what is "faith"?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
“Imagine the perplexity of a man outside time and space, who has lost his watch, his measuring rod and his tuning fork.” Alfred Jarry, Exploits and Opinions of Doctor Faustroll, Pataphysician

No prob; you keep up joyfuly as usually till the bitter end🙂

Originally posted by black beetle
It seems that faith is rather an emotional status/ force, therefore evidence is not required; everything else follows (beliefs, evidence etc).
Some people need evidence and some not.
The point with faith issues appears to be the one's determination to keep on walking seemingly blindly -to have faith!

There has to be something that starts the belief on which faith is applied. Isn't that evidence, no matter how circumstantial it is?

Note that evidence is not proof, but simply anything that alters your belief on the probability that a certain claim is true. If you're strict about it, empirical evidence alone cannot guarantee the truth of any claim. Certainty is only meaningful in such a context if defined as a threshold on belief probability (e.g. I would consider a belief as certain if I believed there was 99,999999999999999999999% probability that the claim was true).

I think faith comes into play when someone alters their usual threshold with respect to some particular claims.

Originally posted by Palynka
There has to be something that starts the belief on which faith is applied. Isn't that evidence, no matter how circumstantial it is?

Note that evidence is not proof, but simply anything that alters your belief on the probability that a certain claim is true. If you're strict about it, empirical evidence alone cannot guarantee the truth of any claim. Certa ...[text shortened]... es into play when someone alters their usual threshold with respect to some particular claims.

Intuition there is, as our obnoxious brother BdN insists;

Originally posted by Palynka
I think that faith is indeed based upon some evidence, albeit circumstantial. The concept of faith to me comes in when such a belief is taken as certain (or near certain).

For example, salvation is seen as an article of faith because Christians are asked to take Jesus' word for it which cannot be seen as more than circumstantial evidence at best.

But 'believe' would work equally well in that case would it not?
I think 'faith' is more than what you believe, but instead is an indication of the fact that you are also relying on that belief to give you some personal benefit. In the other direction the word is 'faithful'. You have faith in someone or something and they/it are faithful in return, they provide the benefit that you desired of them.
It is even possible to have faith, without expecting absolute certain results.
I have faith in my car that it will get me to work and back. It may let me down. If it doesn't let me down, I will call it a faithful car.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But 'believe' would work equally well in that case would it not?
I think 'faith' is more than what you believe, but instead is an indication of the fact that you are also relying on that belief to give you some personal benefit. In the other direction the word is 'faithful'. You have faith in someone or something and they/it are faithful in return, they ...[text shortened]... k and back. It may let me down. If it doesn't let me down, I will call it a faithful car.

No. Beliefs can have assigned to them a variety of probabilities, which can range from certainty to lower probabilities (e.g. I believe Bosse de Nage is from South Africa).

Faith is a particular form of belief, but not all belief is faith.

Originally posted by Palynka
No. Beliefs can have assigned to them a variety of probabilities, which can range from certainty to lower probabilities (e.g. I believe Bosse de Nage is from South Africa).

Faith is a particular form of belief, but not all belief is faith.

Faith looks like the agent that causes the Belief and not a particular form of belief, and it arises from within of you when you face extremely hard tasks or seemingly unsolvable problems.

Faith is a whole system that motivates every source of your power through your intuition and your mind ability and your beliefs and your dexterities (with or without finds and/ or evidence, whilst you follow a hard step by step procedure or when you experience a sudden and unexpected enlightement), and transfers you into a Decision Making and actuall Attitude/ Morals/ Actions status.

Faith is the abstract Generator of the Vehicle; the beliefs are the result of our struggle to give name to our intuitional sparks.

Originally posted by black beetle
Faith looks like the agent that causes the Belief and not a particular form of belief, and it arises from within of you when you face extremely hard tasks or seemingly unsolvable problems.

Faith is a whole system that motivates every source of your power through your intuition and your mind ability and your beliefs and your dexterities (with or witho ...[text shortened]... the Vehicle; the beliefs are the result of our struggle to give name to our intuitional sparks.

I was addressing the interchangeability that twhitehead mentions regarding 'faith' and 'belief', so I was using it in that context. As he points, out there are other colloquial uses for the word faith. My implicit contention was that those uses render the concept superfluous.

Originally posted by Palynka
I was addressing the interchangeability that twhitehead mentions regarding 'faith' and 'belief', so I was using it in that context.

rgr that Pal dude;

Originally posted by Palynka
No. Beliefs can have assigned to them a variety of probabilities, which can range from certainty to lower probabilities (e.g. I believe Bosse de Nage is from South Africa).

Faith is a particular form of belief, but not all belief is faith.

Do you think that I am right that 'faith' is restricted to beliefs that may have a significant impact you your person. For example, I would not say 'I have faith in the fact that Bosse de Nage is from South Africa' if I knew that it didn't really matter to me whether he was or wasn't even if I was fairly sure that he was. But if it was important to me that he was, I might say that I have faith in that fact.
If I believed with full conviction that Jesus exists and God exists and that I am going to hell, then do I have faith in Jesus? I think not.
Would you describe my belief in God as 'faith'? Again, I think not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you think that I am right that 'faith' is restricted to beliefs that may have a significant impact you your person. For example, I would not say 'I have faith in the fact that Bosse de Nage is from South Africa' if I knew that it didn't really matter to me whether he was or wasn't even if I was fairly sure that he was. But if it was important to me tha ...[text shortened]... Jesus? I think not.
Would you describe my belief in God as 'faith'? Again, I think not.

I'm not sure if I agree completely.

I think that such possible impact is one of the motivations for 'faith', but I don't think it's that restrictive. In such colloquial uses of faith, it certainly has an element of 'hope' in it. I'm not sure that hope is only reserved for the self.

Would you describe my belief in God as 'faith'?
I think I would, actually. 🙂

Originally posted by black beetle
Welcome back my friend!

But is "the stance or attitude of confidence in the face of uncertinty" not a determination status which then it enables you to stand for your beliefs? Isn't this determination the factor that unables you to keep up on your desired track?
No determination means no faith as I mean it, and in this case your are trapped in letha ...[text shortened]... -this is the worst foe of the Human.

We know where from this determination springs though;

Hi, my friend—

I’m not sure that your use of the word “determination” and my use of the word “confidence” are much different. As I noted, in agreement with bbarr, will is certainly implicated.

To revisit my sports analogy, faith, as we are using it, may be (1) the athletes determination to attempt making a play for which the probability of success is minimal, yet still positive (by whatever means the athlete makes such a calculation); but then, as I use it, it is also (2) the confidence with which the athlete carries out his/her actions—in spite of the low probability of success.

(2) may have an element of “as-if-ness” to it. Sports psychologists often have athletes visualize outcomes as already being effected.

If such a play is successful, athletes variously say such things as: “I ‘knew’ I could do it!” Or, alternatively: “I never would have ‘believed’ that I could make that play!” What is one to make of such diverse ex-post-facto comments? Or various, rather “surreal” descriptions of what seems to be going on when an athlete is “in the zone”?

Now, let’s suppose the attempt at the improbable play fails. I would still say that it is psychologically more enriching to play with as much confidence (and determination) as one can muster. I think that is a far more enriching way to “play” life.

Let’s look further at the example of the myth of Sisyphus, condemned forever to roll that stone up the hill, only to have it roll back down again. The probability of keeping the stone at the top of the hill is set a priori at zero. The quality of Sisyphus’ life in that “eternal recurrence” depends solely on psychological state. The circumstances will not change. He can either choose to be joyful or miserable. Camus, in his telling, chooses to imagine Sisyphus as choosing joy. (Since I used the phrase “eternal recurrence”, perhaps Nietzsche’s amor fati could be used.) [I view Camus’ Sisyphus and Nietzsche’s “eternal recurrence” as instructive thought-experiments.]

Therefore, although I cannot perhaps exclude an element of “belief” from my formulation, I define “faith” in more existential terms than epistemic terms (in fact, I usually use the phrase “existential uncertainty”, which I realize I did not do in my post here). The faith that I have described is the attitude with which I endeavor to live. It is, among other things, how I choose against lethargy. I do not claim to always carry it off; lately I have not been carrying it off very well at all. I am hoping that this discussion proves helpful in that regard, as I “think out loud”, so to speak, and test those thoughts against good minds on here...

___________________________________

EDIT: I do recognize the other uses of the word “faith”, such as they are being articulated here. I do think that my own personal usage is, as I say, consistent with both the NT notion, and as it has been used by various Zennists. I do think that to treat “faith” and “belief” as synonymous is an error—and that is an error that, it seems to me, is compounded by the translation of the Greek pistis as “belief”; the problem may have more to do with the development of the English word over time, than with the original translation. I use the word “belief” to mean something like “a conclusion based on the evidence”.

Originally posted by convect
What do you mean when you say the word, "faith"? What is faith to you, and what role does it play in your life?

It's only fair that I answer first, so here goes: I regard "faith" as "belief in something whether or not I know it to be true." It starts from that nugget, and then the belief becomes encompassing, and I "know" (i.e., I feel like I know, and to convert us, and, please, atheists, let's not try to convert them, either.

Faith for me is simply a result of relationship. These relationships involve both people and objects. For example, I place a certain amount of faith in my car when I go to drive it. I place a certain amount of faith in my wife whom I chose to marry. You see, those things we place no faith in we have no time for in our lives. We have deemed them to either be deleterious to our person and/or inconsequential.

Originally posted by vistesd

Therefore, although I cannot perhaps exclude an element of “belief” from my formulation, I define “faith” in more existential terms than epistemic terms (in fact, I usually use the phrase “existential uncertainty”, which I realize I did not do in my post here). The faith that I have described is the attitude with which I endeavor to live. It is, among ot ...[text shortened]... egard, as I “think out loud”, so to speak, and test those thoughts against good minds on here...

It has been awhile since I read Fear and Trembling, but this reminds me of the distinction between Knights of Infinite Resignation and Knights of Faith. Specifically, the psychological attitude of "as-if-ness" seems conceptually close to the way the KoF approaches his inability to be with his beloved in world. The KoF believes that his beloved is out of reach. Nonetheless he is in the world as though he and his beloved will be united. Is this a psychologically stable state? For it to be stable it seems the faith must be held apart from potentially countervailing evidence. How can one act authentically "as-if", when there is that nagging belief to the contrary? Or, if the belief to the contrary does not nag, then in what manner is the belief motivationally efficacious? Isn't it at least partially constitutive of having a belief that one be generally disposed to treat the world as though the content of that belief accurately described the world?

Faith the way I define it still requires, at the end, an abandonment of pure logic and putting aside total acceptance of natural laws. If you believe Christ rose from the dead, that is faith. If you believe God allowed Elijah to call down fire from heaven, or whatever other religions proclaim as their miracles, it will boil down to faith--an acceptance of that which science nor reason can explain.

Originally posted by bbarr
It has been awhile since I read Fear and Trembling, but this reminds me of the distinction between Knights of Infinite Resignation and Knights of Faith. Specifically, the psychological attitude of "as-if-ness" seems conceptually close to the way the KoF approaches his inability to be with his beloved in world. The KoF believes that his beloved is out sed to treat the world as though the content of that belief accurately described the world?

I have never read Fear and Trembling.

I’m wondering if my attempt to move “faith” into an existential, as opposed to epistemic, category isn’t at play here. And maybe I’m attempting to press that too far?

The athlete of my example knows that the odds are against him. He does not “believe” otherwise. The “as if” comes into play in his decision to act as if the outcome is certain: he will in fact make the play—and this attitude of confidence increases the [even still slim] chance that he will. In the end, of course, he will either make the play or not—and I do not intend that such an athlete then pretend that he made the play (which seems to be what K’s KoF is doing?). The “as-if” that I am talking about is, again, in the face of existential uncertainty—it is a stance in the face of possibility, not a pretense against facts after all possibility has been foreclosed by an actual outcome.

However, I really want to push it further than that—

I want to separate “faith” entirely from believing or disbelieving. As I use the term, it is a radical attitude of confidence in action—without regard to what I may believe about an outcome at all. This is Camus’ Sisyphus, as opposed to K’s KoF? I am taking into account Camus’ critique of such “leaps of faith” as he sees Kierkegaard’s being. (Maybe that is where my view differs from your (3)?)

Perhaps I need to move my words around a bit: it is a radical existential stance toward living, a stance that I can only characterize as confidence. Is it a stable state? I don’t know: is satori a stable state? Is being “in the zone” a stable state? Is there a stable state of consciousness?

I would rather think of it as a renewable decision. But, like any such renewable decision, it becomes more and more “grooved” so to speak. satori/metanoia deepens.

I think this is not only the only way to make much sense of the NT use of pistis/pisteo; I think it is what it’s about, whether or not I come to that conclusion by way of Zen.

I don’t know if that’s any more clear or not. Please keep pressing me though… I appreciate your willingness to do so.

_________________________________________

EDIT:

Isn't it at least partially constitutive of having a belief that one be generally disposed to treat the world as though the content of that belief accurately described the world?

Agreed. But how does it help the athlete in my example to be “disposed” to the probability that he will fail, perhaps by long odds, to successfully complete the play? Should he act with confidence or resignation to a likely unfavorable outcome?