Qustion for believers : what is faith?

hinault

What is faith?

More precisely what is it that persuades a person to believe in God?

Is the source of faith intrinsic and individual to each person who believes in God?
Or is there some extrinsic property which convicts a person to believe in God?
Or perhaps a combination of the intrinsic and extrinsic?

I was raised by parents both of whom have faith. My siblings and I were taught by our parents the faith. We went to church every Sunday, we prayed as a family and individually at home.

However despite this shared upbringing, none of my siblings observe the faith that we were raised in.
This got to me to think - why do certain people have faith, and more profoundly what is the catalyst for that faith?

It is something which I have thought about a very great deal.
And while I can point to certain things and say "yes, I believe in God because.............." I can't articulate why what I believe in doesn't, for example, motivate my brother believe.

hinault

Christian explanation for Faith.

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION ONE
"I BELIEVE" - "WE BELIEVE"

CHAPTER THREE
MAN'S RESPONSE TO GOD

142 By his Revelation, "the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company."1 The adequate response to this invitation is faith.

143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith".3

ARTICLE 1
I BELIEVE

I. THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH

144 To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to "hear or listen to") in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. The Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment.

Abraham - "father of all who believe"

145 The Letter to the Hebrews, in its great eulogy of the faith of Israel's ancestors, lays special emphasis on Abraham's faith: "By faith, Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go."4 By faith, he lived as a stranger and pilgrim in the promised land.5 By faith, Sarah was given to conceive the son of the promise. And by faith Abraham offered his only son in sacrifice.6

146 Abraham thus fulfills the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen":7 "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."8 Because he was "strong in his faith", Abraham became the "father of all who believe".9

147 The Old Testament is rich in witnesses to this faith. The Letter to the Hebrews proclaims its eulogy of the exemplary faith of the ancestors who "received divine approval".10 Yet "God had foreseen something better for us": the grace of believing in his Son Jesus, "the pioneer and perfecter of our faith".11

Mary - "Blessed is she who believed"

148 The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that "with God nothing will be impossible" and so giving her assent: "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."12 Elizabeth greeted her: "Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord."13 It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.14

149 Throughout her life and until her last ordeal15 when Jesus her son died on the cross, Mary's faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfillment of God's word. And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith.

II. "I KNOW WHOM I HAVE BELIEVED"16

To believe in God alone

150 Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.17

To believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God

151 For a Christian, believing in God cannot be separated from believing in the One he sent, his "beloved Son", in whom the Father is "well pleased"; God tells us to listen to him.18 The Lord himself said to his disciples: "Believe in God, believe also in me."19 We can believe in Jesus Christ because he is himself God, the Word made flesh: "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."20 Because he "has seen the Father", Jesus Christ is the only one who knows him and can reveal him.21

To believe in the Holy Spirit

152 One cannot believe in Jesus Christ without sharing in his Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who reveals to men who Jesus is. For "no one can say "Jesus is Lord", except by the Holy Spirit",22 who "searches everything, even the depths of God. . No one comprehends the thoughts of God, except the Spirit of God."23 Only God knows God completely: we believe in the Holy Spirit because he is God.

The Church never ceases to proclaim her faith in one only God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
III. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FAITH

Faith is a grace

153 When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come "from flesh and blood", but from "my Father who is in heaven".24 Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and 'makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.'"25

Faith is a human act

154 Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions, or to trust their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our dignity to "yield by faith the full submission of. . . intellect and will to God who reveals",26 and to share in an interior communion with him.

155 In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."27

Faith and understanding

156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe "because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived".28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind".30

157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."31 "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."32

158 "Faith seeks understanding":33 it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed; a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love. The grace of faith opens "the eyes of your hearts"34 to a lively understanding of the contents of Revelation: that is, of the totality of God's plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ, the center of the revealed mystery. "The same Holy Spirit constantly perfects faith by his gifts, so that Revelation may be more and more profoundly understood."35 In the words of St. Augustine, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."36

159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

The freedom of faith

160 To be human, "man's response to God by faith must be free, and. . . therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act."39 "God calls men to serve him in spirit and in truth. Consequently they are bound to him in conscience, but not coerced. . . This fact received its fullest manifestation in Christ Jesus."40 Indeed, Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. "For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it. His kingdom. . . grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws men to himself."41

The necessity of faith

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"43

Perseverance in faith

162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: "Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith."44 To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith;45 it must be "working through charity," abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.46

Faith - the beginning of eternal life

163 Faith makes us taste in advance the light of the beatific vision, the goal of our journey here below. Then we shall see God "face to face", "as he is".47 So faith is already the beginning of eternal life:


When we contemplate the blessings of faith even now, as if gazing at a reflection in a mirror, it is as if we already possessed the wonderful things which our faith assures us we shall one day enjoy.48
164 Now, however, "we walk by faith, not by sight";49 we perceive God as "in a mirror, dimly" and only "in part".50 Even though enlightened by him in whom it believes, faith is often lived in darkness and can be put to the test. The world we live in often seems very far from the one promised us by faith. Our experiences of evil and suffering, injustice and death, seem to contradict the Good News; they can shake our faith and become a temptation against it.

165 It is then we must turn to the witnesses of faith: to Abraham, who "in hope. . . believed against hope";51 to the Virgin Mary, who, in "her pilgrimage of faith", walked into the "night of faith"52 in sharing the darkness of her son's suffering and death; and to so many others: "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith."53

1 DV 2; cf. Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; Ex 33:11; Jn 15:14-15; Bar 3:38 (Vulg.).
2 Cf. DV 5.
3 Cf. Rom 1:5; 16:26.
4 Heb 11:8; cf. Gen 12:1-4.
5 Cf. Gen 23:4.
6 Cf. Heb 11:17.
7 Heb 11:1.
8 Rom 4:3; cf. Gen 15:6.
9 Rom 4:11,18; 4:20; cf. Gen 15:5.
10 Heb 11:2, 39.
11 Heb 11:40; 12:2.
12 Lk 1:37-38; cf. Gen 18:14.
13 Lk 1:45.
14 Cf. Lk 1:48.
15 Cf. Lk 2:35.
16 2 Tim 1:12.
17 Cf. Jer 17:5-6; Ps 40:5; 146:3-4.
18 Mk 1:11; cf. 9:7.
19 Jn 14:1.
20 Jn 1:18.
21 Jn 6:46; cf. Mt 11:27.
22 1 Cor 12:3.
23 1 Cor 2:10-11.
24 Mt 16:17; cf. Gal 1:15; Mt 11:25.
25 DV 5; cf. DS 377; 3010.
26 Dei Filius 3:DS 3008.
27 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,2,9; cf. Dei Filius 3:DS 3010.
28 Dei Filius 3:DS 3008.
29 Dei Filius 3:DS 3009.
30 Dei Filius 3:DS 3008-3010; Cf. Mk 16 20; Heb 2:4.
31 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,171,5,obj.3.
32 John Henry Cardinal Newman, Apologia pro vita sua (London: Longman, 1878) 239.
33 St. Anselm, Prosl. prooem.:PL 153,225A.
34 Eph 1:18.
35 DV 5.
36 St. Augustine, Sermo 43,7,9:PL 38,257-258.
37 Dei Filius 4:DS 3017.
38 GS 36 § 1.
39 DH 10; cf. CIC, can. 748 § 2.
40 DH 11.
41 DH 11; cf. Jn 18:37; 12:32.
42 Cf. 16:16; Jn 3:36; 6:40 et al.
43 Dei Filius 3:DS 3012; cf. Mt 10:22; 24:13 and Heb 11:6; Council of Trent:DS 1532.
44 1 Tim 1:18-19.
45 Cf. Mk 9:24; Lk 17:5; 22:32.
46 Gal 5:6; Rom 15:13; cf. Jas 2:14-26.
47 1 Cor 13:12; 1 Jn 3:2.
48 St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 15,36:PG 32,132; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,4,1.
49 2 Cor 5:7.
50 l Cor 13:12.
51 Rom 4:18.
52 LG 58; John Paul II, RMat 18.
53 Heb 12:1-2.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm

looksee

I know you are looking for believers' responses, but the question you have posed is interesting for nonbelievers as the answer can also explain why people do not have faith.

The lengthy document that you have posted is not an answer to the question (maybe you did not expect it to be). Accepting the argument presented by that document pre-supposes that one already has faith. It is a discussion about what you have faith in and the reasons for it. It would not convince someone who does not have faith to 'change sides' as it requires that that person accepts the authority of the bible and the vatican.

If you do not have faith then the bible is no more than a book of legends and folk stories. I could read the Quran. the Norse sagas, Greek mythologies and be well informed about the beliefs of an earlier era, but it does not mean - and most people would not expect - that I am going to be so convinced or inspired by them as cause me to have faith that there is truth there. Why would the bible be any different.

Why some members of a family should have faith and others do not is the interesting question. There seems to be some sort of 'mind-set' that allows some people to have faith and others not. Has the sometimes blind partisanship that we see in the politics forum any relationship to this kind of mind-set? Is it something that is dictated by (as yet not understood) brain activity, or is it totally supernatural. And if it is the latter, why would it be limited to certain people and not to others?

Delirium

MOD NOTE

pajo1981 carded for swearing/trolling.

Please raise the standard of your postings in any future contribution to this thread.

Thanks for your attention.

uck51js9zml2yt

looksee wrote: »

I know you are looking for believers' responses, but the question you have posed is interesting for nonbelievers as the answer can also explain why people do not have faith.

The lengthy document that you have posted is not an answer to the question (maybe you did not expect it to be). Accepting the argument presented by that document pre-supposes that one already has faith. It is a discussion about what you have faith in and the reasons for it. It would not convince someone who does not have faith to 'change sides' as it requires that that person accepts the authority of the bible and the vatican.

If you do not have faith then the bible is no more than a book of legends and folk stories. I could read the Quran. the Norse sagas, Greek mythologies and be well informed about the beliefs of an earlier era, but it does not mean - and most people would not expect - that I am going to be so convinced or inspired by them as cause me to have faith that there is truth there. Why would the bible be any different.

Why some members of a family should have faith and others do not is the interesting question. There seems to be some sort of 'mind-set' that allows some people to have faith and others not. Has the sometimes blind partisanship that we see in the politics forum any relationship to this kind of mind-set? Is it something that is dictated by (as yet not understood) brain activity, or is it totally supernatural. And if it is the latter, why would it be limited to certain people and not to others?

Some of us have faith, accepting the authority of the bible without accepting that of the vatican:D

For me finding faith took several years with my journey exploring the religious orders in my desire to serve God. He however had other plans and took me out of Roman Catholicism into a life and service found in Him. I left Catholicism and never once in 30+ years considered Protestantism to be a viable alternative.

Absolam

I would suggest that faith is a belief that something is true in the absence of evidence, perhaps even despite evidence to the contrary. Why we appear to be inclined to have faith is probably a much more interesting question, which could exercise anthropologists, psychologists, and philosophers alike.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

I would suggest that faith is a belief that something is true in the absence of evidence, perhaps even despite evidence to the contrary. Why we appear to be inclined to have faith is probably a much more interesting question, which could exercise anthropologists, psychologists, and philosophers alike.

Is the belief typically in something we would deeply desire to be true to an extent that it would cause use great anxiety if it were false? If so, that could be one explanation as to why some have faith.

Of the friends that I have that have a deep seated faith that they've taken the time to really think through, they tend to be less anxious as a result. The same is often true of those with no religious belief whatsoever. The middle ground seems to be a cause of anxiety.

Galway_Old_Man

Absolam wrote: »

I would suggest that faith is a belief that something is true in the absence of evidence, perhaps even despite evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't agree with that. Can't say I've ever met a religious person who didn't have evidence, which make led them to, or re-enforced their particular faith. I'd replace it with "proof".

Absolam

If you have evidence that something is true, then surely you have knowledge, rather than faith?

Galway_Old_Man

I'd see evidence as pointing to something. As distinct from proof.

Nick Park

I would see faith as being that step we take which bridges the gap between evidence and proof.

I became a Christian (having formerly been an atheist) because I felt that the evidence pointed in the direction of Jesus being real and having the power to change lives for the better. When I put my faith in Jesus it made a powerful difference in my life. That became a further piece of evidence to be considered. The same applies to the many answers of prayer that I have seen and experienced.

But I haven't seen or experienced anything that would count as absolute irrefutable proof. So, faith is still necessary to be a follower of Christ. Having said that, given the evidence available to me, it would require much more faith to reach a different conclusion!

Having said all that, faith is necessary for many of the other important things in life as well. For example, I don't have irrefutable proof that my wife loves me, but 30 years of evidence leads me to a conclusion that she does love me and much of my life is based around that conclusion.

smacl

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

I'd see evidence as pointing to something. As distinct from proof.

Perhaps we can say that faith is subjective, whereas we typically look for evidence to be objective. So the cause and effect say of Nick's faith and prayer above are evident to him, but they don't directly inform others.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps we can say that faith is subjective, whereas we typically look for evidence to be objective.

So if someone interprets evidence in a way that you agree with, then they are being objective. But if they reach a different conclusion then they are being subjective? That seems incredibly patronising.

looksee

Nick Park wrote: »

So if someone interprets evidence in a way that you agree with, then they are being objective. But if they reach a different conclusion then they are being subjective? That seems incredibly patronising.

That is not what I got from smacl's post. I thought his point was clear and reasonable The above interpretation really involves twisting to achieve the conclusion.

Nick Park

looksee wrote: »

That is not what I got from smacl's post. I thought his point was clear and reasonable The above interpretation really involves twisting to achieve the conclusion.

I see. So because I honestly interpret his post differently to you, I'm 'twisting'.

I find that interesting in a discussion about evidence and objectivity.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

So if someone interprets evidence in a way that you agree with, then they are being objective. But if they reach a different conclusion then they are being subjective? That seems incredibly patronising.

Evidence is defined as something that furnishes proof. It is subject to scrutiny and allows to establish broadly objective facts. Faith is the subjective belief that something is true irrespective of whether there is any supporting evidence and has its basis in trust. I'm not sure why you find this patronising.

ScumLord

Absolam wrote: »

Why we appear to be inclined to have faith is probably a much more interesting question,

Faith is probably just an extension of trust. Humans that have to deal with other humans not in their familiar group need to extend trust beyond basic instinct. It's been an important trait that's allowed humans to create civilized groups and even things like banking are founded on trust.

When a human chooses to trust someone that agreement is given a lot of weight in our mind. We'll often stick with that agreement until something shows us the trust has been broken by the other party, or the agreement is unworkable. We don't like breaking trust bonds and other humans view breaking trust bounds as a serious disgrace.

Faith is that human instinct running wild. It's an abuse of that human instinct. I think there's a difference between the two, trust is often part of a mutually beneficial agreement that allows peace. Faith removes the agreement and just sets an agenda that must be followed. But faith brings with it the instinctive triggers that can associate not having faith with breaking a trust bond.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Evidence is defined as something that furnishes proof.

A quick glance at any number of dictionaries reveals that your 'definition' is extremely selective and subjective. :pac:

The word evidence can mean something that furnishes proof. But to claim that is the only definition would be quite plainly untrue.

Collins English Dictionary:
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

Absolam

I'd be inclined to the idea that evidence is that which shows something to be true, but it's fair to say that it could be something which is sufficient cause to believe something to be true, or something that objectively demonstrates something is true, and that the latter could also be called proof.

If I say faith is the belief that something is true in the absence of evidence, then in fairness I'd have to say evidence that could equally be construed as cause to believe something else is really still an absence of evidence that our particular something is true.

hinault

ScumLord wrote: »

Faith is that human instinct running wild. It's an abuse of that human instinct. I think there's a difference between the two, trust is often part of a mutually beneficial agreement that allows peace. Faith removes the agreement and just sets an agenda that must be followed. But faith brings with it the instinctive triggers that can associate not having faith with breaking a trust bond.

Absolutely and totally incorrect.
You have no understanding whatsoever about what faith actually is.

Faith is one property of the relationship between believer and God.

God is perfection. There is nothing that any believer can possibly give to God which could improve God in any possible way.

One last point, true faith can only be predicated upon freely given consent.

You and every one else has a free choice to believe or not.

looksee

hinault wrote: »

Absolutely and totally incorrect.
You have no understanding whatsoever about what faith actually is.

Faith is one property of the relationship between believer and God.

God is perfection. There is nothing that any believer can possibly give to God which could improve God in any possible way.

And yet believers are required to give thanks and praise?

One last point, true faith can only be predicated upon freely given consent.

You and every one else has a free choice to believe or not.

This has been discussed before, but one cannot have a free choice to believe, a person either believes or they do not, it is not possible for someone who does not believe to choose to believe. And presumably vice versa.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

And yet believers are required to give thanks and praise?

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the idea that there is nothing that any believer can possibly give to God which could improve God in any possible way though? I think it's considered 'right' rather than 'required' to give Him thanks and praise, but there's no implication that He is improved by it, as far as I'm aware.

looksee wrote: »

This has been discussed before, but one cannot have a free choice to believe, a person either believes or they do not, it is not possible for someone who does not believe to choose to believe. And presumably vice versa.

That doesn't sound correct at all. People believe things all the time despite being faced with evidence (and proof) to the contrary. How can that be anything other than a choice?

Nick Park

I'm not sure whether someone can choose to believe, but they can certainly choose to put their faith in someone (which is much more than merely believing). Of course it is difficult to put your faith in someone that you don't believe exists!

In my case, the available evidence to me pointed to the existence and the power of Jesus as being (in my judgement) the most likely conclusion. This led me to move from a place of atheism to theism. But putting my faith in Christ, and thus becoming a Christian, was a further step of trust of commitment. That was 36 years ago - and not a day goes by that I regret taking that step.

Absolam

That's true. I was thinking more though, of when people believe things will work out well, or believe someone will get better; they may have evidence to the contrary, but they choose to believe all the same.

looksee

Well yes, but, given this is the Christianity forum and it is a discussion about faith, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that we are talking about religious belief.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

A quick glance at any number of dictionaries reveals that your 'definition' is extremely selective and subjective. :pac:

The word evidence can mean something that furnishes proof. But to claim that is the only definition would be quite plainly untrue.

Nick Park wrote:

I would see faith as being that step we take which bridges the gap between evidence and proof.

The definition of evidence which I used is the primary definition from the Merriam Webster dictionary and was selected as it relates to proof as per your original post. Perhaps you can explain how this definition is subjective?

My understanding of faith is an expression of trust and belief in the absence of proof. To quote our good friends the Jesuits “The Opposite of Faith isn’t doubt, the Opposite of Faith is certainty” where something proven true is a certainty.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

That's true. I was thinking more though, of when people believe things will work out well, or believe someone will get better; they may have evidence to the contrary, but they choose to believe all the same.

Agreed. Many people's beliefs are heavily influenced by what they want to be true even where rational examination would suggest otherwise.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

The definition of evidence which I used is the primary definition from the Merriam Webster dictionary

No, according to your link, it is not the primary definition. It is a definition, but it comes after a definition that states an outward sign : indication which is certainly not limited to proof.

Your definition is subjective in that you ignore the part of the definition which you don't like and then make an inaccurate claim that "the definition is ...."

The definition of evidence is not something that furnishes proof. That is one way of using the word, but it is equally valid to define evidence as any indicator that leads one towards a conclusion.

ScumLord

hinault wrote: »

Absolutely and totally incorrect.
You have no understanding whatsoever about what faith actually is.

Faith is one property of the relationship between believer and God.

God is perfection. There is nothing that any believer can possibly give to God which could improve God in any possible way.

Isn't that pretty much what I said? Its a one way street. If you have faith in someone, they say they're going to do something and you just have to go along with it or you break their trust. Typically when you're told to have faith it's because they're keeping information from you. If they give you the information you can trust they know what they're doing.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

The definition of evidence is not something that furnishes proof. That is one way of using the word, but it is equally valid to define evidence as any indicator that leads one towards a conclusion.

But if you take evidence as meaning any indicator that leads you to a conclusion, if that indicator isn't equally evident to everyone else it is clearly subjective. So when describe "faith as being that step we take which bridges the gap between evidence and proof" there is no proof in any objective sense, merely belief. You are stating that your definition of evidence is not "something that furnishes proof" so the notion of faith leading to proof here seems entirely bogus. It is interesting that your faith leads to certainty (i.e. proof), whereas the Catholic faith linked in the previous article suggests that faith is the trust that removes the necessity for certainty. Pains me to say it, but I'm with the Catholics on this one.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Well yes, but, given this is the Christianity forum and it is a discussion about faith, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that we are talking about religious belief.

smacl wrote: »

Agreed. Many people's beliefs are heavily influenced by what they want to be true even where rational examination would suggest otherwise.

Yes; I think that can be as true for religious belief as any other; I don't think religious faith necessarily comes from anywhere other than faith comes from generally. Whether one thinks that's inspired by God or not.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

looksee wrote: »

Well yes, but, given this is the Christianity forum and it is a discussion about faith, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that we are talking about religious belief.

smacl wrote: »

Agreed. Many people's beliefs are heavily influenced by what they want to be true even where rational examination would suggest otherwise.

Yes; I think that can be as true for religious belief as any other; I don't think religious faith necessarily comes from anywhere other than faith comes from generally. Whether one thinks that's inspired by God or not.

Agreed, people will believe what they would like to be true over a less palatable actual truth regardless of whether they're religious. I suspect people will also pick simple supposed truths over more complex and confusing ambiguity. Again there's more to this than religion. Look at anti-valuers, homoeopathy, and the election of the Donald 😉

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

But if you take evidence as meaning any indicator that leads you to a conclusion, if that indicator isn't equally evident to everyone else it is clearly subjective. So when describe "faith as being that step we take which bridges the gap between evidence and proof" there is no proof in any objective sense, merely belief. You are stating that your definition of evidence is not "something that furnishes proof" so the notion of faith leading to proof here seems entirely bogus.

Nobody's saying that faith leads to proof.

But you are correct when you say that there is no proof in any objective sense. Strictly speaking, proof only exists in logic and mathematics. In everything else we make inferences based on evidence - and there is always an objective element to this.

hinault

ScumLord wrote: »

Isn't that pretty much what I said? Its a one way street. If you have faith in someone, they say they're going to do something and you just have to go along with it or you break their trust. Typically when you're told to have faith it's because they're keeping information from you. If they give you the information you can trust they know what they're doing.

No, it pretty much isn't what you said.

Faith removes the agreement and just sets an agenda that must be followed

Wholly incorrect.

Faith is an abuse of that human instinct

Wholly incorrect.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Nobody's saying that faith leads to proof.

If you consider "faith as being that step we take which bridges the gap between evidence and proof" that implies faith leading to proof where proof cannot be reached by evidence alone.

But you are correct when you say that there is no proof in any objective sense. Strictly speaking, proof only exists in logic and mathematics. In everything else we make inferences based on evidence - and there is always an objective element to this.

I'm guessing you mean 'subjective element' here, though in this case I'd actually consider it to be an element of faith or trust. The sum of human knowledge is huge by comparison to the intellectual faculties of any given individual, such that most of us know relatively little about most things, even though we have to deal with them on a daily basis. We thus have to rely on trusted sources when it comes to dealing with the very many things we don't understand, which amounts to faith.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

If you consider "faith as being that step we take which bridges the gap between evidence and proof" that implies faith leading to proof where proof cannot be reached by evidence alone.

No, it doesn't imply that at all.

What I was saying was that we each have to reach conclusions in order to function in life. Most of us reach these conclusions by weighing up objective evidence and then deciding what is the most likely explanation for such evidence. If the evidence left no room for any conceivable conclusion except one, then that would constitute proof. But in most things in life there is a gap between evidence and absolute proof - so even if the evidence points to one conclusion, it is always possible, however unlikely we think it to be, that our conclusion is wrong.

Faith bridges the gap between evidence and truth in the sense that it enables us to reach conclusions, and act upon those conclusions, while being aware that we lack absolute proof. Without such steps of faith we would never board a plane, get married or cross the road.

hinault

Nick Park wrote: »

Faith bridges the gap between evidence and truth in the sense that it enables us to reach conclusions, and act upon those conclusions, while being aware that we lack absolute proof. Without such steps of faith we would never board a plane, get married or cross the road.

That's a very good explanation to describe faith.

What I find fascinating is what is cause, catalyst, for faith.

It never ceases to amaze me how people living in the most trying circumstances - be it bad health problems, living life as full time carers, or crushed by financial and material deprivation - are literally bursting with belief in God.

The only way that I can describe them is that somehow they can see the challenges that they face but they are able to look beyond those challenges to see that God is still with them. They appear to be able to cope, and remain faithful.

ScumLord

Nick Park wrote: »

Faith bridges the gap between evidence and truth in the sense that it enables us to reach conclusions, and act upon those conclusions, while being aware that we lack absolute proof. Without such steps of faith we would never board a plane, get married or cross the road.

But saying "faith bridges the gap between evidence and truth" assumes that faith is always correct and will always lead to positive outcomes. People don't have faith the plane works. The understand what makes it fly and trust that all the people involved act professionally and that oversight ensures a high standard is maintained. Nobody gets on a plain and says "I have faith god will lift this metal tube into the sky".


That's why I think there needs to be some distinction between faith and trust. Having faith god is going to look out for you is not the same thing as trusting a trained professional to do their job. A trained professional can let you down, you have some comeback if they do. If god lets you down people can shrug their shoulders because god never actually promised you anything. You just had faith and associated your desires with that faith and assumed god would help you.

It's a one way contract, you keep asking god to help and when it goes wrong you can imagine god saying "not that time", and that goes on until something goes right and then you can imagine god giving you the thumbs up and saying "see, I told you I got your back".

Nick Park

ScumLord wrote: »

But saying "faith bridges the gap between evidence and truth" assumes that faith is always correct and will always lead to positive outcomes.

Actually it was a typo, I meant to type 'proof' not 'truth'.

My point, which in the context was pretty uncontroversial, was simply that when we have evidence leading to a conclusion, but not absolute proof, that we use faith to reach our conclusion.

As for the rest of your post - I think you're barking up the wrong tree based on your own faith position that God doesn't exist.

ScumLord

Nick Park wrote: »

Actually it was a typo, I meant to type 'proof' not 'truth'.

Fair enough, that makes more sense.

My point, which in the context was pretty uncontroversial, was simply that when we have evidence leading to a conclusion, but not absolute proof, that we use faith to reach our conclusion.

This exists in science. We can't actually see planets around other stars we have to infer they're there based on other evidence. That's not faith, it's an inference.

The evidense for god is very shaky at best, the people who gave the original evidence in the bible were very prone to flights of fancy due to having a poor understanding of things. They're also the only people to have this interaction at the time. Every other culture from the time would talk just as convincingly of their gods.

Anything from drugs (which were used in religious ceremonies of the time) to simply making it all up would explain away the bible. It's not really evidence, it's hearsay.

As for the rest of your post - I think you're barking up the wrong tree based on your own faith position that God doesn't exist.

I don't have faith god doesn't exist. I just see no reason to believe he exists.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

My point, which in the context was pretty uncontroversial, was simply that when we have evidence leading to a conclusion, but not absolute proof, that we use faith to reach our conclusion.

Do we? If I have a proposition and some accompanying evidence, but insufficient evidence to prove it true, I would refer to that as a thesis. If the evidence is entirely subjective and doesn't bear objective scrutiny, we're clearly into the realms of speculation rather than truth. To prove a proposition true we need to test it. We use techniques such as double blind testing to remove the subjective element and confirmation bias from these tests, such that we can declare our thesis to be most probably true to an understood level of confidence in a broadly objective sense.

Conclusions drawn primarily from faith are actually no more than subjective opinions when you think about it. Again I'd say faith comes down to trust in what is unproven, and includes a significant amount of confirmation bias.

hinault

smacl wrote: »

Again I'd say faith comes down to trust in what is unproven, and includes a significant amount of confirmation bias.

I disagree.

I don't know what the catalyst for faith is, hence this thread. But faith itself isn't predicated upon what is unproven.

The historical fact remains that Jesus Christ the person existed. The proof of the existence of Jesus Christ the person has been established in fact. No credible historian doubts that Jesus Christ the person lived.

Whether or not Jesus Christ is God incarnate is a matter of faith.
The fact that there is eye witness testimony to the words and actions of Jesus Christ is not accepted by many.

Those who reject Jesus Christ as God incarnate, do not accept the bona fides of the eye witnesses or the bona fides of the people who transcribed the testimony of the same eye witnesses.

But the purpose of this thread is to try to discern what is faith and what is the catalyst for faith.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Do we? If I have a proposition and some accompanying evidence, but insufficient evidence to prove it true, I would refer to that as a thesis.

So, when you board a plane, and the pilot introduces himself over the intercom, you don't actually believe that he really is the pilot and not a terrorist impersonator. You simply hold a thesis?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Every day all of us draw conclusions and make decisions based on our best interpretations of the available evidence. We don't have absolute proof, and there's always a chance that we might be wrong, but we push ahead on the basis of faith.

This is hardly controversial. It's how all of us live our lives.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Every day all of us draw conclusions and make decisions based on our best interpretations of the available evidence. We don't have absolute proof, and there's always a chance that we might be wrong, but we push ahead on the basis of faith.

While we rarely act out of certainty, it is a bit of a leap to suggest a reasonable assumption requires an act of faith. So when I step on that plane and the pilot announces that he's the pilot, it is reasonable to assume he is the pilot. There's a very remote chance he could be lying, but its probability is so low it can be safely dismissed. Much the same way as when I got an email this morning saying that I'd won 1 million euros on the Spanish lotto, I know it is a reasonable assumption that it is not true, not least because I didn't enter the Spanish lotto nor that it is the 10th such email I've received this week. Apparently some people actually do believe these scams, that a Nigerian prince has left them a fortune, that they have won the lottery, that as if by magic their desperate and impoverished circumstances are about to improve beyond measure. I suppose if I was desperate enough and the alternative was sufficiently bleak, I might believe all kinds of nonsense.

Life contains risk and and large element of chance for sure, I agree that very little is certain. This does not imply it takes faith to make it survivable.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Life contains risk and and large element of chance for sure, I agree that very little is certain. This does not imply it takes faith to make it survivable.

Actually it does. You draw conclusions and make decisions and, in the vast majority of cases, you are acting upon evidence but not proof.

Now, you might want to quibble about how much faith is required to bridge the gap left by the evidence - and of course your assessment is biased by your own subjective views and your confirmation bias - but now you are simply debating the amount of faith required.

The fact is that we all operate by faith in many areas of our lives every day. Most of us are honest enough to admit that. A minority pretends that they are immune to any of this and try to treat religion as if it were some special category of thinking reserved for those who suffer from subjectivity and confirmation bias. They masquerade as being 'objective' and seem unable to accept that there can be any validity in other people assessing evidence and reaching a different conclusion to themselves.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Actually it does. You draw conclusions and make decisions and, in the vast majority of cases, you are acting upon evidence but not proof.

That we act based on available evidence and experience simply requires us to make a choice, it does not require us to have faith, or even draw a conclusion. Where the outcome is uncertain and could be good or bad, I'd say that we are dealing with hope rather than faith.

It is also well within everyone's ability to choose on an arbitrary basis. Heads or tails, Nick? How much faith does it require to answer that question?

While one definition of faith (though not the one usually used in the context of religion) is belief that is not based on proof, we do not require faith to act or make choices. Perhaps you could provide a definition of faith that suggests otherwise, because I'm certainly not aware of one?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

That we act based on available evidence and experience simply requires us to make a choice, it does not require us to have faith, or even draw a conclusion. Where the outcome is uncertain and could be good or bad, I'd say that we are dealing with hope rather than faith.

It is also well within everyone's ability to choose on an arbitrary basis. Heads or tails, Nick? How much faith does it require to answer that question?

I'm assuming you're not married. I don't just hope my wife loves me - I trust it to be so.

For your sake I hope you are engaging in sophistry here and your life is really not limited to things as inconsequential as whether a coin turns up heads or tails.

Maybe you should quit now rather digging deeper into this nonsensical hole?

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm assuming you're not married. I don't just hope my wife loves me - I trust it to be so.

For your sake I hope you are engaging in sophistry here and your life is really not limited to things as inconsequential as whether a coin turns up heads or tails.

Maybe you should quit now rather digging deeper into this nonsensical hole?

Twenty seven years together with a couple of kids and hopefully a few decades left in the tank. So now you're making unfounded assumptions without any evidence to support your arguments?

No sophistry, just an illustration that your faith may be your way of muddling through this existence but it doesn't mean that's how everyone else does it. For me an essential part of life is having a strong sense of wonder, exploring the unknown, taking risks where I might fail. This involves making value judgements about myself and others on a regular basis as part of the process of making an informed choice. You talk about getting on a flight, but have you ever jumped off a cliff from 10,000ft up with a person you've met less than an hour ago? Been a few years now, but it remains my favourite flight. Just because we can take an occasional leap into the unknown does demand faith.

Of course one certainty in all of our lives is death. We could have religious faith and assume it is not terminal. Personally, I choose to acknowledge it and live my life to the full on the the assumption that its the only one I'm going to get. In my subjective opinion, that is where all the evidence points, however nonsensical that may appear to you.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Twenty seven years together with a couple of kids and hopefully a few decades left in the tank. So now you're making unfounded assumptions without any evidence to support your arguments? .

I'm glad your thesis is working out so far. But hopefully it has more significance to you than a toss of a coin.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm glad your thesis is working out so far. But hopefully it has more significance to you than a toss of a coin.

The toss of a coin merely illustrates that there is a varying amount of chance present in the outcome arising from most of decisions which neither faith nor trust nor hope can influence. The random variable remains random regardless of the significance of its value to us. To when you talk about faith allowing us to reach conclusions based on limited evidence, I would suggest that many things actually remain inconclusive until such time as they're concluded. Note also that when we you talk about faith in a person, as opposed to say religious faith, this is typically based on previous experience of that person and their actions, or acceptance of their qualifications. This bears little resemblance to religious faith which is by comparison is blind.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Note also that when we you talk about faith in a person, as opposed to say religious faith, this is typically based on previous experience of that person and their actions, or acceptance of their qualifications. This bears little resemblance to religious faith which is by comparison is blind.

Actually, religious faith is all about faith in a person! And it is certainly not blind. That is a common mischaracterisation by antitheists.

But, in daily life, we put our faith in inanimate objects as well. For example, we set our alarms (on a clock or a phone) to wake us up in time for an important appointment. Usually this is because we have some evidence that leads us to conclude that we can rely on the alarm - but we don't actually have proof.