What is faith?

[Rev.]

How do you define the word "faith?" I have a dictionary, so I don't need someone to look it up...

Every person has an "internal lexicon," a list of words they use which they understand to mean a certain way. And the way a word is used by a person doesn't always match what is in the dictionary. "Slang" are words with intentionally corrupted definitions such as "gay," "pop," or "wicked." But in other cases, people use a word in a way it doesn't mean, but they don't realize it.

So, I'm interested in hearing what you think "faith" is. What does it mean to "have faith?" And how did YOUR understanding of "faith" develop?

 

[Nemo]

Faith is a false preference for what is perceived as the truth. Whether it was a part of our nature as a species from the beginning, no one can say for sure; but what is certain is that it persists.

 

[Kim Jong Il]

Faith is believing in something that you can't prove. With Religion, you just have to like...believe...and stuff.

 

[nkgupta80]

Faith is believing in something that you can't prove. With Religion, you just have to like...believe...and stuff.

I personally think every thing requires some faith regardless of what kind of life you want to lead. This stems from the fact that we don't know anything about the basic questions of life and existence, and probably never will. With that realization you rely on faith to pursue a particular mode of existence whether it involves a religion, atheistic morality, hedonism, or whatever.

 

[Kim Jong Il]

Right on. Faith doesn't need proving, something that which I did not add in my former post. It is a driving force, that some people may use to get through their day, or simply live by.

I find nothing wrong with faith, I'm an Atheist, not an ANTI-theist.

 

[Apostle13]

Faith is to fear, as light is to darkness...

 

[black wolf]

Faith is to knowledge, as fire is to wind.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Two can play at that game

Faith is to fear, as light is to darkness...

Actually its more like: Faith is to truth, as slavery is to liberty.

How do you define the word "faith?" I have a dictionary, so I don't need someone to look it up...

Every person has an "internal lexicon," a list of words they use which they understand to mean a certain way. And the way a word is used by a person doesn't always match what is in the dictionary. "Slang" are words with intentionally corrupted definitions such as "gay," "pop," or "wicked." But in other cases, people use a word in a way it doesn't mean, but they don't realize it.

So, I'm interested in hearing what you think "faith" is. What does it mean to "have faith?" And how did YOUR understanding of "faith" develop?

I define faith as "belief without evidence, or often in the face of contrary evidence." I see it as utterly inferior to REASON.

 

[Summerwind]

Re: Two can play at that game

Actually its more like: Faith is to truth, as slavery is to liberty.



I define faith as "belief without evidence, or often in the face of contrary evidence." I see it as utterly inferior to REASON.

I think it depends on what you have faith in. For example; I have faith in my own abilities and tenacity. This is based on facts from my history; though in a current situation it hasn't been proven yet to be so. Or I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow; it may not (tomorrow could be the end) but I have facts to base the faith on.

Perhaps this is me improperly using the term faith.

 

[Cephus]

Faith, as our good friend Mark Twain once said, is "believing what you know aint' true". Or at least, should know, but some people are a bit dim.

 

[Jerry]

How do you define the word "faith?" I have a dictionary, so I don't need someone to look it up...

Every person has an "internal lexicon," a list of words they use which they understand to mean a certain way. And the way a word is used by a person doesn't always match what is in the dictionary. "Slang" are words with intentionally corrupted definitions such as "gay," "pop," or "wicked." But in other cases, people use a word in a way it doesn't mean, but they don't realize it.

So, I'm interested in hearing what you think "faith" is. What does it mean to "have faith?" And how did YOUR understanding of "faith" develop?

In my mind "faith" is trust. A current example is my "faith" in my wife not to cheat on me. I *trust* in her *faithfullness*.

 

[Jerry]

Faith is a false preference for what is perceived as the truth.

I don't even know what that means

 

[Jerry]

Faith is believing in something that you can't prove. With Religion, you just have to like...believe...and stuff.

Ley me see if I can relate to that....

I have faith in my wife's monogamy. Can I prove that she has never had sex with anyone else since our marraige? No. It's hard to prove a negative anyway. American thinking is that someone is presumed innocent untill they are proven guilty, so unless and untill I have proof of any clim of my wife cheating on me, I assume, I trust, I have faith, that she has hasn't had sex with anyone else.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Two can play at that game

Actually its more like: Faith is to truth, as slavery is to liberty.

I define faith as "belief without evidence, or often in the face of contrary evidence." I see it as utterly inferior to REASON.

Hmm, so, my assuming that my wife has been monogamus given that I have no evidence suporting any claim of adultery is unreasonable?

The exchange of vowes is a fullfillment of the "Full Faith and Credit Claws" for our marital licince, and having given her word before a state official, it is the default assumption unless and untill I have evidence to the contrery.

 

[Jerry]

Faith, as our good friend Mark Twain once said, is "believing what you know aint' true". Or at least, should know, but some people are a bit dim.

Well again, I have faith in my wife's monogamy, yet I don't know her monogamy to not be a truth.

Oh well, Mark Twain was right about what humor is.

 

[nkgupta80]

Re: Two can play at that game

Actually its more like: Faith is to truth, as slavery is to liberty.



I define faith as "belief without evidence, or often in the face of contrary evidence." I see it as utterly inferior to REASON.

well it depends on what the object of faith is, in other words, "faith in what". Reason brings you to the conclusion that there is no absolute truth. Everything ultimately rests on certain axioms one must faithfully accept. Whether it be mystery of experience, the parallel postulate (which mathematicians did break away from), or anything else.

Art is a good example of faith. A good artist understands that there is some abstract, sometimes irrational, ideal that they are attempting to actualize through music, painting, or whatever. Using logic, one would call this faith in some unprovable ideal a delusion. However, reason can also tell us that everything is insignificant. so why not delude yourself if nothing matters one way or the other.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Either you have evidence for what you believe, or you don't.

I think it depends on what you have faith in. For example; I have faith in my own abilities and tenacity. This is based on facts from my history; though in a current situation it hasn't been proven yet to be so. Or I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow; it may not (tomorrow could be the end) but I have facts to base the faith on.

Perhaps this is me improperly using the term faith.

If its based on facts, then you have evidence and reason. People try to blur this distinction by calling it "reasonable faith." But you're simply using evidence properly.

Hmm, so, my assuming that my wife has been monogamus given that I have no evidence suporting any claim of adultery is unreasonable?

I am certain she has given you reason to believe in her fidelity and virtue.

I don't understand what you mean by "supporting any claim of adultery," if you meant that you have "no evidence that she hasn't committed adultery" that would be trying to prove a negative.

This is why defining faith as trust is problematic. For one, trust is already its own word carrying its own meaning, and one can trust with or without evidence.

I think it is always important to distinguish whether or not you have any evidence for what you believe. I think you're mentally blanking out the things that make you trust your wife. I sincerely hope it isn't trust without any evidence at all.

yet I don't know her monogamy to not be a truth.

Whats with the double negatives? It is impossible to KNOW that something is not true, thats proving a negative. Why do I always have to go through this with you?

Reason brings you to the conclusion that there is no absolute truth.

Using logic, one would call this faith in some unprovable ideal a delusion. However, reason can also tell us that everything is insignificant. so why not delude yourself if nothing matters one way or the other.

What utter nihilistic tripe. Truth exists, reality exists. I only care about what is true, and to be willfully ignorant or self-deluded is utterly contemptible.

 

[scourge99]

In my mind "faith" is trust. A current example is my "faith" in my wife not to cheat on me. I *trust* in her *faithfullness*.

Faith, which I assume you mean to be religious faith, is like Jerry said, "In my mind "faith" is trust." Most Christians have a strong belief in their religion because they have faith in the integrity of the Bible.

Another example of faith is our perception of our existence. Descartes came up with the saying "I think therefore I am." Beyond that statement we really cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt anything more. We use faith to believe that our senses are correct and the world that we interact with exists as we perceive it.

 

[Rev.]

Re: Two can play at that game

I define faith as "belief without evidence, or often in the face of contrary evidence." I see it as utterly inferior to REASON.

Thank you! I figured someone would post something like this...

Contrary to what you have stated (and this is a summery statement of all the posts of yours I have read, not a quote) faith is not incompatible with reason. I don't know how one can even HAVE faith in ANYTHING without a certain amount of reason...

In your opinion, what is evidence? Facts? Experience? Reason is the process by which we take the facts we know, and the experiences we've had and reach conclusions. At that point, we must have faith we are correct. Even so, reason helped us reach the conclusion.

But if the facts I know and the experiences I've had lead me reach to one conclusion, and the facts you know and the experiences you've had lead you to a different conclusion, and the topic we are discussing is God...why do you assume that I've checked my braincells at the door and jumped off a mental cliff just because of my signature? There is more than ****-eyed optimism to faith...the Red Sox aren't selling post-season tickets already without SOME kind of rationality!

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Don't take it personal

Thank you! I figured someone would post something like this...

Contrary to what you have stated (and this is a summery statement of all the posts of yours I have read, not a quote) faith is not incompatible with reason. I don't know how one can even HAVE faith in ANYTHING without a certain amount of reason...

In your opinion, what is evidence? Facts? Experience? Reason is the process by which we take the facts we know, and the experiences we've had and reach conclusions. At that point, we must have faith we are correct. Even so, reason helped us reach the conclusion.

If your premises are true, but your logic is fallacious, you can be lead to a false conclusion. If your logic is flawless, but one of your premises isn't true, same deal; There are no contradictions. Either you have evidence for what you believe, or you don't. Either what you believe is true, or it isn't.

If you had faith in something, then went to seek evidence to confirm it, and now believe it to be true, that faith based belief has long since ceased to be faith. The god hypothesis is not a conclusion. And don't blame me when you say you have faith in something I believe you're basing on reason.

Faith and reason are dichotomous, by my definition. Its belief without evidence, once you have evidence, it becomes a belief based on evidence, which is not faith.

But if the facts I know and the experiences I've had lead me reach to one conclusion, and the facts you know and the experiences you've had lead you to a different conclusion, and the topic we are discussing is God...why do you assume that I've checked my braincells at the door and jumped off a mental cliff just because of my signature?

I do not think you are stupid for believing in god. I do not think you're stupid for coming to different conclusions than I do. Nor was I ever aware of your signature.

I call ideas stupid, premises false, or logical fallacious. Never take what I am saying personally.

There is more than ****-eyed optimism to faith...

If you have evidence for what you consider to be a faith based claim, fill me in. If, because we are talking about god, you have evidence for the existence of god, I am all ears.

But I am a skeptic, so you're going to have to come a little stronger than the intelligent design argument.

 

[nkgupta80]

Re: Either you have evidence for what you believe, or you don't.

What utter nihilistic tripe. Truth exists, reality exists. I only care about what is true, and to be willfully ignorant or self-deluded is utterly contemptible.

so much for using reason to answer my claims. First of all, i never said that one should be ignorant. Reason is a faculty we have, and we should use it to the fullest extent. However, all i claim is that reason leads us to the undeniable acceptance of axioms that are just unprovable-- statements that one really wishes to explain to reduce, but one can't.

Physics is hitting that limit (really... quantum physics placed a very scary philosophical limit on what we can know beyond the observer). Neurobiology is trying to tackle the so called "really hard problem of consciousness" but realize that reason just has no works in explaining it (since reason is just a faculty that abstracts itself from consciousness itself).

Since you put reason at such a high level, you should read Kant's critique of pure reason and practical reason (if you havent). Its a genius work that really makes you think about how an observer views the world, how reason plays in, and how reason when asked some nontrivial questions can be limited. His insights remarkably parallel our insights into relativity and quantum physics, 150 years before the fact.

 

[nkgupta80]

Faith, which I assume you mean to be religious faith, is like Jerry said, "In my mind "faith" is trust." Most Christians have a strong belief in their religion because they have faith in the integrity of the Bible.

Another example of faith is our perception of our existence. Descartes came up with the saying "I think therefore I am." Beyond that statement we really cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt anything more. We use faith to believe that our senses are correct and the world that we interact with exists as we perceive it.

Exactly. The thing is reason is strong enough to give us a glimpse of the world outside of our senses. however, we are still constrained by our notions of time space and causality. STILL reason gave us a glimpse outside these constraints. But we as we strip away the constraints our mind puts on us (as physics does), we're reaching a more fundamental limit. There are always gonna be fundemental questions we can ask that reason (our minds) will not find a way around.

 

[Nemo]

“There is no ‘redness’ in nature, only different wave lengths of radiation.”
- Alfred Korzybski, “The Nature of Language in the Perceptual Processes,” reprinted from Perception: An Approach to Personality (1951).

. . .

Faith is a defect of human nature. It has to do with the fallacy of perception, which was first observed by David Hume, and, more recently, Alfred Korzybski. See David Hume, Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals (1777); and Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity, An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (1933). The fallacy operates similarly in every sphere of inquiry where the issue is in doubt; it is a form of mental blindness that is inextricably bound in the human psyche. The truth, which is generally seen, will nevertheless not be recognized unless one is able, at least for a moment, to suspend belief. It is the difference between sight and perception - the difference between what the eye sees and the mind’s eye perceives - the difference between what is true and what we perceive as true, though false. Still, we persist in believing that things are ordered as we perceive them; when in truth what is perceived to be the cause may not necessarily produce the effect. Do you see red? If you believe that you see red, then, as Korzybski points out, you are mistaken. All faith (viz., the presumption of what is not susceptible of proof) is dependent upon doubt, in the absence of which, there is no basis for belief. That is the difference between perception and reality, the difference between faith and the truth.

 

[scourge99]

Re: Two can play at that game

However, all i claim is that reason leads us to the undeniable acceptance of axioms that are just unprovable-- statements that one really wishes to explain to reduce, but one can't.

I don't think anyone will claim undeniable acceptance of something that is unprovable! The ideal situation would be substituting faith with strong certainty. However, this is not easy. It is hard to be certain of anything. However, being the ingenious humans we are we created something to help combat such a problem, its called the scientific method. The scientific method does not PROVE anything, it merely is used to show strong support for a hypothesis. So if someone has faith in something there is usually hypotheses that can be derived from that faith. Thus, using the scientific method one might be able to show support for a faith thus transforming it from a faith to a strong certainty or in the rare case, a fact.

There are limitations on the scientific method, mainly that it requires testing. This means support for a hypothesis is empirically derived.

 

[scourge99]

Physics is hitting that limit (really... quantum physics placed a very scary philosophical limit on what we can know beyond the observer). Neurobiology is trying to tackle the so called "really hard problem of consciousness" but realize that reason just has no works in explaining it (since reason is just a faculty that abstracts itself from consciousness itself).
...
Exactly. The thing is reason is strong enough to give us a glimpse of the world outside of our senses. however, we are still constrained by our notions of time space and causality. STILL reason gave us a glimpse outside these constraints. But we as we strip away the constraints our mind puts on us (as physics does), we're reaching a more fundamental limit. There are always gonna be fundemental questions we can ask that reason (our minds) will not find a way around.

The world was flat, the sound barrier could never be broken, and we could never go into space. I hope you're not telling me we have reached the limits of knowledge and discovery? :rofl