What is Faith?

[Windwalker]

In discussions about religion people often interchange the words belief and faith with one another. Others use the word faith to mean something akin to trust. While I do see these all relate to one another, I believe there are important distinctions to make when speaking of faith in a religious sense of the word.

I see faith as distinct from beliefs, in that beliefs can and do change over time in the course of one's religious faith. The core impulse towards "God" or the "Ultimate Reality", to put a more open term to it is something that wells up from within the individual like the desire of a plant to reach towards the sun. It is like an intuition, a sense of goodness to which one is drawn toward and compelled from within to grow in order to reach or attain what it offers into itself. To me, that is what truly defines faith, and beliefs are simply the supporting structures on which the plant grows, like a fence is that a vine climbs up upon. Faith therefore utilizes beliefs, but is not defined by them. Any other valid supporting structure can be put in place for the plant to grow upon and faith is still faith, drawing and compelling from within as it grows upwards and outwards into the world.

People also often conflate that faith is trusting in a set of ideas they believe in, that their faith is in the ideas and beliefs, the teachings, the doctrines, the guru, the teacher, the deity, the religion and so forth. While it is true there is trust involved, since as beliefs change and evolve that trust also moves from its hold on one structure to hold on another. Each of these, belief and trust, are extensions of faith itself which serve to support it. Faith itself is impulse, beliefs are the supporting structures for faith to move the individual upward upon, and trust is the arms of faith to hold onto the structures with as it moves over them to the next higher levels of supporting structure.

There are therefore interactions and interdependencies, but I think having an understanding of the distinctions of these helps to clear away the confusion where someone, say changing their beliefs, is not truly "losing faith". In reality, it's often more a display of faith moving the individual beyond their current supporting belief structures to ones better suited to support them at a higher level of their individual growth. A "crisis of faith" is often nothing more than not knowing what structures are available to it having outgrown the previous one, or the current structure has become damaged somehow. Like any vining plant, it has to find something new to support it, but it is that faith within the person which continues to search until it can find one.

Thoughts?

 

[Altfish]

Belief without evidence

 

[Thanda]

In discussions about religion people often interchange the words belief and faith with one another. Others use the word faith to mean something akin to trust. While I do see these all relate to one another, I believe there are important distinctions to make when speaking of faith in a religious sense of the word.

I see faith as distinct from beliefs, in that beliefs can and do change over time in the course of one's religious faith. The core impulse towards "God" or the "Ultimate Reality", to put a more open term to it is something that wells up from within the individual like the desire of a plant to reach towards the sun. It is like an intuition, a sense of goodness to which one is drawn toward and compelled from within to grow in order to reach or attain what it offers into itself. To me, that is what truly defines faith, and beliefs are simply the supporting structures on which the plant grows, like a fence is that a vine climbs up upon. Faith therefore utilizes beliefs, but is not defined by them. Any other valid supporting structure can be put in place for the plant to grow upon and faith is still faith, drawing and compelling from within as it grows upwards and outwards into the world.

People also often conflate that faith is trusting in a set of ideas they believe in, that their faith is in the ideas and beliefs, the teachings, the doctrines, the guru, the teacher, the deity, the religion and so forth. While it is true there is trust involved, since as beliefs change and evolve that trust also moves from its hold on one structure to hold on another. Each of these, belief and trust, are extensions of faith itself which serve to support it. Faith itself is impulse, beliefs are the supporting structures for faith to move the individual upward upon, and trust is the arms of faith to hold onto the structures with as it moves over them to the next higher levels of supporting structure.

There are therefore interactions and interdependencies, but I think having an understanding of the distinctions of these helps to clear away the confusion where someone, say changing their beliefs, is not truly "losing faith". In reality, it's often more a display of faith moving the individual beyond their current supporting belief structures to ones better suited to support them at a higher level of their individual growth. A "crisis of faith" is often nothing more than not knowing what structures are available to it having outgrown the previous one, or the current structure has become damaged somehow. Like any vining plant, it has to find something new to support it, but it is that faith within the person which continues to search until it can find one.

Thoughts?

Very well said - faith is a motivating factor. It borrows from belief and trust but belief and trust are themselves very broad terms which cannot be fully explained by their relation to faith.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Faith is belief in unseen with some selfish expectation.
But in many cases belief without complete lack of evidence can prove catastrophic.

 

[George-ananda]

Belief without evidence

Or is it 'Belief without Proof'?

 

[Windwalker]

Belief without evidence

I would disagree. If faith finds something to attach itself to, obviously the structure must have some cohesiveness to it, it must have something faith can attach to. As far as evidences go, it really depends on one's criteria and purpose. Something which may not support a scientific structure, may in fact be perfectly fine as a mythic structure (and visa versa), so long as it provides a cohesive enough pattern that someone can use to help translate their faith through. These different structures are all really the same at the end of the day; metaphors we use to speak of our experiences of reality.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I separate your paragraphs post to read and understand what you're saying better.

In discussions about religion people often interchange the words belief and faith with one another.

Others use the word faith to mean something akin to trust. While I do see these all relate to one another, I believe there are important distinctions to make when speaking of faith in a religious sense of the word.

I see faith as distinct from beliefs, in that beliefs can and do change over time in the course of one's religious faith.

The core impulse towards "God" or the "Ultimate Reality", to put a more open term to it is something that wells up from within the individual like the desire of a plant to reach towards the sun. It is like an intuition, a sense of goodness to which one is drawn toward and compelled from within to grow in order to reach or attain what it offers into itself.

To me, that is what truly defines faith, and beliefs are simply the supporting structures on which the plant grows, like a fence is that a vine climbs up upon. Faith therefore utilizes beliefs, but is not defined by them. Any other valid supporting structure can be put in place for the plant to grow upon and faith is still faith, drawing and compelling from within as it grows upwards and outwards into the world.

People also often conflate that faith is trusting in a set of ideas they believe in, that their faith is in the ideas and beliefs, the teachings, the doctrines, the guru, the teacher, the deity, the religion and so forth. While it is true there is trust involved, since as beliefs change and evolve that trust also moves from its hold on one structure to hold on another.

Each of these, belief and trust, are extensions of faith itself which serve to support it.

Faith itself is impulse, beliefs are the supporting structures for faith to move the individual upward upon, and trust is the arms of faith to hold onto the structures with as it moves over them to the next higher levels of supporting structure.

There are therefore interactions and interdependencies, but I think having an understanding of the distinctions of these helps to clear away the confusion where someone, say changing their beliefs, is not truly "losing faith". In reality, it's often more a display of faith moving the individual beyond their current supporting belief structures to ones better suited to support them at a higher level of their individual growth. A "crisis of faith" is often nothing more than not knowing what structures are available to it having outgrown the previous one, or the current structure has become damaged somehow. Like any vining plant, it has to find something new to support it, but it is that faith within the person which continues to search until it can find one.

Thoughts?

I like your post. I think you're saying faith is more a verb that is the foundation or structure of beliefs?

Many people define faith as trust, true. In the general sense of the word, I'd agree.

According to my morals and faith (aka religion), I have no structure (no Faith).
So, for your definition, it is hard to describe because in my faith, there is only beliefs and actions. What causes the actions are based on my beliefs. What shapes my beliefs is confirmed by my actions. Whether trust, as commonly used, comes in is not a relevant as actually getting up and doing my thing. I can trust in the belief my ancestors support me just sitting in the chair; but, to me, that's doesn't make sense. Trust/faith is an action. It' connects what I do with what I believe; and, it confirms what I believe by what I do.

That's how I define faith: an interconnection between what I believe and what I do. What drives me or what people call god or the holy spirit.

I see faith as distinct from beliefs, in that beliefs can and do change over time in the course of one's religious faith.

I don't know. That's a slippery slope. I believe that I am a female because I know it is true. My perception or how I see myself can change (say, I can be delusion later on in life and see myself as male); however, that my belief can't change because it is based on a fact. If beliefs aren't based on facts, then I agree, they change over time. I guess it depends what you place your belief in and, when you know it is a fact, changing that word "belief" to the word "know."

I like this:

To me, that is what truly defines faith, and beliefs are simply the supporting structures on which the plant grows, like a fence is that a vine climbs up upon. Faith therefore utilizes beliefs, but is not defined by them.

If you have faith in god, first god would have to exist (that is a belief). Once you believe god exist and you have experiences from it, your belief becomes knowledge: now you know. When you know, those beliefs into facts become the foundation...

and then your faith can utilize those beliefs because they are already confirmed. Why would faith utilize beliefs that can change over time? That is like my putting effort into building a house on a non sturdy foundation. I do agree, faith can be a verb (to utilize). I disagree that beliefs are shaped by faith, only because I need the blocks and structure before I take the action/use those beliefs (to facts) and build the house.

While it is true our beliefs change over time, that doesn't mean it isn't a foundation to which our faith utilizes. I like being free spirited or a gypsy in my faith. I'm creative and do not like to be limited in what I do, how I pray, and so forth. So, my beliefs are that my beliefs change over time; as a result, that is my foundation: the ever changing pattern of how I belief and my actions of it. So, I like to build multiple houses not just settle in one my whole life. With that said, it is possible to having a moving foundation. I'd say both beliefs and faith change over time. Our faith changes because we cant use the same methods of utilizing beliefs as we did our old beliefs. Everything changes.

Though, do you think that makes sense. Regardless if the beliefs are a solid foundation or moving that they could be seen as the foundation in which the faith have something to utilize instead of the other way around?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I would say that there are several kinds of faith:

Faith Type 1: "Belief Above All Else". In Faith Type 1, we see the beliefs in god, the supernatural and a myriad of fringe beliefs. Faith Type 1 holds a given thing to be true in spite of lack of good evidence. For people holding this kind of faith, the conviction that their faith is correct is self-evident and obvious. Persons of this kind of faith would say: "There is a God"; "Bigfoot exists"; "The government was behind 9/11"; etc. This kind of faith, even if the core belief itself is later found to be true, is frought with formal logic errors, such as "circular reasoning", "confirmation bias", etc. When confronted about these beliefs, the believer will always claim their stand to be true and words are truly ineffective in changing their mind. Any evidence that "seems" to conform to their belief is held "sacred"; and any evidence that contradicts this belief is conveniently explained away. "God is capable of raising the dead". "Well, we tried a resurrection ceremony and nothing happened." "Well, you didn't have enough faith". "You have no way of judging that; only God can judge that; and I hold that I had enough faith". "Then it's because God said 'no'; and even though we can't present to you verifiable "scientific" evidence of resurrection, we believe that God can raise people from the dead". This kind of faith is also rich with "the Law of Infinite Permeations"; meaning, no matter how much scrutiny the belief is subjected to, there is always an answer. "I beleive in God" says the believer. "Where is God?" says the skeptic. "In the cave" says the believer. "We've been to the cave and found no god". "Well, he's on the mountain." "We've climbed the mountain, and we see no god." "Well, he must be in the sky." "We've flown in the sky, circumnavigated the globe; and did not see your god". "Well, he's in Outer Space". "We've been to outer space, and we still see no god". "Well, he exists in another dimension". And when we find a way to explore or even go to that other dimension, it will became a myraid of other dimensions until we explore those; then becomes outside of spacetime; then in an alternate reality; and so on and so forth. It is not limited to religion; as any tantalizing evidence that suggests Flight 800 was shot down by the military; or a population control conspiracy using chemtrails is in action; or shapeshifting reptilians are among us; or Bigfoot is running around in the Cascade mountains; all of this is held to be true with, in the mind of the believer, is obviously self-evident and anyone who disagrees is "blind to the truth". When an atheist says, "I have no faith", this is the kind of "faith" of which they are speaking.

Faith Type 2: "Trust". This kind of "faith" trusts an object, person or being; real or imagined. There is always a subjective aspect to this kind of faith; but can often be accompanied by objectivness. For example, one "has faith" (trusts) their spouse to remain faithful; and this is partially based on observations (such as, of their character and patterns of their past behavior); but is also accompanied by subjectivity. Thus, in having Faith Type 2 in my significant other, I believe that my significant other will remain faithfull; but in spite of that significant others' patterns of behavior and my beleif in them, there is always the possiblity that they may be unfaithful due to complex psychological, emotional or even medical reasons.

Faith Type 3: "Hope and confidence". This is the kind of faith employed when a parent says to a child or a spouse says to their partner, "I have faith in you". This means that they have confidence in the other to achieve what they set out to achieve; or confidence that this person can and will overcome a given obstacle. It is also the same kind of faith as when one says, "I have faith in the future". This kind of faith, like Faith Type 2, is a mix between obectivity and subjectivity.

Faith Type 4: "Belief based on empiricism". This is where we come to "I have faith that my car will start"; or "I will fall off a cliff if I step off the side". This kind of faith makes no use of subjectivity; thus is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum of Faith Type 1; so much so that it is ludicrous to me that we employ the same word in describing each.

Because these 4 types of faith reach their conclusions using very different mechanisms; and because these 4 types of faith are descriptions of confidence in very different objects/ideas, then I hold that these 4 types of faith should not even be the same word.

While this may sound crazy to some, please remember that the ancient Greek language had several words for "love". Today, we only have that one word; "love"; to describe very different emotional states. "I love you, little brother" is describing a very different emotional state than "I love to go to the park"; which is describing a very different emotional state than "I love my girlfriend"; which is describing a very different emotional state than "I want to make love to you". Losing this tradition of using different words for different forms of "love", I have always felt, is a loss to communication, society and culture; and I'd like to see it resurrected along with employing different words to describe different kinds of "faith".

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In discussions about religion people often interchange the words belief and faith with one another. Others use the word faith to mean something akin to trust. While I do see these all relate to one another, I believe there are important distinctions to make when speaking of faith in a religious sense of the word.
I see faith as distinct from beliefs, in that beliefs can and do change over time in the course of one's religious faith. The core impulse towards "God" or the "Ultimate Reality", to put a more open term to it is something that wells up from within the individual like the desire of a plant to reach towards the sun. It is like an intuition, a sense of goodness to which one is drawn toward and compelled from within to grow in order to reach or attain what it offers into itself. To me, that is what truly defines faith, and beliefs are simply the supporting structures on which the plant grows, like a fence is that a vine climbs up upon. Faith therefore utilizes beliefs, but is not defined by them. Any other valid supporting structure can be put in place for the plant to grow upon and faith is still faith, drawing and compelling from within as it grows upwards and outwards into the world.
People also often conflate that faith is trusting in a set of ideas they believe in, that their faith is in the ideas and beliefs, the teachings, the doctrines, the guru, the teacher, the deity, the religion and so forth. While it is true there is trust involved, since as beliefs change and evolve that trust also moves from its hold on one structure to hold on another. Each of these, belief and trust, are extensions of faith itself which serve to support it. Faith itself is impulse, beliefs are the supporting structures for faith to move the individual upward upon, and trust is the arms of faith to hold onto the structures with as it moves over them to the next higher levels of supporting structure.
There are therefore interactions and interdependencies, but I think having an understanding of the distinctions of these helps to clear away the confusion where someone, say changing their beliefs, is not truly "losing faith". In reality, it's often more a display of faith moving the individual beyond their current supporting belief structures to ones better suited to support them at a higher level of their individual growth. A "crisis of faith" is often nothing more than not knowing what structures are available to it having outgrown the previous one, or the current structure has become damaged somehow. Like any vining plant, it has to find something new to support it, but it is that faith within the person which continues to search until it can find one.
Thoughts?

Belief and faith are similar. However, credulity is: blind faith.
Jesus had sure faith by basing his beliefs on the old Hebrew Scriptures. ( Not some inner feeling or wishful thinking )
Jesus used logical reasoning on the old Hebrews Scriptures even referring to them by prefacing his statements with the words, " it is written..." written in the old Hebrew Scriptures.
So, Jesus acquired his faith and belief by the things he heard from, or were written, in the old Hebrew Scriptures.
So, for Jesus the first step was what he heard from Scripture about His God, and what the Scriptures teach about God - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Jesus then saw or observed the religious truthfullness as found in Scripture, and he could weigh what he knew in what he read in Scripture to be religious truth - Luke 4:16-20; John 17:17; John 17:3. We too can be like the first-century people of Acts of the Apostles 17:11 and examine ( search and research ) the Scriptures to see if things are so.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The leap of faith. The graphic truth of the matter.

Franz Reichelt - Eiffel Tower Jump:

 

[Windwalker]

I like your post. I think you're saying faith is more a verb that is the foundation or structure of beliefs?

The faith I am specifically talking about is faith in the spiritual or religious sense of the word. Faith in that context functions differently. Let's call it faith with a capital F (a sense or intuition of something despite a lack of direct knowledge) versus faith with small f (faith my car is going to start, trust based on data). What I am getting at is that that sort of faith is foundation of one's being, as opposed to foundation of one's beliefs.

Let me give an example of that difference in regards to how it responds to beliefs. Someone who has a deep religious or spiritual faith when their beliefs become challenged, or even completely destroyed, shown to be faulty and flawed, etc, and they accept the beliefs were in error, is able to still maintain faith despite not being able to really be able to say much about that 'feeling' anymore like they had previously through their belief structures they were using. Their foundation is in faith, not in beliefs. They still have a knowledge in the heart without the mind being able to say "I believe x,y,z." Faith in this case is a heart-knowledge, not a head knowledge.

Now contrast that example with the religious "True Believer!". They put their trust that how they have reasoned a thing, or chosen or adopting a thing to be true. The put their trust in their beliefs about being "right". The foundation of their being, their sense of self and truth rests in what their thinking minds tell them to be true. Challenges to what they belief in this case are resisted and fought against tooth and nail as they of necessity must preserve the beliefs. They have to preserve and protect them as the beliefs, the trust in the idea of the correctness of them, is foundational to their sense of self-security. This is not a display of faith at all, but rather a symptom of a complete lack of faith.

Faith being a sense of the unknown, an intuition of Truth despite any direct awareness becomes foundation to the self-sense and hence the security of one's own being in the world, despite not knowing what to believe. Belief is secondary to it. Beliefs only come into play because they become ways to talk about this inner sense of being which is not dependent upon beliefs. In fact the less someone holds to be true with the mind, the deeper that faith is known within them!

You see now what I'm getting at here? When people start spouting "Where's the evidence!", they are missing the point of what faith is, as well as what beliefs are. It's not belief in some propositional truth that one accepts with the mind to be true despite a lack of evidence, or even contrary to evidence. That's not faith at all. That's wishful thinking. Faith thrives on emptying itself of any notions it can grasp or understand with the mind, and is willing to have beliefs dismantled in order to access that. In someone of faith, beliefs need to be held lightly, not tightly, as they know that is not where they find themselves at rest.

I don't know. That's a slippery slope. I believe that I am a female because I know it is true. My perception or how I see myself can change (say, I can be delusion later on in life and see myself as male); however, that my belief can't change because it is based on a fact. If beliefs aren't based on facts, then I agree, they change over time. I guess it depends what you place your belief in and, when you know it is a fact, changing that word "belief" to the word "know."

Be careful not to make overly simplistic analogies equating the enormously complex and nuanced varieties and roles of beliefs with the lowest possible common denominators, such as saying I'm female and not male. The world of ideas and beliefs are far more subtle than simple binary equations of true versus false. But to my point about changing beliefs in the context of religious beliefs, people in fact do completely drop belief systems as they grow, no longer holding them to be true as they once did. That's a simple fact. I've done that myself.

Beliefs functioning at much higher levels than simple object identifications that children learn, "You're a boy, she's a girl", are complex metaphors. They are systems of metaphors through which we translate the world. They are in reality, convenient languages. When we understand they are "fingers pointing to the moon", then we become a lot less concerned with "being right" about them. We can pick up another metaphor to point with if it's not working well for us anymore, because our own internal understanding has "outgrown" the usefulness of an earlier metaphor we once found useful to us in where we were at at that time.

Where people get into trouble is when these metaphors become descriptors of reality. At this point they become dead-metaphors. They no longer serve as pointing to something beyond themselves, but become "the truth" themselves. We mistake them as facts. This is the core problem of "beliefs" in religious settings, particularly in this modern age. So when someone turns to their beliefs, they turn to the symbols and say, "These are the facts and I can trust in them", they have abandoned faith. They have set faith aside. So, as I said the "True Believer!", has made themselves out of touch with faith which can live, in fact thrives through, "not-knowing".

If you have faith in god, first god would have to exist (that is a belief). Once you believe god exist and you have experiences from it, your belief becomes knowledge: now you know. When you know, those beliefs into facts become the foundation...

This is not quite correct. The experience of God can and does happen before people have any beliefs whatsoever about a God. I can say that as true in my own personal experience, where I experience something quite beyond any beliefs I had previously. "Beyond belief" is the best way to describe any actual experience like this. What you seem to more accurately be talking about is beliefs about God. These become experiences based upon the beliefs, or at best through them symbolically. It is true that people holding a symbol of God in their mind, can move through them, and beyond them, into the experience of God itself. This is God as archetypal form and is used in mystical religious practices the world over.

But for your average person who is not a mystic, not utilizing archetypal forms to move beyond them with, the experience you describe is more operating at the emotional and cognitive level. While this is not necessarily bad, it is not the same thing as mystical experiences. And the pitfalls of that is that it can lead to delusional thinking, "I'm right in my beliefs because I experience the truth of them!". The same is true of negative thoughts as well, as we experience emotions through them also. These are not to be considered validations of the beliefs themselves, as any good Cognitive Behaviorist will tell you. But people often mistake the truth of the thought they are having because they experience something resulting from it.

I'm realizing the complexity of this as I'm typing this out and think it may be better for me to spend an entire chapter unpacking all of this in the book I'm trying to write. The forum here seems inadequate to lay this out very well. I'll pick this up more later and try to respond more succinctly, if possible.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I like your analysis. I read your post in full; but, because of word count (and my habit of writing long posts) I will try to keep my comments um, brief. Edit: This may be in parts. I wanted to address main points of yours.

Section 1:

Someone who has a deep religious or spiritual faith when their beliefs become challenged, or even completely destroyed, shown to be faulty and flawed, etc, and they accept the beliefs were in error, is able to still maintain faith despite not being able to really be able to say much about that 'feeling' anymore like they had previously through their belief structures they were using....

They still have a knowledge in the heart without the mind being able to say "I believe x,y,z." Faith in this case is a heart-knowledge, not a head knowledge.

....Now contrast that example with the religious "True Believer!". They put their trust that how they have reasoned a thing, or chosen or adopting a thing to be true....They have to preserve and protect them as the beliefs, the trust in the idea of the correctness of them, is foundational to their sense of self-security. This is not a display of faith at all, but rather a symptom of a complete lack of faith.

I think I get what you're saying and I like how you word it. One person can accept Faith even if their beliefs are in error while someone lacking faith and depends on beliefs use that as a security net as a means of faith; and, when challenged, their faith crumbles (since they have lack of Faith)?
​

I feel that beliefs cannot be separated from Faith. For example, I may have faith in my ancestors (rather than Faith) and someone challenges me my trust crumbles; but, no matter how far I crumble, it doesn't change what I know is true even if I no longer put belief in it. If I only had faith (like trusting my car will start), then I would disregard the fact that my ancestors are here and change religions. However, I have Faith they exist because it is based on fact. I put a lot of stock on fact and it is a heart thing. So, beliefs in any context, doesn't make sense to me: you either know something is true or you don't.

This I like:

What I am getting at is that that sort of faith is foundation of one's being, as opposed to foundation of one's beliefs.

Where do you place fact in these word faith, Faith, and belief?​

I agree with this; and, I believe that belief/Faith is the foundation of one's being. For example, I believe in the Spirits and Ancestors. They are beliefs because I put conviction and drew an opinion that who I believe are fact/true. If someone challenged my faith, they are not challenging beliefs such as whether my ancestors exist, in my opinion, they are challenging my conviction in the Spirits and Ancestors; they are challenging facts. They are challenging what I know is a fact that I put my belief/conviction in.

That is quite different than how I understand you. I think you are seeing beliefs as flexible. One can't stand on a moving foundation. That's how I'd interpret why you'd put more emphasis on Faith. We have different perspectives; and, I understand yours.

They have to preserve and protect them as the beliefs, the trust in the idea of the correctness of them, is foundational to their sense of self-security. This is not a display of faith at all, but rather a symptom of a complete lack of faith.

I can definitely see that. I know many people cradled in their beliefs and know nothing else. I'd challenge that as why would a sense of self-security been as not having Faith? Many people have heart Faith based on (rather than a symptom of) their security blanket. It's like a baby depending on their parent. If some of us are children to our beliefs (say like baby's needing their parent) that wouldn't devalue them as having Faith it would just be based on security.

The heart isn't picky, right?​

Faith being a sense of the unknown, an intuition of Truth despite any direct awareness becomes foundation to the self-sense and hence the security of one's own being in the world, despite not knowing what to believe. Belief is secondary to it.

Without belief, what would we put our Faith in in order to be Faith?​

For example, if Spirits didn't exist, I wouldn't have Faith in them. There wouldn't be a foundation because how can I have Faith in something or someone that is non-existent? Faith isn't an isolated word. Even as a foundation, it depends on the rest of the blocks to make Faith what it is as an heart-felt intuition and state of being. I would disagree with you. Belief works with Faith (upper case). As for faith how some define as trust, that can be broken but if we know our beliefs/convictions are in facts and our state of being/Faith is put into action with those beliefs and they are facts to us, then nothing can rock our Faith nor can we change beliefs because they become knowledge.

Beliefs only come into play because they become ways to talk about this inner sense of being which is not dependent upon beliefs. In fact the less someone holds to be true with the mind, the deeper that faith is known within them!

That's interesting. The first part, I didn't understand. Tongue twister. The last part, if we do not hold anything as true, what is faith? What are the characteristics of faith that are not defined by the values and convictions of an individual (aka their beliefs)?​

Faith thrives on emptying itself of any notions it can grasp or understand with the mind, and is willing to have beliefs dismantled in order to access that. In someone of faith, beliefs need to be held lightly, not tightly, as they know that is not where they find themselves at rest.

I hope all this goes through. That sounds like Zen Buddhism. Drop the labels to connect with one's true self. I agree with that and believe that hold heatedly. Some people do not see their beliefs as something separate that can be dismantled. It is part of their soul because they are facts they put conviction in.

So they can change beliefs as in where they put their convictions but to change what they see as fact? How can that be dismantled?​

I think you are using beliefs as if they are "things" that can be moved around rather than seeing beliefs as part of a person rather than seen as the clothes of a person. If they are a part of the person, then their Faith and sense of well being is within their beliefs or who they are whether its taken from the reflection of their given god or a personal connection within their true self or consciousness.

Where people get into trouble is when these metaphors become descriptors of reality. At this point they become dead-metaphors. They no longer serve as pointing to something beyond themselves, but become "the truth" themselves. We mistake them as facts.

It's not that. When beliefs are your reality, they are not beliefs anymore (as things), they are convictions and facts. There is no more beliefs (as in things) but facts.

This is the core problem of "beliefs" in religious settings, particularly in this modern age. So when someone turns to their beliefs, they turn to the symbols and say, "These are the facts and I can trust in them", they have abandoned faith. They have set faith aside. So, as I said the "True Believer!", has made themselves out of touch with faith which can live, in fact thrives through, "not-knowing".

Actually, I see this differently. When their beliefs are confirmed, they are no longer beliefs, they are facts. They are not isolated.

So, for example, if someone has a belief Jesus will save them from their sins, that is alright. However, if someone knows that Jesus will save them from their sins and it is (not becomes) a fact, how would this fact (confirmed belief/conviction) and holding on to it (security blanket or not) devalue and prove they do not have Faith?
​

If anything, their Faith would be strengthened by their knowledge. However, many say faith isn't based on knowledge. To those who believe this, I guess that what you say is true. I do believe faith is based on knowledge; and, because it is, and it is beneficial to me, I don't see how it can be dropped for me (and others) so I can have Faith.

How or why would the well-being of a person, his Faith be isolated from the beliefs (what convictions he take up as fact)?​

I'm realizing the complexity of this as I'm typing this out and think it may be better for me to spend an entire chapter unpacking all of this in the book I'm trying to write. The forum here seems inadequate to lay this out very well. I'll pick this up more later and try to respond more succinctly, if possible.

You and I both.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Good, it posted. No section 2

 

[Twilight Hue]

Belief without evidence

That and conviction.

It all sounds rather noble dosent it ? :0)

 

[`mud]

The hope that all of the candles will go out,
but wait......will they ?, if not, have faith,
there will be other candles.
~
'mud

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

In discussions about religion people often interchange the words belief and faith with one another. Others use the word faith to mean something akin to trust. While I do see these all relate to one another, I believe there are important distinctions to make when speaking of faith in a religious sense of the word.

I see faith as distinct from beliefs, in that beliefs can and do change over time in the course of one's religious faith. The core impulse towards "God" or the "Ultimate Reality", to put a more open term to it is something that wells up from within the individual like the desire of a plant to reach towards the sun. It is like an intuition, a sense of goodness to which one is drawn toward and compelled from within to grow in order to reach or attain what it offers into itself. To me, that is what truly defines faith, and beliefs are simply the supporting structures on which the plant grows, like a fence is that a vine climbs up upon. Faith therefore utilizes beliefs, but is not defined by them. Any other valid supporting structure can be put in place for the plant to grow upon and faith is still faith, drawing and compelling from within as it grows upwards and outwards into the world.

People also often conflate that faith is trusting in a set of ideas they believe in, that their faith is in the ideas and beliefs, the teachings, the doctrines, the guru, the teacher, the deity, the religion and so forth. While it is true there is trust involved, since as beliefs change and evolve that trust also moves from its hold on one structure to hold on another. Each of these, belief and trust, are extensions of faith itself which serve to support it. Faith itself is impulse, beliefs are the supporting structures for faith to move the individual upward upon, and trust is the arms of faith to hold onto the structures with as it moves over them to the next higher levels of supporting structure.

There are therefore interactions and interdependencies, but I think having an understanding of the distinctions of these helps to clear away the confusion where someone, say changing their beliefs, is not truly "losing faith". In reality, it's often more a display of faith moving the individual beyond their current supporting belief structures to ones better suited to support them at a higher level of their individual growth. A "crisis of faith" is often nothing more than not knowing what structures are available to it having outgrown the previous one, or the current structure has become damaged somehow. Like any vining plant, it has to find something new to support it, but it is that faith within the person which continues to search until it can find one.

Thoughts?

Faith, an emotional commitment to a belief, a course of action, and is vital. It's the engine that motivates us, but must be guided by reason. If it isn't, it's nothing more than blind faith. Unreasoned blind faith can lead us to commit ourselves to believe literally anything. A ship without reason at the controls goes off course and runs aground. A ship without its emotional engine is dead in the water.

 

[Windwalker]

Faith, an emotional commitment to a belief, a course of action, and is vital. It's the engine that motivates us, but must be guided by reason. If it isn't, it's nothing more than blind faith. Unreasoned blind faith can lead us to commit ourselves to believe literally anything. A ship without reason at the controls goes off course and runs aground. A ship without its emotional engine is dead in the water.

But here's the catch. Faith takes us beyond what we can reason into the uncharted. How can reason guide us when it can only function within the parameters of what it knows? To ultimately find one's true Self, you have to let go of trying to reason our way into it.

Also, I think you are mistaking the term blind faith with what really amounts to simply blind belief. Again this is a case where the word faith is being conflated with belief. I don't disagree with the dangers of blind beliefs that have no valid support, but I think over-reliance on reason is also blind. I see those who have all the reasons in the world mapped out in their minds as to why a thing is true can be completely off course. It applies as much to secular reasoning as well as religious beliefs. Both are relying on trying to understand something outside themselves to find truth. It's like an analogy I recently heard that many who have spent their entire lives mastering the ladder of success in the end find the ladder is leaning against the wrong building.

Faith is internal, and it is both before and beyond emotions, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, reason, and so forth. It can't be understood as any of those things or defined by them, even though faith pulls one into those in an attempt to manifest itself in order to be known. It's sort of like consciousness. Consciousness is not the thought or idea or the belief, but it is the fabric upon which thoughts, ideas, and beliefs are patterned. To be present in one's being, before thoughts, ideas, and beliefs is to come to know Truth itself, which is in itself not an idea, but before and beyond all beliefs and concepts. It's the paper on which everything else is drawn in by our minds. To know that, you can't get to it by analyzing the lines themselves to see what picture we've drawn with the pencils we've used.

Faith in this way I suppose I would call the "energy" of that paper, or fabric, or seamless cloth. It is the harmonics of it that resonates out into everything and that binds everything to Source. What happens within the person seeking Source is they learn to hear and listen to that energy within themselves, upon which they sufficiently trust and ride well enough in order to let go of holding onto their ideas of truth they cling to in order to try to find themselves in those beliefs they've constructed or been taught. What I am saying here is absolute key to understanding faith. Faith is what you ride which compels you to shed beliefs, all of them, religious ones included. You ride its currents to move beyond yourself and your ideas, the constructions of self and others and truth we have built up with our minds, and come to rest in that seamless fabric itself which is both nothing and everything.

I'll see if I can't find another way to flesh out my impressions of what faith is and how it functions more later. Suffice to say it's a bit more subtle and nuanced than just equating it as a synonym of belief or trust or 'blind faith' in something. Trust is there, but in the sense that Faith is the current of Source in which we have our very being. It is trust in the sense of rest.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

But here's the catch. Faith takes us beyond what we can reason into the uncharted. How can reason guide us when it can only function within the parameters of what it knows? To ultimately find one's true Self, you have to let go of trying to reason our way into it.

The biggest obstacle to finding one's true self, is lying to one's self. We all do it or have done it. And if we enable it by subverting reason with faith, any emotion can be used to justify anything at all, no matter how absurd--like slavery, genocide, pedophilia and I'm sure you can think of lots more. Reason MUST steer the ship, be it a ship of state, or one's own ego.

Also, I think you are mistaking the term blind faith with what really amounts to simply blind belief.

Not mistaking, they are two sides of the same coin--faith/belief are blind without regard for reason.

Faith is internal, and it is both before and beyond emotions, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, reason, and so forth.

That's just another path to justifying faith/belief without reason--which all revealed religions must require. That was the whole point of the interminably long Book of Job, who's clerical authors were trying to quell people's disquiet as to why good people are punished and bad allowed to succeed. But all they could come up with, after the perfect Job sued God for his irrational behivior, was that God hung the Moon and it's none of our business.

It can't be understood as any of those things or defined by them, even though faith pulls one into those in an attempt to manifest itself in order to be known. It's sort of like consciousness. Consciousness is not the thought or idea or the belief, but it is the fabric upon which thoughts, ideas, and beliefs are patterned. To be present in one's being, before thoughts, ideas, and beliefs is to come to know Truth itself, which is in itself not an idea, but before and beyond all beliefs and concepts. It's the paper on which everything else is drawn in by our minds. To know that, you can't get to it by analyzing the lines themselves to see what picture we've drawn with the pencils we've used.
Faith in this way I suppose I would call the "energy" of that paper, or fabric, or seamless cloth. It is the harmonics of it that resonates out into everything and that binds everything to Source. What happens within the person seeking Source is they learn to hear and listen to that energy within themselves, upon which they sufficiently trust and ride well enough in order to let go of holding onto their ideas of truth they cling to in order to try to find themselves in those beliefs they've constructed or been taught. What I am saying here is absolute key to understanding faith. Faith is what you ride which compels you to shed beliefs, all of them, religious ones included. You ride its currents to move beyond yourself and your ideas, the constructions of self and others and truth we have built up with our minds, and come to rest in that seamless fabric itself which is both nothing and everything.

I'm sorry, but I got lost in there, and I'm not sure you didn't get lost yourself. No offense, but.... And I gotta say, I think this next validates that:

I'll see if I can't find another way to flesh out my impressions of what faith is and how it functions more later. Suffice to say it's a bit more subtle and nuanced than just equating it as a synonym of belief or trust or 'blind faith' in something. Trust is there, but in the sense that Faith is the current of Source in which we have our very being. It is trust in the sense of rest.

If your your belief is reasoned, then your faith is reasoned; but if one is blind, so is the other. No, faith and belief are not precisely the same, but they're inexorably tied together.

 

[Windwalker]

The biggest obstacle to finding one's true self, is lying to one's self.

What do you consider the true self? You own personal self-identity as a separate individual? It's clear based on your responses you are not on the same page I am in what I am talking about. The true Self, is not the ego-self. It is who we are before and beyond the ego-self. What you are referring to is the development of the ego-self. What I am referring to is that which is that which the mystic realizes when he sees that all the world is an illusion, including the illusion of the separate self, the illusion of the ego-self. The "lying" part ironically, is what all of us do in thinking we are separate from the world, that this sack of skin with a brain in it defines all who we are.

We all do it or have done it.

On the level of the ego-self, yes, certainly I agree. But these are two different areas we are talking about here. I don't disagree with you in speaking about the ego-self. We need to use reason and checks and balances and be truthful with ourselves. I agree with all that.

And if we enable it by subverting reason with faith, any emotion can be used to justify anything at all, no matter how absurd--like slavery, genocide, pedophilia and I'm sure you can think of lots more. Reason MUST steer the ship, be it a ship of state, or one's own ego.

All of this is important, but it again has nothing to do with knowing the true Self.

Not mistaking, they are two sides of the same coin--faith/belief are blind without regard for reason.

For context sake, when I am speaking of Faith, I am not talking about truth propositions. It is specifically dealing with "religious" faith, or that which deals in the area of the Ultimate, which is the true Self, or God, etc. Reason cannot penetrate that for one reason. Reason has to evaluate reality as objective propositions. But part of Self knowledge is not in evaluating objective truths, but in Subjective being itself. To use reason, you have to turn the subject into an object you are looking at and considering. The second you do that, you are no longer the subject. You are no longer the one doing the seeing. You are the one being seen. And that makes it impossible to know the Subject, as Subject itself. The only way to do that is to BE. And to do that, you have to get rid of ALL ideas of what that is. You simply BE. Hence, it is beyond, and before reason.

I realize this will sound entirely foreign to most people who only know the world or themselves as objects to think about and model. But that is very much that illusion I mentioned. It's not reality itself, but a perspective of it, limited, artificial, and unreal in itself. Again, I am talking about mystical realization here, not ego-self and reason-only realities of the mental world. I talking about being-reality, knowing the Subject, knowing who we are before the illusion of our thoughts and ideas. And this is where Faith plays a critical role.

Absolutely none of what I am saying would result in you believing pseudoscience or bad information. It's simply about Self knowledge, which then in turn informs all other perspectives we hold in life. Then we use reason to model and talk about the world. But knowing who we are? That takes more than just thinking and analyzing things.

 

[DawudTalut]

In discussions about religion people often interchange the words belief and faith with one another. Others use the word faith to mean something akin to trust. While I do see these all relate to one another, I believe there are important distinctions to make when speaking of faith in a religious sense of the word.

......

Thoughts?

Some thoughts available in resources:

Faith
......From early 14c. as "assent of the mind to the truth of a statement for which there is incomplete evidence," especially "belief in religious matters" (matched with hope and charity). Since mid-14c. in reference to the Christian church or religion; from late 14c. in reference to any religious persuasion.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faith

Belief
..... belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (a sense attested from early 13c.).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=belief

====

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement; or a belief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system of religious belief,[1] such as in which faith is confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The term 'faith' has numerous connotations and is used in different ways, often depending on context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#Islam

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. Another way of defining belief is, it is a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something being true.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

=====

In Islam, there are terms:
Deen
Islam
Eman

Light is shed in following resources:

[Quran 49:17] Say, ‘Will you acquaint Allah with your Deen (faith), while Allah knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth, and Allah knows all things full well?’

[49:18] They think they have done thee a favour by their embracing Islam. Say, ‘Deem not your embracing Islam a favour unto me. On the contrary, Allah has bestowed a favour upon you in that He has guided you to the true Eman (faith) , if you are truthful.’



Page 36 @ https://www.alislam.org/quran/dictionary/dictionary_quran.pdf




There are
The Five Pillars of Islam
Six main Articles of faith in Islam
https://www.alislam.org/islam/

======