|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The concept of faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I would argue that (1)the concept of religious faith is irrational, if by faith we mean belief in a set of unproven doctrines, such as, say, the belief in the Apostles' Creed. There we have a set of doctrines that cannot be proven and that, moreover, make no attempt at all to limit the assumptions. When I hear people say, I believe "on faith," and there's an end to it, I am amazed. This cannot be, I am thinking.
I would also argue that (2)people never believe "on faith." They believe because they think they have a good reason or reasons to do so, even if that reason is not acceptable to others. A "reason" is not faith. One might, for example, have good circumstantial reasons to believe that someone loves him or her, even though there's no way to put a searchlight into their minds to prove it scientifically. Nonetheless it's not a matter of faith. One might believe that someone loves them because (a)they said so; (b)they have acted lovingly (c)they have done so for several or many years, (d) there is a lack of negative evidence--i.e., they have never done anything that suggests they don't love you. Does it require "faith" to beleive in such circumstances? I would say no: the belief is rational, although not certain. It could be that religious belief is of this nature, in the sense that there are reasons but the reasons are internal.
Topic Adjustment This topic has been authorized a secondary path starting at Message 65. We were talking about whether faith is a moral matter. Now, according to traditional Christianity, one must believe in a set of docrines (summed up, I believe, in the Athanasian Creed) in order to be saved. AdminPD (5/12/06) This message has been edited by AdminPD, 05-12-2006 01:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13140 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1766 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The whole idea of faith really originated with Biblical Christianity. No other religion asked its followers to believe in anything on mere testimony before Christ asked us to repent and believe His gospel. Fundamentally faith means believing God, believing that He is and believing what the Bible reports Him to have said and done. The Bible is considered to be the accurate record of His dealings with particular people chosen for the purpose of revealing these things, His being, His character, His plans as well as OUR nature and condition and many other things. In other words we are asked to put our faith in very specific described phenomena as facts. There's nothing nebulous about them. There's no leap of faith involved. Either you believe these Biblical descriptions based on what you consider to be good reasons to believe them, or you don't based on what you consider to be inadequate reasons for believing them.
"Faith is the substance of things unseen" says the Book of Hebrews. That means that you put your faith in things you cannot see or prove in any way, in genuine belief that they are all as real as promised, based completely on the testimony of God Himself as reported in the Bible, and the people He sent to be witnesses of those things. This message has been edited by Faith, 08-12-2005 09:30 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Either you believe these Biblical descriptions based on what you consider to be good reasons to believe them, or you don't based on what you consider to be inadequate reasons for believing them. Yes, but what are the "good reasons"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1766 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Mostly that the reporters sound honest and their reports sound credible, the tone, the use of circumstantial details, elements that give the feel of reality. Primarily it's an "I believe YOU" rather than an "I believe this or that," secondarily I believe this or that because I believe the reporter(s). I've argued this before on the threads about the importance of witnesses in Biblical Christianity.
Anyone who starts by judging its content is going about it backwards, as the apostle Thomas did, refusing to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead because it was just too hard to believe that. Jesus makes it clear that it would have been better if he'd simply believed those who had told him about it without having to see it for himself. {Jhn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.} First you have to believe the tellers of the story are honest credible people so then you will believe their reports. Faith is faith in God based on those reports. The Bible points you to God who, because of your belief, is then real to you in such a way that you enter into a relationship with Him based on faith. This message has been edited by Faith, 08-12-2005 09:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1720 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
There's nothing nebulous about them. There's no leap of faith involved. Either you believe these Biblical descriptions based on what you consider to be good reasons to believe them, or you don't based on what you consider to be inadequate reasons for believing them. Does this have to be true? Maybe it's true for you, but I don't see that it has to be true for everybody. And a consequence of that view of faith seems to be that, from the moment you have a question until the moment you get a "satisfactory" answer (either from yourself or somebody else), you lose your faith. But that doesn't seem to match the reality--while you can't answer the question, you still have faith. At least, that's the sense I get. I'd really appreciate to know your thoughts. And I'd REALLY appreciate if you can think about what things are true for Faith vs. what things MUST be true for all believers, when answering. Because for me, I'm having trouble understanding that aspect of your post. Thanks!Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1766 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Not really sure what your question is. Maybe this answers it: No, I didn't mean to make it a totally flat either/or, as I don't think anybody believes all of it at first encounter and we all do have to grow into it. But I think it does come down to that either/or overall even as a process. That is, belief will lead to more belief if that's where you start and if you act or live on the basis of whatever amount of belief you have, and unbelief will lead to more unbelief. But I may not really be understanding your question.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-12-2005 02:42 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Mostly that the reporters sound honest and their reports sound credible, the tone, the use of circumstantial details, elements that give the feel of reality. Primarily it's an "I believe YOU" rather than an "I believe this or that," secondarily I believe this or that because I believe the reporter(s). I've argued this before on the threads about the importance of witnesses in Biblical Christianity. But I think what you are saying is in agreement with what I said. One does not believe some doctrine on pure "faith," which sounds like a mere whim--believing something for no reason. One always has reasons. However, if we move from Christianity for a moment to a more general belief--theism--then the reasons you have given change, do they not? I'm not sure, but I think this is pointing toward Ben's point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1766 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But I think what you are saying is in agreement with what I said. One does not believe some doctrine on pure "faith," which sounds like a mere whim--believing something for no reason. One always has reasons. Yes, I should have acknowledged that I'm agreeing with you about that. You've made that point before.
However, if we move from Christianity for a moment to a more general belief--theism--then the reasons you have given change, do they not? I'm sure they do. I can't speak for other belief systems, I was only addressing what faith means in the context of Biblical Christianity, which is where the idea of faith for salvation began, faith in the gospel, faith in Christ, faith in His word. I THINK my reasons for belief in Biblical Christianity have universality, but it would remain to be seen as other Bible believers contribute their answers. {Edit: I've never understood theists or people who believe in God based on some sort of intuition or the wonders of the Creation myself without specific revelation. I had to believe what someone said about things they claimed to have seen and experienced and "handled" as the Bible witnesses put it, and about what God actually said to them, that I hadn't myself experienced, that is, revelation of things unseen as reported by the mouths of witnesses. I think this is really what "belief" means in Christianity as I said. Believing testimony.
I'm not sure, but I think this is pointing toward Ben's point. I'm not sure either. I wasn't clear what he was asking/saying. This message has been edited by Faith, 08-12-2005 04:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I'm sure they do. I can't speak for other belief systems Some people move from theism to Christianity (a la C. S. Lewis), but I suppose that is not the usual path. My familiarity with such processes is bookish, not based on experience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1766 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Maybe I misread Lewis but I thought he was an atheist before he became a Christian. But of course I'm sure it's possible to move from theism -- or from any position whatever -- to Biblical Christianity, or any other direction for that matter.
As for your "bookish" "familiarity with such processes," to a great extent I became a believer by reading about other people's religious experiences or what they believed and how they came to believe it-- including the believers in Eastern religions and all kinds of occultic stuff. I believe they were all telling the truth about their experiences though I ended up accepting only the Biblical explanation of all of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Highlander Inactive Member |
Logic and reason are limited and only as good as the premises upon which they are built.
Faith, according to the apostle Paul is 'the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things unseen'. Is the idea that life arose by chance testable science or is it a statement of faith? Is there any literature anywhere that plausibly describes how the first cell walls formed or how they first biomolecular machines came into existence? Is it even possible to design an experiment that removes the designer and proves this notion? Anyone who thinks like arose by purely naturalistic means believes so on faith. Those who sneer at theistic faith seem to be blind to their own faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, plausible scenarios have been and are being proposed. These scenarios are being tested in scientific laboratories. Right now the science of abiogenesis is still in its infancy so there are a lot of gaps in our knowledge, but more and more is being learned as time goes on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Is it even possible to design an experiment that removes the designer and proves this notion? Surely you believe it's possible to design an experiment that employs only natural processes? It seems to me that all you have to do is not stick your hands in the middle and muck about with it. If you can't doesn't that basically send all science down the shitter? Here, here's a practical example. I'm out in the field these days helping with tent-capture experiments in agricultural entomology. Now, are you telling me that our results won't apply to the unsupervised world simply because we, the intelligent "designers" of the experiment, were out there watching it? That somehow, the mere presence of our intelligence gives different results? If so that's something you need to tell our professor. I can drop you his email, I guess, but first I need to know exactly how you arrived at such a... suspect conclusion. (Edited for more acceptable word choice.) This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-12-2005 05:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Crash, the word "stupid" does nothing to further the discussion.
You have permission to actually delete it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025