Religion What is faith?

Tsuyoiko

DON'T PANIC!
Messages
970
Reaction score
85
Points
0
What do you understand by the term 'faith'? It is a term I have difficulty with. I have felt for quite a while that faith was a last resort after all other avenues of investigation have been exhausted, but for others, faith is the guiding principle of their lives.

Here are some definitions:
faith n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

When I use the word 'faith' I usually mean definition 2.

When Einstein spoke about religion, he did not mean what we usually mean by that term. Here is how he defined it:
Einstein-sensei said:
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.
Why does Einstein say 'faith' here?

I believe that logical proof and material evidence are 'better' ways to understand the world than faith. But I'm not sure if that belief rests on logical proof and material evidence, or if it is just something I have faith in - I think that's sort of what Einstein meant. Can we prove that logic and science are 'better' than faith?
 
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen."

I use "faith" rather than "religion" because religion to me connotes an outward set of behaviors, while faith is something more inward.
 
just one of the possibilities

I believe that logical proof and material evidence are 'better' ways to understand the world than faith. But I'm not sure if that belief rests on logical proof and material evidence, or if it is just something I have faith in - I think that's sort of what Einstein meant. Can we prove that logic and science are 'better' than faith?
why should it be 'better' or 'worse'? all in due time and place.
It is not always logic what brings out a discovery. Sometimes it is just a
hunch which no one accepts, 'cause it might contradict current theories and ideas. And in this case scientist better have faith in his own truth and success. How else he will make logic work? :D
 
Void said:
It is not always logic what brings out a discovery. Sometimes it is just a hunch which no one accepts, 'cause it might contradict current theories and ideas.
Can you cite one new theory that wasn't based on logic?

And in this case scientist better have faith in his own truth and success. How else he will make logic work?
I see this kind of attempt to universalize a personal need as a dishonest method of self-assurance. After all, the easiest way to justify a personal weakness is to pretend that everyone else has the same weakness, with no exceptions.
I don't see any reason to torture semantics so much. As Tsuyoiko pointed out, faith is a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".
Faith is the opposite of logical thinking. No, you don't need to have faith on logic, as logic stands by itself, and is supported by its undeniable pratical results. In the same way, you don't need to apply logic to faith; both are independant and complete systems.
 
Although faith is not based on logic, I don't see them as opposites. I also don't view faith as dishonest, weak or easy. It always mystifies me as to why people without faith have to view faith in such a negative way.
 
sabro said:
Although faith is not based on logic, I don't see them as opposites. I also don't view faith as dishonest, weak or easy. It always mystifies me as to why people without faith have to view faith in such a negative way.
They are opposites. If whatever you believed was supported by logic and evidence, then you wouldn't need "faith" anymore-- it would be just a fact.
And I didn't say faith was dishonest; I said it was dishonest to torture semantics in order to pretend everyone thinks the same way as you do.
 
I'm sorry, but you did call it a "dishonest method of self assurance."

Kumo, I doubt that you can understand how patronizing you sound. Faith is no weakness. Nor is it the "easy way to justify a personal weakness." I have no need to pretend that "everyone else has the same weakness" and it is not something needed because I fail to understand some logic or evidence. That is simply not a "fact." It is an opinion you base on your exclusive belief system. Just because someone does not adhere to your belief system is not reason to denigrate their beliefs. Because I have faith it does not make me inferior, ignorant, unintelligent or less than honest.
 
sabro said:
I'm sorry, but you did call it a "dishonest method of self assurance."
Ok, let's test my grammar skills:
"I see this kind of attempt to universalize a personal need as a dishonest method of self-assurance."
The blue part is referring to the red part. Does "attempt to universalize a personal need" equals the word "faith"? No. It was referring to Void's attempt to make it look like it's necessary to have faith on logic.

EDIT: hmmm, now I see why you misunderstood it. The red part was referring to all the quote, not just the word 'faith'.
 
Was it faith or Void's statement that you were refering to? I took it as "faith." It was ambiguous. The rest of the statement is still valid.
 
sabro said:
Was it faith or Void's statement that you were refering to?
Already answered. I'll admit to have called faith a sort of weakness, and my opinion is still the same. You can try to convince me of the contrary of course, but just saying "it's not" won't be enough.

The rest of the statement is still valid.
Is it? I don't remember calling you "inferior, ignorant, unintelligent or less than honest" in any way whatsoever.
 
I don't think I need to convince you. Having no faith, I don't think you would be able to understand.
 
sabro said:
I don't think I need to convince you. Having no faith, I don't think you would be able to understand.
Well, I guess now we are even when it comes to patronizing. :relief:
 
Many people have such opinions on faith--usually caused by bad experiences with organized religion.

It is ironic, because (as Einstien pointed out) an adherance to logic is itself a "faith"--faith in your senses, faith in your ability to understand the evidence, and faith in logic itself.

It is amazing how many people loudly decry "faith" while worshipping at the temple of "logic".

Since I'm about ten seconds away from being accused of that very thing, let me explain... :D

Faith is "belief without proof", but that doesn't mean that belief is wrong. Often faith comes from an intuitive awareness of something you do not consciously realize. For instance:

If you look at the world logically, it is highly improbable that such an intricate and well balanced system could have been created by mere chance.

But before we ever thought about it consciously, our subconscious has already been looking at the sum of our experiences and making deductuons about the nature of reality from them. We don't have all the information, so we are left with a belief that has insufficient proof.

This belief might be that there is an intelligent (or at least self-aware) creator, that for some inexplicable reason the laws of physics "loaded the dice" in favor of order, or perhaps that none of it is actually "real" in the first place--just a result of our perceptions.

In any event, we subconsciously choose whatever "feels" right to us.

You could argue that sceintific beliefs are more accurate because they are based on evidence and logic--but that evidence is based on human perceptions and therefore is unreliable--so in the end science is just another faith.

After all, what proof do we have that "logic" is reliable?

Just another faith--and like most, it vehemently opposes any faiths that contradict it.
 
Kumo, sorry for the sarcasm-- it was funnier in my head then it came off in text...

Reiku, I generally agree with you. I don't think faith and logic are antithetic. I think atheists and scientists underestimate the times when they are filling in the blanks of existence with personal heuretics... and how much the mechanisms of "faith" play out in their daily existence.
 
Yeah, I do that alot myself.

It seems I can recognize certain things consciously, but subconsciously I have only my own experiances to go by--and that paints a very different picture of reality than what I "know" to be true.

As a result, I tend to vaccilate back and forth between my subconscious, experience-based philosophy of: "People are mean, ignorant animals totally at the whim of nature" and my conscious, research-based philosophy of "Reality is a reflection of our beliefs, so technically everybody's right--at least within their own reality"

In the end I suppose it just comes down to quantum physics being a damn hard thing to wrap your brain around, so I tend to forget what I've learned and just go by what I feel instead. :D
 
Reiku said:
...and my conscious, research-based philosophy of "Reality is a reflection of our beliefs, so technically everybody's right--at least within their own reality"
Also known as Relativist Fallacy, which can be disproved by the simple fact that there are people who disagree with it. I'm yet to see any philosopher worth his salt that would agree with what you wrote. Remember that Philosophy and postmodernist bullshit are two very different things.:souka:
 
Actually, it's a simplified explanation of quantum physics--and the numerous lab experiments that confirmed it have yet to be disproved.

Remeber that gravity was postmodernist bullshit at one time, and try to avoid jumping to conclusions about other people's ignorance. It's not a fun mistake to live with, I can assure you.
 
It's not a simplified explanation, Reiku, it has absolutely nothing to do with quantum physics. This is a common myth that some people seem to like because it confirms their postmodernist bullshit theories. You said it yourself that you tend to 'forget' quantum physics. I say you never learned it in the first place.
And gravity theory never commited the relativist fallacy in any way. Some things are indeed relative, but reality is not one of them (again, go clear up your misconceptions about quantum physics).
Here, I'll give you a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy
 
Postmodernism, relativistic fallacies, heureistics, teleologistic, quantum theory, faith, science, inductive, deductive, cogent... reality... all we need is pot smoke and bongo music and I think we could turn out some great poetry.
 
Last edited:
A quickie here before I get back...well, maybe...

At first glance, the line popped up in my head, "...here's another can of worms opening up, is it?" then, when looking at the opening post, thought to myself,"....oh...ok...not really then, huh?" It looked like we'd be discussing the senses that we'd use the word 'faith' in. As I read on, it looks (I could be wrong here, though) like the weather was rapidly changing. I'll run get an umbrella just in case, and come back to see if I can see the sun between the clouds.

...oh, and my fishing pole too.
 

This thread has been viewed 14267 times.

Back
Top