Well, I think Christian faith (I can’t speak for other religions here) can have multiple meanings, Lona. One of those meanings is that we believe in something though we have not seen it. But faith also has the sense of trust in it. (this is an awful example, but…) You could say that people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 had faith that he was going to do what he said he would do. Despite having seen him and knowing that he does exist, you still have to trust that he’s not a phony. The same might be true for God. Someone may have some type of real experience with God, but they have to believe that it was God that they experienced and not some other force. They have to trust that God will deliver on his promises.
Okay..? I didn’t say there wasn’t another definition for the word, I simply said that when referring to one’s “faith in God” you are saying that they explicitly believe in God without proof/evidence. That’s… what the word means in that scenario. Not sure what you’re disagreeing with.
Deckard,
I’ve always appreciated your contributions to discussions on this issue. You are always respectful and a joy to hear from. Thank you.
I understand where you are coming from. In fact, I think I agree with you on almost everything you said in your last post but with some important caviats. :) “Religion is an irrational concept” or will naturally apparently be such to the world. “humanity is ill-equipped (mentally, psychologically, etc.) to deal with the concept of god” yet we were designed for a relationship with him. “Many take advantage of religion in fueling their own egocentric ways and if there’s anything I’d consider a sin, it’d be hypocrisy” but there’s a strange paradox in Christianity that even though people are cleansed of sin, they are still bound to it while on this earth in a way. “Many people can’t handle religion and confuse the worship of a deity as the worship of themselves” and that is called pride. It’s the biggest and most dangerous pitfall in religion. Even those who are closest to God (or maybe especially those) will continue to fall pray to it. But it can be overcome with God’s help.
In the sense of God, actually, yes, that’s exactly what it means.
Well I think the issue is that what some people consider evidence, others would not classify as such. Adam’s quote was in regard to what Agustina said, “The positive fruits of faith in an individual’s life is proof of God’s existence to the individual.” To you that might not be evidence, but to some people like Agustina it is.
Then this person is confused about what proof/evidence is.
I’m not disagreeing; I’m just saying that the word “faith” doesn’t have one fixed meaning – context is everything. Therefore, I don’t think it’s inappropriate to suggest that one can have evidence and faith.
[sigh]
Hence the beginning of my statement being “In the sense of God…”
Many people don’t like that idea of needing to turn to or submit to another being, even if it’s done completely in love.
Love is found in Poetry and Women too. Entities that existed before any religious bullshit existed. There is NO Love when there’s singularity with that “being” which also happens to be a “masculine” one. As I said: a Being MADE BY MEN FOR MEN GUIDING MEN. Nothing more nothing less.
A CHAUVINISTIC EMPIRE.
Even Paul his Holiness accepts the dogma of manhood inside the church and Christian doctrine….but you see, Paul was a sinner who turned into kindness for a shelter…yes, indeed that’s what happened…he went from Anarchy to Fascism. Bravo Paul.
Dim, I’m having great difficulty understanding what you mean here. Where are these quotes “YOUR God is real” coming from. Who is saying that? And who are they saying that to? And what’s this about 80%?
Dare to fucking say again you’re having difficulty with my sentences and I’ll officially think you’re a RELIGIOUS FREAK. I fucking dare you alright. I don’t even have to respond this, you perfectly understand what I’m saying but narrow-minded religiously pumped heads cannot easily comprehend “others”. Because “the others” cannot really embrace the idea of a Masculine Fuck who Loves Everyone and Everything, even if “His” sheep MOLEST children, even if “His” sheep BOMB subways and airplanes, even if “His” sheep condemn millions to eternal poverty in the name of Das Kapital.
Oh yes….he’s such a loving figure alright, praise to the almighty Nothingness.
“In the sense of God…”, what? Are you saying that “faith in God” has only one fixed meaning?
I think we may be missing each other here, Lona. That’s probably my fault. All I really wan to say is that faith and evidence (whatever you choose to accept as evidence) are not mutually exclusive. You can claim to have evidence, but still be required to have faith, at least as far as Christianity goes.
I hate these topics…Not because they’re pointless, but because nobody ever gets to the point…. The main issue at hand here is not god, but rather the relationship between empirical evidence and provability/truth. Just to preempt the inevitable arguments in this forum, here’s a little list.
belief in god=/=belief in judeo christian god,
belief in god=/=personal god
belief in god=/=blind faith(not always)
belief in god=/=organized religion.
Everyone harks on those issues.
You could say that people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 had faith that he was going to do what he said he would do. Despite having seen him and knowing that he does exist, you still have to trust that he’s not a phony.
Yes, you could say that and this is why I’m against the idea of faith being a virtue. Anyone who voted for Obama because they had faith in what he was saying is making the same error that people who have faith that god exists are making. They are making their judgments without evidence. However, people who voted for Obama because of his record as a politician and believed in what he said, due to the evidence of what he’d done in the past, aren’t putting their faith in him. They had reasonable expectations that were based upon evidence.
For instance, you can have faith that a friend of yours will do something he promised because you have had evidence from the past interactions that he is a trustworthy friend. But there there has to be some element of faith there.
No, there doesn’t have to be some element of faith. You are trusting that person because of evidence from past experiences. If that person was ever to deceive you, you revise your feelings, based on new evidence, and they’d lose your trust.
Many people don’t like that idea of needing to turn to or submit to another being, even if it’s done completely in love.
Maybe this is a matter of opinion, but I don’t think submission could ever be part of the equation, in regards to a loving relationship.
Of course the difference between faith in God and more tangible kinds of faith is Pascal’s Wager. If it comforts one to believe in God, there really is no downside. Even if God doesn’t exist, the rewards of a healthy faith can help to enrich one’s life. This may not be for everyone, but as there’s no empirical evidence either way, there’s certainly no reason to be hostile to one’s choice to believe or not.
You’re right, Adam, someone might have looked at Obama’s history and felt that it was reasonable to vote for him, but it’s still a bit of a leap. You can’t know the future; how he’ll deal with the pressure, if he’ll change, if he’ll follow through, etc. There’s a certain amount of faith in voting that you have to use along with the evidence.
I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. Faith isn’t involved in the process. You have expectations based on evidence. If your expectations aren’t realized then you revise them, based on new evidence. I’m basically explaining the scientific method. So, unless you think that faith is also apart of the scientific equation, I can’t really see what you’re talking about.
dp…
I don’t think that faith is a part of the scientific method, but I also don’t think the scientific method is the only thing we use when making choices.
Dare to fucking say again you’re having difficulty with my sentences and I’ll officially think you’re a RELIGIOUS FREAK. I fucking dare you alright. I don’t even have to respond this, you perfectly understand what I’m saying but narrow-minded religiously pumped heads cannot easily comprehend “others”.
(hugs)
No, there doesn’t have to be some element of faith. You are trusting that person because of evidence from past experiences. If that person was ever to deceive you, you revise your feelings, based on new evidence, and they’d lose your trust.
Then it’s just a semantics issue I guess. Maybe the word “hope” would be a better word for what I mean for you then. I have hope that my friend would not decieve. The hope is informed by past experiences. I have hope in God that is informed by past experiences.
Maybe this is a matter of opinion, but I don’t think submission could ever be part of the equation, in regards to a loving relationship.
It probably is a matter of opinion. I think all loving relationships consist of the participants submitting to one another. I know some people hate the sound of the word “submission” like it is somehow degrading. But that’s certainly not the connotation I’m using it in. It’s a highly respectful connotation. Maybe the world “yeilding” would be more appropriate to our ears.
So, unless you think that faith is also apart of the scientific equation, I can’t really see what you’re talking about.
Just to throw in my two cents, I do think faith is part of the scientific equation.
“So, unless you think that faith is also apart of the scientific equation, I can’t really see what you’re talking about.”
Scientific proofs are based partly on a type of faith. Only mathematical proofs are certain.
Dim,
I don’t say this to make you more angry. I hope my perspective is sincerely helpful to you. But it’s difficult for me to see you as any kind of authority on the topic of love when your dominant attitude here seems to be scorn.
Scientific proofs are based partly on a type of faith. Only mathematical proofs are certain.
And math is entirely abstract.
Scientific proofs are based partly on a type of faith. Only mathematical proofs are certain.
This is a game of semantics we’re playing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming when you say that science is based on a type of faith you’re referring to most science being grounded in inductive reasoning. While not certain, inductive reasoning is still based on experience and evidence. Furthermore, scientific claims don’t pretend to be certain. There has been plenty of welcome revision in the history of science.
When I say faith I’m equating it to belief without evidence.
Adam – I think the issue is partly semantic. But, I’ll use myself as an example. I’ve had no concrete experiences that I would say are evidence of God. Yet I still believe, mainly because of circumstantial evidence and philosophical beliefs that relate to religion. That’s faith. OK. Now, all that I’m trying to say is that faith and evidence can sometimes work together in the way that we make choices about what we believe or don’t believe.
Back to the Obama example. The scientific method is about using observable phenomenon to gain knowledge. When I cast my ballot in a political vote, I only know what I’ve seen of each candidate in the public; I see his/her record in various political appointments, speeches, debates, etc. That tells me something about how a person will handle the office, but not everything, and there’s no certainty at all. So, I have to make a choice, without absolute knowledge, about whether or not I want a certain person to be my president. I cast that vote in good faith, or hope (as Risselada has suggested). For all I know, the person I vote for will not live up to any of my hopes. That’s the deal we make when we vote. The same might be true for God. Someone could have experiences (any kind of experiences) that lead them to believe in a certain religion. These experiences would qualify for the believer as evidence. If they go about things “scientifically”, they may revise the way that they believe in that religion or if they even believe in it all as time goes on. This person might have more experiences or seemingly contradictory experiences, and he or she will have to make personal sense out of it. The evidence then could be anything – personal experiences, apologetics, friends, life changes, whatever.
People may not agree on what constitutes evidence when it comes to religious thinking, but I think most believers have something that they would classify as personal evidence. But, unless you’re seeing God face to face, you have to mingle that evidence with some amount of faith; faith that the teachings are true, that the writers of those teachings were being honest, that God really does exist in a certain way…
Does this seem like a paradox? I think it is to some degree.
There’s nothing wrong with equating faith with “belief without evidence”, but I think it’s helpful, when thinking about metaphysics, to stretch our definitions of evidence and understand that we are dealing with invisible ideas, which leads us out of the realms of science. So “belief without evidence”, yes; but, faith can be more complex than that at times.
Yet I still believe, mainly because of circumstantial evidence and philosophical beliefs that relate to religion. That’s faith.
We are defining faith in different ways, this is our issue. I wouldn’t equate beliefs based on circumstantial evidence as faith as much as I would categorize them as weak examples of evidence. I wouldn’t consider this line of thinking desirable or the best way to go about things, but I wouldn’t consider it as dangerous as my definition of faith. My problem is with those who think that believing in something without, or in spite of evidence, is a virtue.
So “belief without evidence”, yes; but, faith can be more complex than that at times.
My issue with this statement is that I believe you are trying to encompass two different concepts with the same word. You are willing to admit that belief without evidence is an adequate definition of faith, but then you say that faith can be defined in other terms at different times. This isn’t a problem when you are thinking by yourself, but when conversing with others who aren’t familiar with your terms it can be quite confusing.
I think it’s helpful, when thinking about metaphysics, to stretch our definitions of evidence
I’m not really sure what you mean here. If anything, when dealing with god or anything supernatural, our requirements should be much more stringent. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So, I have to make a choice, without absolute knowledge, about whether or not I want a certain person to be my president. I cast that vote in good faith
I don’t really think we are disagreeing on this point as much as we are quarreling over terms. I’m not espousing that one can know everything about future events based on evidence. My point is that you are putting your trust in this person because of past experience. You have the ability to revise your position when new evidence comes in (this was my point about the scientific method). If you were to just have faith in Obama the evidence in the past or future wouldn’t really matter. No matter what he did you would still have your faith in him. This is what I have a problem with (though I don’t think this is what you are supporting).
Since I don’t think were are really differing any longer, let me ask (if you don’t mind) about what evidence you base your beliefs on, or more simply, what do you believe and why do you believe it?
There’s a difference between informed inference and blind faith. Adam’s said it pretty well. Informed inference is not faith, because it’s not absolute belief, it is a matter of likelihood (often with a wide margin of error).
In statistical terms, no rational inference is ever absolute, there is always a margin of error. For an inference with no margin of error allowed and supposed certainty – that is faith, and it is always irrational. For an inference with no evidence it’s blind faith. There’s no need for semantics – you can define all of this stuff in clear, established terminology. If you really think you have actual empirical evidence that you could draw an inference as to the likelihood of a deity… I would guess they’re fallacious.
Philosophical beliefs, on the other hand, are probably non-empirical, and would be tautologically true or simply false. I’m equally skeptical about the soundness of these sorts of arguments.
But it’s difficult for me to see you as any kind of authority on the topic of love when your dominant attitude here seems to be scorn.
I’m a lapsed Christian Orthodox, I have A LOT of experience in these matters. I don’t need to fucking be a religious freak to state what religion fucking truly is!
God doesn’t like it when you say fuck
Lona
No, faith doesn’t mean belief with no evidence.
In the sense of God, actually, yes, that’s exactly what it means.