Why is faith different?

[chron]

LOL! Pardon me, I'm having a Monday Moment.

^___^

Me, too. Never heard it called that, though, but *cough* I'll take it on faith that it's a known expression.

*runs and hides from the awful pun*

 

[chron]

I am saying that Faith is in a person... not in the information. Ask all the questions you can, only I'd recommend asking God if you want to get to know God better.

Granted: faith is in people, not facts.

Suppose the fact I'm questioning is whether or not God exists. Wouldn't having a conversation with him pre-suppose that I accept that he exists?

How then to examine the question?

By conversing with those who claim to have a personal relationship with him.

And when those people say, "Don't ask us for reasons; just believe," what then?

Again, the purpose of this thread is to explore why it is generally accepted that this line of thinking is all right in the domain of religion and not in any other area of life.

I'm not challenging anyone's beliefs; only the unwillingness to give reasons for those beliefs.

 

[chron]

...but if God made a special point of ensuring that his experience was unlike what I experience, then this lessens the relevance of Jesus to me.

Well said.

 

[Francis king]

hello Chron, welcome to CR...

I have just come across ur initial post, so will respond to it in my way...

I am of the opinion that this "blind faith" is actually, NOT acceptable, or rather, it shouldn't be acceptable to us, supposedly civilised and intelligent beings... I think it is a cop-out which has been used rather well over the centuries and will continue to be so used until ppl become a bit more rational and a little less superstitious...

if something "is", it "is"... if "it" is, then we should be able to prove that "it" is, whatever "it" is... otherwise, it is not fact, but hypothesis, an untested hypothesis at best...

now... I cannot prove to u that "it" exists, you have to discern such things for urself, but I know I've seen/felt/been used by/been guided/protected by "it", although any evidence to support my wild assertions will be circumstantial at best...

but then... I have faith... not blind faith, but real faith, based not on conjecture and circumstantiality, but conviction, a firm belief based on evidences, a firm belief created by establishing conclusions, not for you, as you will have ur own, but just for me, a faith created by testing and challenging and learning from "it"...

if I am sane, and without an agenda, I would not want u to believe what I believe purely because I believe it... as that would be insane, and irrational...

just my thoughts...

 

[chron]

hello Chron, welcome to CR...

Francis, thank you for the welcome and your thoughts, which are near to my own. In spite of the fact that it may seem otherwise from the dialog that is this thread, I, too, have developed my own brand of faith since leaving the fold of the fundamentalist evangelicals.

I, too, have no evidence other than circumstantial, and yet I believe.

It is frustrating to me that those who have joined this discussion (not all, but many) seem to think that I need convincing about the nature of faith, when that is not what my question concerns at all.

I've asked this question over and over, and always learn from the ensuing discussion. I never do get an answer, though, for there always seems to be an assumption on my listener's part that I have an agenda in asking my question, and it is the listener's concern with my supposed agenda that quickly becomes the focus of the discussion.

Save for you, Francis, who have understood my point. But I'd wager (if I were a wagering fellow) that you don't have an answer either, as to why people persist in this curious practice of defending the unreasonableness of blind faith.

Good to meet you, if only via electrons.

cheers,

chron

 

[cyberpi]

And when those people say, "Don't ask us for reasons; just believe," what then?

I'd ask you how many reasons you'd expect to have to give someone like me in order for me to trust you.

Granted: faith is in people, not facts.

Suppose the fact I'm questioning is whether or not God exists. Wouldn't having a conversation with him pre-suppose that I accept that he exists?

How then to examine the question?

By conversing with those who claim to have a personal relationship with him.

I claim to have a personal relationship, and you can examine the question, but you won't find the answer with me. No amount of information should convince you. You need to seek him.

Yes, I see your concern that if you are missing some allegedly paramount piece of information that you will be misguided and driven in the wrong direction. Relax... the world is not like that. You are placing value on information. Yes, I know, most adherents of religion do. If a child does something wrong, are they not innocent if they don't know?

Again, the purpose of this thread is to explore why it is generally accepted that this line of thinking is all right in the domain of religion and not in any other area of life.

Say I'm a scientist. Is it Faith that I believe a fellow scientist who tells me he performed an experiment and came up with some results? Is it Faith that I believe a professor who tells me that someone long ago performed an experiment and came up with some results? Is it Faith that I believe the professor, but that I repeat the experiment myself? Is it Faith that I don't believe the professor, but that I do NOT repeat the experiment myself? Now, surely you are not going to tell me that science is a religion... are you?

Please don't assume my questions are rhetorical... I'm hopeful you will answer.

 

[cyberpi]

It is frustrating to me that those who have joined this discussion (not all, but many) seem to think that I need convincing about the nature of faith, when that is not what my question concerns at all.

Oops, I misread your statements... you were angry with my words. I misread the question as, "Why is faith different?" I apologize for providing explanation from my viewpoint.

 

[chron]

I'd ask you how many reasons you'd expect to have to give someone like me in order for me to trust you.

Just one good, solid one, one that makes sense in a common-sense way.

You need to seek him.

How, exactly, is that done? In the book of Hebrews there is a verse that says: "He who would please God must believe that he is."

My evangelical upbringing would answer my question this way:

You seek God by being open to him, by listening to the still, small voice within you. That is God talking to you, telling you to trust him.

But how do I know that isn't my culture and societal upbringing talking?

Think of Socrates' shadows on the cave wall, and the one who is unchained and taken out into the light. When he returns to the cave, those still in chains have trouble believing him precisely because he has no proof -- no proof that they are willing to accept, which would be for him to unshackle them and take them out of the cave. They have to be willing to take that journey, make that effort.

No, I am not arguing against myself here; rather, I am saying that all of religion, as I see it, comes back to the cave making claims, but unable to unshackle and take into the light those who sit there. Religion simply makes claims and says, "don't question the claim that there is another reality out there; take it on faith."

If a child does something wrong, are they not innocent if they don't know?

A five-year-old who accidentally fires a gun and kills another child may not be held accountable for her actions as would an adult; but the act is still wrong. Its wrongness does not depend on whether or not the child realizes the act is wrong.

Say I'm a scientist. Is it Faith that I believe a fellow scientist who tells me he performed an experiment and came up with some results?

Yes, faith in the sense that you accept it because you trust him, i.e., you find him reliable, probably because of reputation (i.e., accepting on faith what others have said about him) or because of personal experience.

This is commonplace and happens a multitude of times every day for each of us.

Why is it commonplace?

Because the information (in this case, the experiment and results) is verifiable.

I

s it Faith that I believe a professor who tells me that someone long ago performed an experiment and came up with some results?

Yes, in the commonplace sense given above.

Is it Faith that I believe the professor, but that I repeat the experiment myself?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Whether you trust the scientist may or may not have anything to do with the fact that you choose to repeat the experiment.

Is it Faith that I don't believe the professor, but that I do NOT repeat the experiment myself?

Yes, in the commonplace sense given above.

Now, surely you are not going to tell me that science is a religion... are you?

Commonplace faith, as I am trying to define it here, involves facts and information that is verifiable. Reliable historians will not state as fact what cannot be verified.

Science as religion? Well, some say that science demands unswerving faith in the scientific principle, and in that sense, is a religion. But the scientific principle is only approximately four hundred years old.

It is entirely possible that, two hundred years from now, people will look back on the twenty-first century and shake their heads at our simpleminded outlook on the nature of reality, both physical and spiritual, saying things like, "Can you believe that they put all that faith in the scientific principle? Even a child knows that's been superseded by something much better long ago."

Is that incomprehensible?

No, not to me.

The beauty of science is that one of its most important tenets is that everything is questionable.

 

[chron]

Oops, I misread your statements... you were angry with my words. I misread the question as, "Why is faith different?" I apologize for providing explanation from my viewpoint.

Not angry with your words at all.

And never apologize for your viewpoint, cyberpi, unless, of course, you believe that your viewpoint is wrong and needs to be corrected.

 

[Paladin]

Perhaps, perhaps. The thing for me is, while I certainly come down on the side of rational thought, there is something of the mystic in me. A paradox, to be sure. I cannot put my finger on it, but there is something beyond my five senses, something I sense dimly through a sort of sixth sense, but I cannot say what it is.

Is this a "reality" that springs only from my own mind, or my cultural upbringing, or a combination of the two (plus who knows what else)?

Excellent! Brilliant! This is exactly what I'm steering toward. Inquiry without restraint and in addition it seems you are aware of how the mind is conditioned, this should serve you well in your pursuits. Let no one tell you what reality is but join in fellowship with those who cannot say either. Ponder and inquire together but put no head above your own.

 

[seattlegal]

Granted: faith is in people, not facts.

Suppose the fact I'm questioning is whether or not God exists. Wouldn't having a conversation with him pre-suppose that I accept that he exists?

How then to examine the question?

By conversing with those who claim to have a personal relationship with him.

And when those people say, "Don't ask us for reasons; just believe," what then?

Again, the purpose of this thread is to explore why it is generally accepted that this line of thinking is all right in the domain of religion and not in any other area of life.

I'm not challenging anyone's beliefs; only the unwillingness to give reasons for those beliefs.

Faith part:

1 John 4:16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.​

Reason part:

This is one of the miracles of love: It gives a power of seeing through its own enchantments and yet not being disenchanted.
C. S. Lewis​

...which strengthens faith in love...and God (love) grows

 

[cyberpi]

Just one good, solid one, one that makes sense in a common-sense way.

Sweet... I'd love to have it so that I can trust you. What is it?

How, exactly, is that done? In the book of Hebrews there is a verse that says: "He who would please God must believe that he is."

Good question. My answer for you is: like a scientific experiment.

But how do I know that isn't my culture and societal upbringing talking?

Sounds like you need to get to know yourself a little better.

They have to be willing to take that journey, make that effort.

Without really knowing where they are going? Good point.

Religion simply makes claims and says, "don't question the claim that there is another reality out there; take it on faith."

It does? Shame on religion.

Its wrongness does not depend on whether or not the child realizes the act is wrong.

Well yes but isn't there a difference between an accident and something intentional?

Yes, faith in the sense that you accept it because you trust him, i.e., you find him reliable, probably because of reputation (i.e., accepting on faith what others have said about him) or because of personal experience.

Excellent, so it is with God then. Reputation and personal experience.

Because the information (in this case, the experiment and results) is verifiable.

I tell you God is verifiable. I'll even tell you the details of my experiments and you can repeat them if you wish... or not.

The beauty of science is that one of its most important tenets is that everything is questionable.

I find that God is questionable too... you can ask him questions and I'm confident you'll receive the answers just as you do with science. Like an experiment though, there may be some required steps to getting your proof.

 

[Saltmeister]

Example, please? If there is historical evidence of God's existence, please share it.

It's more like there was evidence that a group of people believed they had a relationship with God, which was, quite possibly true. It's our job, if we're adherents of a particular faith to speculate and contemplate whether or not that was true.

Coming back to my original question, which has yet to be answered, why is, in the mind of some, faith not a matter to be questioned? Exempt from the strictures of logical thought?

Not to be questioned? Oh yeah it must be questioned . . . for sure. It's just that sooner or later one has to come to a decision. When the situation changes, or when new information is presented, one must then re-evaluate one's choices. Maybe it's because they haven't thought about it, and don't understand it as much as you and me.

Oooh, asking the wrong person.... I am sure there are many on here that may entertain you on that one, but not I...

lol. I'd certainly like to toy with the idea. Sounds like rock 'n roll and fun to me.

It is frustrating to me that those who have joined this discussion (not all, but many) seem to think that I need convincing about the nature of faith, when that is not what my question concerns at all.

I've asked this question over and over, and always learn from the ensuing discussion. I never do get an answer, though, for there always seems to be an assumption on my listener's part that I have an agenda in asking my question, and it is the listener's concern with my supposed agenda that quickly becomes the focus of the discussion.

We all have an agenda. Each and every one of us. Just keep poking and prodding us until you get something meaningful out of us. We'll come around eventually.

What I would say in response to what I believe is your question (and the way I believe I must answer), is that I would think that the "ask no questions" attitude has to do with people not having properly thought out what it is to have faith. I believe it is where they conform and do what others do so that they won't feel "left out" of the faith. They believe it's the only way of belonging to the group.

I would say that the issues concerning faith is about "what I can do" and "what I can't do." Faith is about what we can do in response to what we can't do. I think the mistake is that some believe (ie. extreme fundamentalists) that the same concepts apply to everyone, rather than letting each individual decide his/her "can do's" and "can't do's." They don't make faith something personal, but something impersonal, something they haven't really reconciled to their own personality, personal history and life story. Instead, they make it something they use to convince themselves that they belong to the rest of the group.

So . . . my thinking is that there are right and wrong ways to approach "faith" but what we feel is still "faith." It's just that it's "bad faith."

What I hope will answer the question:

I believe those who have the "ask no questions" attitude often do it for political reasons (ie. to impress and please other adherents so that they will be accepted). I hope this answers your question of why I think some see faith as a matter that should not be questioned.

 

[Snoopy]

Snoopy, you say:...


chron

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr….actually that wasn’t the point I was trying (and clearly failing!) to make. What I meant was, are reason or faith the only criteria applied to different fields of human activity, my example being one of the arts. E.g. my particular preference for Artist X, whom you may disdain, has little if nothing to do with reason or faith. (If you doubt this, you just need to see my music collection!)



...and mine's an espresso!


s.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I, too, have no evidence other than circumstantial, and yet I believe.

It is frustrating to me that those who have joined this discussion (not all, but many) seem to think that I need convincing about the nature of faith, when that is not what my question concerns at all.

I've asked this question over and over, and always learn from the ensuing discussion. I never do get an answer, though, for there always seems to be an assumption on my listener's part that I have an agenda in asking my question, and it is the listener's concern with my supposed agenda that quickly becomes the focus of the discussion.

I get it! You're asking rhetorically if rational criticism of God is incompatible with faith. Of course not! It's easier to stay blissfully ignorant though. Be careful or you'll wind up like Paladin and me. We don't know anything.

Chris

 

[Paladin]

I get it! You're asking rhetorically if rational criticism of God is incompatible with faith. Of course not! It's easier to stay blissfully ignorant though. Be careful or you'll wind up like Paladin and me. We don't know anything.

Chris

Yeah, just ask my wife

 

[Bruce Michael]

Thank you, Bruce. Very poetic, but it doesn't, unfortunately, help me at all in my quest to resolve the need of evangelicals to insist that I accept some things without questioning.

~ ~ ~

I'm a tad frustrated, because I posted a rather long response to the first half dozen respondents to this thread, but I believe that it hasn't shown up yet because I quoted various links from other posts and additional websites, and I've discovered that new members aren't allowed to do that. I understand that a moderator will need to approve my post before it shows up, so please be patient. I have responded; perhaps on Monday my additional thoughts and comments will be here.

All best,

chron

Hello Chron,
Never stop questioning- question and question again. To quest is to question.

Any imposition on a man or woman is a disgrace. Good judgments refer inwardly, only.

There was a time in the past when it was OK to present truths like that but now everyone must be free to decide for themselves. For a start, you may end up backing the wrong horse.

Faith is all important to any task attempted. Some would have it, that faith is of its own an indication as to the individual holding no real knowledge, and therefore the faith itself has no real basis in reality. But it is quite otherwise. For in order to perceive any given reality, one must have the key: the key being the faith, in the first instance. Faith is when the soul of man is telling him of what it knows, that the man may discover it for himself. That the truth might unfold before him and as a total being he may witness and behold this reality that the soul whispers, in hope of discovering.

-the Elder Brothers


Kind Regards,
Br.Bruce

 

[17th Angel]

This is typical of those who purport to "know of" evidence for God's existence, 17th Angel. And it is also typical that said evidence is never forthcoming. If there were evidence for God's existence, wouldn't it be shouted from rooftops?

Look around you, there are certain religions that in a way do shout it from the roof tops.

The Wizard of Oz analogy is stretched too thin here. In plain language: I want to know that what I'm asked to believe is trustworthy. "Because my holy book says so" is not a good enough reason for me.

lol, then don't enter religion as to a certain extent you'll have to have that sort of approach...

When you ask me to believe, and I say, "Why?" -- if your response is "just because" or a variation of that, then I immediately have less reason to believe you.

It depends on the religion and the question as I said there is reason behind some faith but you are being way too freaking varied... Give a topic or situation where there is faith, but you believe that it is just faith that is involved?

I do have respect for the faith of others. That is why I'm asking my question. In order to have an honest conversation with you, I need to know that you won't hide behind "because I said so," or "that's not a topic I'll discuss."

I won't hide behind anything, I don't believe in gods lol...... But you have to give a situation... Then you can look into the research study of to why people have faith in something not just have such a wide open question ;\

 

[Thomas]

Hi Chron —

If Chris has got it right ...

You're asking rhetorically if rational criticism of God is incompatible with faith.

... then the answer is no ... try reading some of St Theresa.

But then counter this with the Book of Job ... because we have to be careful to ensure that our 'rational criticism' is in fact just our assumption that God ought to do things the way we'd do them ... in short, we know better than God.

Thomas

 

[Francis king]

a reason why ppl believe without evidence..?

I suppose they are many, and very few actually about "it"...

some examples I would come up with might be.... they do it to feel part of something, they do it because they have been programmed by society/state/culture to accept whatever the superiors tell them, they do it because they are programmed to do as they are told without questioning things too much, because ppl pay lipservice to doctrines but don't really believe them, and they pay lipservice because there is some gain for them, they do it becuase they don't want to admit to others that they have doubts, issues, etc, which would make them outsiders, rather than part of the in-group, but... I don't suppose there is one answer really, except... ignorance?

which of course, forces me to say- bah! its like the blind leading the blind round ere!