Originally posted by vistesdAccurate.-
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 ...[text shortened]... anslation. I use the word “belief” to mean something like “a conclusion based on the evidence”.
Originally posted by vistesdOK, just a side note over here: if you pair Satori with Faith and Kensho with Belief then I think there 's a bit more light.
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 ...[text shortened]... the play? Should he act with confidence or resignation to a likely unfavorable outcome?
And maybe if we leave aside your athlet and pick a samurai (a philosopher warrior) for your example, then your point could become clearer; because for the samurai the "death/ life" result is just the same -he acts "as if" without giving a fig for the result, he is there both unconsciously and consciously and at the same time fully detached from the mindtrap named "result". And he is different than the athlet because his whole life and morals and training are actually a complex system of Faith that keeps him on his desired track -no Belief here.
No athlet can have such a determination or attitude due to the fact that he is an athlet and not a philosopher warrior.
Now we monitor the samurai fencing against his Enemy engaged in a death/ life situation, and for us the samurai stands there like Schroedinger's cat -but in this case our "cat" is well aware of the fact that it is potentially dead/ alive at the same time. And he fights with all of his power "as if".
It seems to me that he acts so because he has Faith instead of a string of beliefs.
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleLike playing music.
Now we monitor the samurai fencing against his Enemy engaged in a death/ life situation, and for us the samurai stands there like Schroedinger's cat -but in this case our "cat" is well aware of the fact that it is potentially dead/ alive at the same time. And he fights with all of his power "as if".
It seems to me that he acts so because he has Faith instead of a string of beliefs.
Like this:
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillOne of the strong reasons I believe him is because of the way he has treated me with love.
==================================
But I trust him that he is telling me the truth.
Note that the idea of faith as trust in the word (this relates to your quote above as well as other characterizations of faith I have heard on these boards, such as whodey's notion of faith as I recall) can be consistent with bbarr's #3: one can provisionally accept t assumption" of man, allbeit sincere, was not the genuine faith that God was looking for.
I agree that trust in another person (in their words and pledges, for example) grows out of our knowledge surrounding our past dealings with them. And the thrust of this claim may well be accurate: you put trust in god's word at least in large part because you believe he has treated you well and with love. But implicit in your claim above is the idea that you have actually had intimate dealings with god, and I fail to see how I am supposed to take this seriously. And this touches on another topic that may be broadly relevant to a discussion on 'faith'.
Many theists will cite some sort of experiential knowledge of god based on some intimate or immediate relationship with him; at the same time, they may well acknowledge that they cannot provide considerations to others that offer reasons that bear on the truth of god's existence (the substance of their putative relationship with god, for example, cannot be put into words that offers epistemic reasons to others for god's existence; and they are otherwise at a loss for rendering compelling arguments and providing other evidence for god's existence). But then how is someone like myself supposed to take seriously your claim to have had dealings with god? Supposing your god does exist, then it certainly seems plausible (after all, he's supposed to be a personal creator who interacts with his creation); but supposing he doesn't exist, then obviously you must be wrongly attributing experiences in your life. What am I supposed to do here? If I see only insufficient evidence for god's existence (or, if I see what I think is good evidence against his existence), then how am I supposed to lend credence to your claim and take you seriously? If faith is the trust you place in god's word -- a trust borne out of what you take to be an actual relationship with him; then it seems to me that considerations of the justification of such faith should be reliant on the de facto question of god's existence.
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe problems you describe here are clearly recognized by many theists and hence they frequently try to find other ways to justify their belief in the existence of God. Sadly they frequently resort to proclaiming a justification that they do not really believe to be accurate, or in other cases glossing over the weaknesses in their argument, or in other cases making up outright lies.
Many theists will cite some sort of experiential knowledge of god based on some intimate or immediate relationship with him; at the same time, they may well acknowledge that they cannot provide considerations to others that offer reasons that bear on the truth of god's existence (the substance of their putative relationship with god, for example, cannot b ...[text shortened]... tion of such faith should be reliant on the de facto question of god's existence.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDoes anyone in this forum have faith in the Devil? Would they describe the existence of Devil as a matter of faith? Would the existence of the Devil be on anyones list of 'Articles of Faith'?
Would you describe my belief in God as 'faith'?
Originally posted by Palynka
I think I would, actually. 🙂
What about negative beliefs? Do you have faith that God does not exist? Or is the fact that God does not exist a matter of faith for you?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt seems that some of our Christian friends are dead sure that they have the copyright of the True Faith. These Christians, like our friend epiphenehas, they believe that you cannot be a man of righteousness if whatever you in person consider as "faith" is not the Christian faith. Regardless of your own definition, the faith is only one -the Christian faith, although there are countless denominations and each one orders different procedure.
Does anyone in this forum have faith in the Devil? Would they describe the existence of Devil as a matter of faith? Would the existence of the Devil be on anyones list of 'Articles of Faith'?
What about negative beliefs? Do you have faith that God does not exist? Or is the fact that God does not exist a matter of faith for you?
This core discriminative thesis is obvious at the incredible 1 John 4:2-3:
-- "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world".
So here we are: if I am not a "truly born by God" Christian it is assumed that I have followed with my free will an ill considered belief, which it has not the Theopneustos quality of the Christian faith and therefore at its core is not faith at all. In this case I am invaded by the spirit of the Antichrist -I wonder, how many innocent and decent people died for nothing because of this profound theological nonsence?
So the concept of Faith becomes accurate and fruitfull only if we confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh thanks to the "Spirit of God" inside us!
Finally, the Christians are dualists and they believe that the Devil exists, however I have the feeling that the "faith" in the Devil is considered merely the result of being invaded by the spirit of the Antichrist because the person failed to "pass" the test of the teleological prove.
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleUltimately, that's the flaw with the 'what is X' threads. Any particular language is but a code and the decoding of words for abstract concepts will generally lead to differences on what exactly the border for that abstract concept is.
It seems that some of our Christian friends are dead sure that they have the copyright of the True Faith. These Christians, like our friend epiphenehas, they believe that you cannot be a man of righteousness if whatever you in person consider as "faith" is not the Christian faith. Regardless of your own definition, the faith is only one -the Christian f Antichrist because the person failed to "pass" the test of the teleological prove.
Bbarr was perhaps the only one that addressed this, by being as general as possible and describing several different ways in which the word can be used. Yet little tells us about which one is more accurate (if any). The question in the thread title remains, then, unanswered because it seemed to require an unequivocal way to define faith.
To be fair, the original post just asked for a personal view on the word but this seems to open the possibility that 'any' interpretation is possible, which is obviously also not correct.
Originally posted by PalynkaNo Pal, I think that we may keep up, because the definition itself is not as critical as the action generated by ourselves due to Our Faith. Regardless the definition, Your Faith and My Faith they are both an abstract generator that keeps us motivated. If we are not motivated then there is not Faith. And both of them are a specific response to a Problem Here, in the real world.
Ultimately, that's the flaw with the 'what is X' threads. Any particular language is but a code and the decoding of words for abstract concepts will generally lead to differences on what exactly the border for that abstract concept is.
Bbarr was perhaps the only one that addressed this, by being as general as possible and describing several different ways ...[text shortened]... st remains, then, unanswered because it seemed to require an unequivocal way to define faith.
The border is our actions. The samurai and the martyr are ever ready to act and they are indifferent to the "death/ life" result.
Later the exact definition may arise or it may not -in case it is not already arisen.
Originally posted by black beetleVagueness is not something I treasure.
No Pal, I think that we may keep up, because the definition itself is not as critical as the action generated by ourselves due to Our Faith. Regardless the definition, Your Faith and My Faith they are both an abstract generator that keeps us motivated. If we are not motivated then there is not Faith. And both of them are a specific response to a Problem ...[text shortened]... result.
Later the exact definition may arise or it may not -in case it is not already arisen.
What are these actions you speak of? Motivated for what? What is this Problem?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not use the word "faith" to describe anything about my life. I generally find words like "trust" and "belief" do just fine.
What about negative beliefs? Do you have faith that God does not exist? Or is the fact that God does not exist a matter of faith for you?
I do not have faith that God does not exist. I simply do not have faith that he does, and I have no reason to believe. I find the arguments against the existence of God to be almost as unsatisfying as the arguments FOR. The default position is disbelief. (I don't believe the E8 geometry is the theory of everything, either.)
This is almost a pet peeve of mine, when theists say to me, "Oh, you just have faith that there is no God, that's no different from my faith in God!" It annoys me because I used to say and believe the same thing: I believed atheists had no more merit in their assertion than I did, and that to answer the question either way was to take a leap of faith. But now that I'm an atheist--and became one through that process of genuinely withholding faith--I see I was wrong.