thought in the new-borne. It centers around the "gas bubble" in the stomach, around hunger, warmth and a dry bottom. How those are satisfied is the beggining of the interaction of the "teaching" care-giver.

 

[Pah]

I wasn't raised with any faith at all. I was never particularly exposed to it and never particularly had any feelings about it. In high school I got into LaVeyan Satanism which as most already know is atheistic in nature. I was a Satanist for 6 years. I realized in college that I believe in something more. I realized this when I was writing the outline for a paper about Satanism for a class. I realized that the words I was writing were just from memory...not from what I really felt. I realized I actually felt quite empty which explained the last few years of my life pretty well. I wasn't talking to anyone or reading anything when I realized I believed in something. I also wasn't talking to anyone or reading anything when I realized what I believe in. It came from inside me.

I'm curious, if faith must be taught, how do you think it started?

Of course...otherwise it wouldn't be faith. What's your point?

I'm not talking about being raised in "faith". I'm talking about when it was first discovered in the mind. It seems that in college, you began the rational process to discard previous established thoughts.

 

[Halcyon]

Before there was faith, was there a thought that God existed/didn't exist and you confirmed that he did?

Hmmm, you mean did i have a concept of God before hand?

Well, like i say i was brought up atheist and really didn't like religion and thought the concept of God was ridiculous. But yes, i was aware of the idea of a creator God.

I think i see your reasoning, that living in a society that has a God concept, i simply changed from atheist to theist by their influence, is that what you are suggesting?

If so, i'm not sure i agree. I had a God concept, but nothing like the one i embraced. Also, i'd never been taught to have faith, the faith followed as a result of the idea.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I think you missed the point. You can say that the Bible is a historical document and therefore it is legitimate to use it as an authority, but you cannot say at the same time that you are not using an appeal to authority.

The Bible can be used as both. Many seem to dismiss the the historical aspect of it. In this respect, YOU missed the point.

You say this is an eyewitness account but we have no evidence that any of these people even existed, much less that they actually saw what the Bible claims. So before you can claim this is an eyewitness account you must have first done an appeal to the authority of the Bible.

No evidence? The Scriptures happen to be evidence in and of itself. Are you claiming that they just "appeared" out of nowhere? Do you have evidence that they are a fraud?

Now again, you might want to discredit the evidence, but you have to admit that it indeed exists.

 

[Pah]

Hmmm, you mean did i have a concept of God before hand?

Well, like i say i was brought up atheist and really didn't like religion and thought the concept of God was ridiculous. But yes, i was aware of the idea of a creator God.

I think i see your reasoning, that living in a society that has a God concept, i simply changed from atheist to theist by their influence, is that what you are suggesting?

If so, i'm not sure i agree. I had a God concept, but nothing like the one i embraced. Also, i'd never been taught to have faith, the faith followed as a result of the idea.

I think that fits in what I've said and thought. I do recognize the rational process practised by some. But in order to think about it, it must have been in the mind to deny or to acclaim.

My contention is that there is no revelation of the original thought nor is it innate. That, I suppose, would only leave the germ of an idea being presented from external sources.

 

[Halcyon]

I think that fits in what I've said and thought. I do recognize the rational process practised by some. But in order to think about it, it must have been in the mind to deny or to acclaim.

My contention is that there is no revelation of the original thought nor is it innate. That, I suppose, would only leave the germ of an idea being presented from external sources.

That makes sense.

Although, like people have said, it doesn't explain the ideas origin.

 

[Pah]

That makes sense.

Although, like people have said, it doesn't explain the ideas origin.

Yes, I know there is no explaination of the idea's origin from the process that continues it from generation to generation. It is much like abiogensus and evolution but has a much clearer distinguishing character. My thought, and only my thought, is that, in a child, pattern recognition, a recurring observation of cause and effect, expounds the innate capabilities of the child. I also favor the thought that the god concept was a clever and original explaination for natural occurances. The First Idea puts forth the concept that much came from symbols. Language is also thought to come from symbols. The real origin is currently murky.

After the original idea is expressed, it is promulagted by others hearing and accepting the idea. That's in the referenced Locke, behind the words of argument 9 and following.

My statement, that faith is learned, only applies to faith established by others. That the creation of an article of faith falls from an accepted (reasoned, if you will) offering from another or an extended premise. It does not come from gods or God just as rights and morality do not come from gods or God.

 

[fantome profane]

The Bible can be used as both. Many seem to dismiss the the historical aspect of it. In this respect, YOU missed the point.

Yes, you can claim that it is an eyewitness account if you are also claiming it as a valid authority.

But you cannot claim it is a valid authority if you are saying that you are not making an appeal to authority. In that sense you cannot have it both ways.

No evidence? The Scriptures happen to be evidence in and of itself. Are you claiming that they just "appeared" out of nowhere? Do you have evidence that they are a fraud?

Now again, you might want to discredit the evidence, but you have to admit that it indeed exists.

I am not making claims at all. It just seemed that you were denying that you were using the Bible as an authority in one post, and then defending your choice to use it as an authority in the next.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The OP asked for a single instance... I provided a scriptural one.

 

[Pah]

The OP asked for a single instance... I provided a scriptural one.

The OP asked:

Can anyone give an example of an article of faith that is derived from reason without the premise or supporting evidence of that article being taught?

The bible does not fit the question. It is probably the most well known example of presumption. It is a product of faith based on the presumption. Do you understand circular argument?

 

[Scuba Pete]

So all of history is presumption? That's a mighty slippery slope you are on.

What you dismiss as presumption is evidence, pure and simple. You can deny it as such, but the passage given is one where people SEE the miracle and believe... there was no teaching involved. Deny it as you will, but it is exactly what you asked for.

 

[adilrockstar]

But not everyone welcomes the Good News, for Isaiah the prophet said, "Lord, who has believed our message?" So faith comes from hearing, that is, hearing the Good News about Christ.

Romans 10:16-17

 

[Pah]

So all of history is presumption? That's a mighty slippery slope you are on.

What you dismiss as presumption is evidence, pure and simple. You can deny it as such, but the passage given is one where people SEE the miracle and believe... there was no teaching involved. Deny it as you will, but it is exactly what you asked for.

Your comments are out of line, erronous, and off topic.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Three big accusations with absolutely no substantiations... and I fully disagree with them. Your final question in the OP:

Can anyone give an example of an article of faith that is derived from reason without the premise or supporting evidence of that article being taught?

I supplied a historical document with evidence of the example you asked for. There was no reason involved in these people's faith: just an experience. The greatest theories fall with such a small dose of reality.

But you seem to want to categorically deny the historical nature and context of the scriptures. I leave you then to re-invent your debate as you see fit.

There is nothing wrong with faith. It is not the un-evidenced, and blind belief many would have us to see it as. Just because we can't see the evidence that others may discern does not mean that the evidence does NOT exist or that their position is any less tenable than our own. To do so is to twist the rules of evidence and logic to suit our every whim of conjecture.

Faith grows only by testing it. As it shows itself to be true, our faith extends itself. You can not learn faith as you would some sort of rule, for faith comes from within the person and is the business end of belief. You may believe that your car's brakes work, but you show your faith by depressing the brake pedal. The more the pedal works the way you expect the bigger your faith to depress that pedal.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is "out of line", "erroneous" or "off topic".

 

[Pah]

Three big accusations with absolutely no substantiations... and I fully disagree with them. Your final question in the OP:

Can anyone give an example of an article of faith that is derived from reason without the premise or supporting evidence of that article being taught?

I supplied a historical document with evidence of the example you asked for. There was no reason involved in these people's faith: just an experience. The greatest theories fall with such a small dose of reality.

But you seem to want to categorically deny the historical nature and context of the scriptures. I leave you then to re-invent your debate as you see fit.

There is nothing wrong with faith. It is not the un-evidenced, and blind belief many would have us to see it as. Just because we can't see the evidence that others may discern does not mean that the evidence does NOT exist or that their position is any less tenable than our own. To do so is to twist the rules of evidence and logic to suit our every whim of conjecture.

Faith grows only by testing it. As it shows itself to be true, our faith extends itself. You can not learn faith as you would some sort of rule, for faith comes from within the person and is the business end of belief. You may believe that your car's brakes work, but you show your faith by depressing the brake pedal. The more the pedal works the way you expect the bigger your faith to depress that pedal.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is "out of line", "erroneous" or "off topic".

Three points.

You persist in an off toppic vein to this thread. If you want to claim the historical nature of the bible, do so in another thread. But a word of advice - in all the threads that discussed/debated that issue, none proven the bible as history.

The second is that I had specifically said,

Your comments are out of line, erronous, and off topic.

To twist that into a personal nature as if I attacked you is unfounded. Your actions in this regard are despicable.

The third is that faith does not grow in scope until you hear or read the "addition". Using faith may increase its strength but it adds nothing to faith. It's bulking up a muscle instead of growing new muscles. Use of faith is not accusition of faith. How you get faith is the subject here.

Your comparision to a brake pedal is flawed. I press it because I want to stop or slow down and am prepared to take alternate action when it fails.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You persist in an off toppic vein to this thread. If you want to claim the historical nature of the bible, do so in another thread. But a word of advice - in all the threads that discussed/debated that issue, none proven the bible as history.

The topic was that Faith MUST be taught. I have shown a description of faith being engendered not by teaching but by an experience. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the nature of the OP?

The second is that I had specifically said, To twist that into a personal nature as if I attacked you is unfounded. Your actions in this regard are despicable.

There was NO attack... Merely disagreeing with you is not an attack, nor is it despicable. You are the only making any accusations. Should you want me to leave this discussion, just ask.

The third is that faith does not grow in scope until you hear or read the "addition". Using faith may increase its strength but it adds nothing to faith. It's bulking up a muscle instead of growing new muscles. Use of faith is not accusition of faith. How you get faith is the subject here.

The point of the passage I cited, was that faith often comes from direct observations or an experience. In that respect, it is not learned. You asked for ONE example, and I provided it. Quite often we only "learn" to believe when we come in direct contact with the phenomenon in the school of hard knocks. This happens even today when people are exposed to true believers. They see the promises revealed and so believe NOT because they are taught, but because they see the truth in all of it's glory. Of course, not everyone is open to the experience. That's "OK".

Your comparision to a brake pedal is flawed. I press it because I want to stop or slow down and am prepared to take alternate action when it fails.

Your faith is so complete in the brake pedal that you don't even see it as such. Yet, as you have pointed out, that faith is not always warranted, not that this will stop you from depressing the pedal whenever you want. I would suggest that faith controls MUCH of how we live our life. Just like those faulty brakes of yours, the outcome of a flawed faith may be quite tragic. Faith, like brakes are best when inspected frequently and adjusted, repaired or completely replaced.