Interpreting Faith.

[Technosoul]

I think we have a least two schools of thought about faith.

I think faith should be able to generate some sort of factural reality or proof if that faith is not false or what we might otherwise call "blind faith". This is sort in reverse of circular reasoning but simular, because the faith of it own power would bring about the results that would confirm that faith. And so faith is like seeing a potential before it can manifest and then having confidence in that belief until such time that such faith can "come true". For such to be scientific it should be time-sensitive. That is to say a faith in something that you can witness in the near future and not something that is left pending "forever and ever" where nothing ever happens to confrim that the faith is worth while.

Here is an example: You are out of money and rent is due in a week and so you place your faith in "the Lord" (whatever you want to pick as the provider) that everything will be okay. Now if you by random chance find or come into some unexpected money and can pay that rent on time then you could rightfully claim that your faith was confirmed. If you could not pay rent and in a week got booted out into the streets you might have just cause to doubt your faith, because it did not deliver the expected result.

On the other hand it would be wrong to test faith by jumping off a cliff to find out if your faith that you would be able to fly will come true. A difference between trying to force something to happen by faith and seeking help by faith to solve problems.

Now let us say I had inside information from out of the blue that someone famous would be killed in Irag this weekend, or that a newsworthy earthquake would take place in a populated city. Come Monday those events would have taken place if my faith is for real, if nothing happens then such a prediction would not be founded in true faith that really has an supernatual power operating to effect the expected outcome.

Technosoul.

[engelzz]

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" - (hebrews 11:1)
In Moffatt's translation of the new testament, Hebrews 11:1 reads, "Now faith means that we are confident of what we hope for,convinced of what we do not see."

The 1st part of this verse in The New English Bible reads, "Faith gives substance to our hopes." Another translation says, "Faith is the warranty deed that the thing for which you have fondly hoped for is at last yours" For eg: you hope for finances to meet the obligationsyou have, but faith gives the assurance you'll have the money when you need it. You hope for physical strength to do the job you must do, but faith says, "...The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall i be afraid?" (PS 27:1)

I think faith should be able to generate some sort of factural reality or proof if that faith is not false or what we might otherwise call "blind faith".

That is to say a faith in something that you can witness in the near future and not something that is left pending "forever and ever" where nothing ever happens to confrim that the faith is worth while.

First, faith is not hope.Often, people are just hoping they will receive healing, or an answer to prayer.But its not hoping that gets the job done; its believing. Now faith is. If it's not now, it's not faith.
When someone says, "well i believe i'll be healed sometime," that's not faith; it's hope. Hope is always future tense - pointing to the future - but faith is always now. Faith says, "i'll receive right now.I have it now."

[Starboy]

Quote by: Technosoul I think faith should be able to generate some sort of factural reality or proof if that faith is not false or what we might otherwise call "blind faith". This is sort in reverse of circular reasoning but simular, because the faith of it own power would bring about the results that would confirm that faith. And so faith is like seeing a potential before it can manifest and then having confidence in that belief until such time that such faith can "come true". For such to be scientific it should be time-sensitive. That is to say a faith in something that you can witness in the near future and not something that is left pending "forever and ever" where nothing ever happens to confrim that the faith is worth while.

This form of faith would never be scientific since a scientific point of view would be open to other explanations and what would drive the process is how well the explanations worked vs. other explanations or no explanations at all. If you only allow a single explanation and use faith to force yourself to adhere to that explanation no matter what then that is the severest form of close mindedness. What people do not realize is that scientific explanations replaced religious explanations because in the end they just work a whole lot better.

Here is an example: You are out of money and rent is due in a week and so you place your faith in "the Lord" (whatever you want to pick as the provider) that everything will be okay. Now if you by random chance find or come into some unexpected money and can pay that rent on time then you could rightfully claim that your faith was confirmed. If you could not pay rent and in a week got booted out into the streets you might have just cause to doubt your faith, because it did not deliver the expected result.

This is not what many I have talked to would mean by faith. The parable of Job is a good example of what many mean by faith. They hold to the explanation even when it totally sucks, even to the point where it causes you to kill your family and yourself and you know that it will lead to a terrible end for everyone. What people do not seem to realize is that faith is also another word for blind fealty, 'I place my faith in my lord come what may'.

On the other hand it would be wrong to test faith by jumping off a cliff to find out if your faith that you would be able to fly will come true. A difference between trying to force something to happen by faith and seeking help by faith to solve problems.

What if it came to the point that your only choice for survival was to believe that you could fly off a cliff?

Now let us say I had inside information from out of the blue that someone famous would be killed in Irag this weekend, or that a newsworthy earthquake would take place in a populated city. Come Monday those events would have taken place if my faith is for real, if nothing happens then such a prediction would not be founded in true faith that really has an supernatural power operating to effect the expected outcome.

Good example, but this is not exactly how it works. What usually happens is that the predictions are very vague, and that people will ignore or forget the instances that were wrong and remember only the few that were right. They will alter their memory so that as far as they can recall the only predictions made were the ones that they consider to be correct. This is a very common phenomenon that is demonstrated in tests of palm reading, tarot cards and astrology all the time. They switch the readings among the people and the same numbers of people say it was a dead on reading as when the readings are not switched. This says more about people and how they look for affirmation then it does about occult powers.

Starboy

[Rave7pt0]

I think it would be useful to define faith here, and say that it's often confused with belief.

A lot of people would define faith as "belief without evidence," but it's actually "knowledge without evidence," which sort of gets into sticky epistomological territory, but I think it's easiest to think of it as a kind of direct access to knowledge, almost like a priori knowledge after the fact.

Some religious philosophers have called it divine knowledge, but I don't think labeling it divine really does a whole lot to shed light on the actual phenomenon, so I think calling it that is just shutting our our spiritually deficient bretheren (like Stayboy, wub).

The trouble with faith in a secular humanist world is that anything that cannot be transfered via communication (a type of "evidence") is presupposed to be false. Knowledge without evidence requires direct experience, so good luck convincing someone who doesn't understand direct experiences that they exist. They will be unable to grasp how knowledge could exist and not be transferable. It's a bitch 8)

[Starboy]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 A lot of people would define faith as "belief without evidence," but it's actually "knowledge without evidence," which sort of gets into sticky epistomological territory, but I think it's easiest to think of it as a kind of direct access to knowledge, almost like a priori knowledge after the fact.

That is a good point and I agree with it. What they mean is "knowledge without evidence".

Some religious philosophers have called it divine knowledge, but I don't think labeling it divine really does a whole lot to shed light on the actual phenomenon, so I think calling it that is just shutting our our spiritually deficient bretheren (like Stayboy, wub).

No one has yet to give any kind of a consistent and coherent meaning to the term spiritual. As far as I can tell it is equivalent to saying that someone lacks kismet. It is just elitist superstitious gibberish. People can recognize it in other peoples superstitions but are completely blind to it when it comes to their own superstitions.

The trouble with faith in a secular humanist world is that anything that cannot be transfered via communication (a type of "evidence") is presupposed to be false. Knowledge without evidence requires direct experience, so good luck convincing someone who doesn't understand direct experiences that they exist. They will be unable to grasp how knowledge could exist and not be transferable. It's a bitch 8)

Where do you get that? Secular humanism is as vague a term as "Christian". I am not a secular humanist but as far as I can tell they hold close to nothing in common other than we are on our own and must look to our own devices to make it through this life. Also most atheists will tell you that you can't prove a negative so convincing anyone of anything that can or cannot be communicated but for which there is not any kind of evidence is just a non-issue. It is the theists that blow it into an issue because the presence of an atheist is a non-confirming event and they must run for cover. Hell I have seen some shriek when they learned I was an atheist. For some reason it is a blow to their psyche and they must shore up their belief. But for an atheist the issue is simple, the lack of belief in god is no different than their lack of belief in Zeus or leprechauns or the boogie man under the bed. The existence of Zeus is just a non-issue except for those that believe in Zeus of course. It also chaps their ass when they come across someone who thinks believing in Zeus is just plain silly.

Starboy

[Rave7pt0]

Well Starboy, I totally see your point. But for my life experiences, I would be right there next to you bitching at "spiritual" people, which I'll define for you...

I don't think "spiritual" means anything special. I think that's spiritual is a vague notion that people use for the parts of reality and/or their experience that they can't explain through their normal knowledge paradigm. I think, with time and wisdom, the whole of the cosmos could be examined.

People love to imagine a fairy world that is separate and distinct from the "real" world they find themselves in, but that's not it at all. Spirituality is a state of mind -- a connection that elevates your perception from no perception to speak of, to a mechanistic, disconnected perception of the world as a phyiscal phenomenon, to an interwoven fabric, to who knows what lies beyond. It's all here, right in front of us, but you know, I realized something simple but profound as a young child:

As you grow, it's easy to look back and see your shortcomings. At any given time you feel complete, but it's plain to see how limited our thoughts and perceptions are when you examine them in an historical context. So when you look out across the world and see what you see, revel in it, but realize that in time something else will be there for you... nothing different from before, but perceived differently.

[tman_ndsu08]

A lot of people would define faith as "belief without evidence," but it's actually "knowledge without evidence," which sort of gets into sticky epistomological territory, but I think it's easiest to think of it as a kind of direct access to knowledge, almost like a priori knowledge after the fact.

I think we can do better than that.

Faith is the belief that certain knowledge will be true, without proof.

[Rave7pt0]

That's just a wordy way of saying belief again.

Belief happens when you hold a position with the expectation that evidence would turn that belief into "knowledge." You don't "believe" something when you feel that given evidence the position will be proven false...

So to say that faith is belief that would be proven true given evidence is the same as saying faith is belief. So what was your point?

[tman_ndsu08]

Belief happens when you hold a position with the expectation that evidence would turn that belief into "knowledge." You don't "believe" something when you feel that given evidence the position will be proven false...

According to this logic it would be impossible to believe in something and know it was false at the same time.

But people do it all the time.

Ask yourself: is there a difference in believing something is true and knowing something is true?

I think you'll find that the answer is yes as knowing something is true absolves you from having to believe it is.

So to say that faith is belief that would be proven true given evidence is the same as saying faith is belief. So what was your point?

Faith in the general sense is belief. That's why no one uses faith in the general sense.

The typical usage of faith implies a supernatural component.

[engelzz]

tman_ndsu08,

I have to agree with you.

I think you'll find that the answer is yes as knowing something is true absolves you from having to believe it is.

When you know something is true, there is no longer a need to believe it, hence its no longer called faith.

by Rave7pt0 A lot of people would define faith as "belief without evidence," but it's actually "knowledge without evidence

I beg to differ,i think faith is believing in something without evidence.eg: you pray for healing and you believe that god has healed you that very instant even though there are no evidence or watsoever to say that you're healed, that is faith.If you were to say faith is believing in something after seeing the evidence or knowledge without evidence, then its no longer faith since u already know something to be true even without evidence or believe something to be true only after seeing an evidence.eg:you pray for healing, but you will not believe that you're healed until you have gone to the doctor's and affirmed that you've been healed...that is not called faith because you need visible evidence before you can say "yes i'm healed" that is no longer believe, but has become knowledge

[MerlinsByte]

I agree with engelzz on most points.I admire the faith of the radical Muslim terrorists who died in 9/11 believing they will go to thier god in heaven, or a snake handling holy rolling christian who fearlessly picks up a rattle snake and/or drinks strychnine , with the faith that he wont die, that is nearly pure faith.

I confess am envious and don't have that kind of faith. I admire both examples for their faith but not the methods.

mb

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: MerlinsByte I agree with engelzz on most points.I admire the faith of the radical Muslim terrorists who died in 9/11 believing they will go to thier god in heaven, or a snake handling holy rolling christian who fearlessly picks up a rattle snake and/or drinks strychnine , with the faith that he wont die, that is nearly pure faith. I confess am envious and don't have that kind of faith. I admire both examples for their faith but not the methods. mb

I don't know if I'd say envious of people who have faith. I like to make rational decisions, esp. when my life is on the line.

But I do admire them.

[Lycan]

[quote=Rave7pt0 ]A lot of people would define faith as "belief without evidence," but it's actually "knowledge without evidence[quote]

I disagree, faith IS belief without evidence because just the subjective claim (lacking evidence) of "knowing" does not make it anymore true that "believing".
In faith, you believe [insert diety of choice here] is real without tangible evidence, but in faith I believe my gods are real. No matter how much one claims knowledge of the existance of their diety, being that tanglible evidence cannot be show, no one really "knows". What we all have are only our opinions of truth based on our subject experiences.

Lycan

[Paul]

What's all this faith good for when there is NO LOVE? Let it be known.

Without good work from the Spirit of love, All this faith has less value than filthy rags which are good for the fire.

Peace be with you, Paul

[MerlinsByte]

Cool t man faith is very cool......I live in (far) east Tennessee / western NC. I would like to do an article on the local church of God snake handlers. (they use copperheads as well as rattle snakes)

http://religiousmovements.lib.virgin...ms/Snakes.html

[Rave7pt0]

You people say you disagree with me, but you don't give reasons. You just restate that you believe faith is belief. You tell me how you use the word. The very reason I brought up my position, was to help you reevaluate your incorrect usage of the word "faith," so it's hardly valuable to argue against me on the basis of your incorrect usage.

Those of you who told me what faith is, as if you know, profess to have no faith of your own. That doesn't follow.

I know many people how have belief in God, and even call it faith, but they don't know -- they don't have faith. They hope, and they believe with all their hearts. But that's not faith.

There's a kind of wholeness that people with faith can't really describe. It's like the knowledge becomes you, or becomes a part of you... you realize you're one and the same with that knowledge. It's like feeling as though the state of the universe, in that moment, is one with you, and you know everything all at once, and it's still and perfect.

It's that direct, personal connection with the truth that I'm talking about when I say "faith," and that is how truly faithful people use the word.

If you want to share how you thought it was meant to be used, or if you want to continue using it incorrectly based on your bias against spirituality, that's fine, but don't tell me what faith is when you've never had the experience. It's presumptuous.

Edit:

And Paul, you're a dirty hippy, but right on you are 8) Love is everything.

[Paul]

To have faith gives a person strength. A person can have faith in; a magic rock, a sugar pill, a false christ or god, themselves, or Jesus and the Spirit of Love.

May the Spirit of Love and Truth be within you and your deeds be accordingly

Peace be with you, Paul