Continuing the Discussion on Faith

If subjectivity is particular to a given person it stands to logical reason that it is only that person whom it pertains to that truly benefits from it. I think that's pretty fair to say.

Now lets add a variable into the definition: faith. To define faith yet a fourth time (because apparently the other three definitions weren't even recognized), faith is solely the passionate belief in God.

Therefore, using the same exact logical reasoning as above, it stands to reason that the only person who benefits from faith is the individual who holds it.

If you take my view of subjectivity and faith you will not have to say that loving someone doesn't benefit the person being loved because you will already acknowledge that since love exists with or without faith, love must therefore be entirely separate of faith.

You're using faith and love as if they were the same thing, when really its an equivocation.

But what I'm ultimately saying is we may think we make decisions based on our belief system, but in fact we do not. Why? because we would make those same decisions with or without faith.

Let's say I choose to fight somebody and my rationalization is ultimately based on my faith. That's not the real reason I'm going to fight them. The real reason I'm going to fight them is simply that I truly want to fight somebody. If I wanted to fight someone and I didn't believe in God, I would use something else as my rationalization like love. How I choose to act towards others is not because of my faith or lack of faith. Faith is what I may choose to rationalize my choice to act that way, but truthfully it is not why I ultimately made that choice.

You haven't claimed we are responsible for our faith or our actions. However the basis of your argument is that we make decisions based on our faith. Making that claim makes the implication that we are not always responsible for our actions, but sometimes our beliefs are. I'm sorry but that is a load of poppycock. We are always responsible for our actions.

While you may not have claimed outright "we are not always responsible for our actions" your argument has supported that notion by itself. Maybe it wasn't your intention, but ultimately your argument has supported that claim

Moreover the original definition of which mine is a simplification of has been accepted by scholars, theologians, and philosophers for many years. These are men and women who've studied philosophy significantly more than I, and probably you, have. I think it's fair to say that "not necessarily" doesn't even belong in that sentence.

As far as faith without understanding goes, all faith is without understanding. If faith were not without understanding it would not be faith. The question is not whether or not faith is without understanding, but to what degree is the understanding.

However faith with no degree of understanding is still faith and is not arbitrary. This can easily be shown by the simple fact that many of the people who have faith in God and who also love their neighbor as Jesus taught do not have what you would call "understanding" of their faith. But these people are by and large just good normal everyday people who would love their neighbors as themselves even if they were atheist. Why? Because actions and faith are two entirely separate things.

I don't think it's fair to say at all, especially when your argument is limited to "it stands to logical reason". Subjectivity simply does not demand selfishness.

And as I've pointed out before, we can have faith in something other than God.

Except that your logical reasoning was 'faith is one person's perspective, therefore all faith is selfish'.

Simply because love can exist without faith does not mean that love cannot have anything to do with faith. Again, in the teachings of Jesus, faith and love are hand in hand.

No, I'm not. Again, you lack the ability to comprehend what you read.

Your example is a possibility. That's all. Sure, it's possible we use our faith to justify what we would believe/do with or without that faith. But none of that demands that faith cannot honestly guide people.

We can and do make decisions based on our faith. I do this. Or am I a liar?

Just because faith influences action in no way eliminates the individual's responsibility for that action. Again, we are responsible for our faith, so we are certainly responsible for any decisions we make influenced by our faith.

No, that's simply not the case. Never did I claim we were not responsible for our faith, much less did I claim that faith eliminates our responsibility for our actions.

I'm not familiar with the "original definition" you refer to. However, I would wonder in what context they apply this definition - to monotheisms? Again, I don't know, but I really am not going to be impressed with an appeal to authority when you do not even tell me what these authorities are supporting. However, I am interested to hear this definition, and if you can hold off on the straw men, I'll probably continue reading what you have to say.

"Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual's inwardness and the objective uncertainty."

Kierkegaard

All faith is without understand, but we can have degrees of understanding? Well, if we have some degree of understanding, we are not without understanding, now are we?

If faith includes love for one's neighbor, faith and action, in that particular case, are inseparable. Otherwise, you would never actually love your neighbor, you would only remind yourself that you do.

Further, if the faith is not investigated, the faith is arbitrary. You can get a dictionary if you are still confused.

Honestly, this topic is becoming annoying. Usually, I enjoy these discussion, but when someone constantly attributes to you views that you do not hold or express, the discussion becomes tiresome and absolutely without value. If you, dancinginchanins, want to continue, I am willings, but I'm not going to reply any longer if you persist in erecting straw men.

Your view is that faith influences action, mine is that faith is entirely separate from action and therefore cannot influence it.

I never said subjectivity demands selfishness.

But the problem with that is one individual's faith is not meant to be helpful to others, it's meant to be helpful to the individual that's why faith is subjective.Nothing about an individual's faith in God or any higher power is meant to serve the greater good of his or her surrounding community.

If that were true faith would have no value. The fact that we have faith in God is what always prevents faith from being arbitrary, but the second we hold that we can have faith in something other than God, that's when faith becomes arbitrary. That particular view is very reletivistic and as such diminishes the value of faith single handedly.

No, with the teachings of Jesus faith and getting into Heaven are hand in hand. What's more in line with Jesus' teachings is that love should be present regardless of faith. Jesus never once even gave the suggestion that faith and love go hand in hand. The notion that faith and love are hand in hand is more in line with Islam than it is with Christianity.

I quoted this specifically for later reference just incase you start ranting about how I falsely accuse you of something.

Faith doesn't honestly guide people, people honestly guide themselves. An honest person is an honest person, period. He or she doesn't need faith to justify their honesty and the same goes for dishonesty. Being accountable for ones actions doesn't just mean we should be accountable for our bad decisions, but our good ones as well. Faith may give us spiritual strength on an individual basis when we need it most, certainly it does. But it is not the driving force behind our decisions, we are as individuals. If you chose to help somebody who needed it your faith would have had nothing to do with that, the only thing that would drive a choice like that is your good nature as a person. You would make that same decision with or without your faith.

My honest view is that if one says they make a decision based upon one's faith in reality their faith is their rationalization for making their decision, nothing more.

Thats the fundamental difference between our arguments I've been trying to address all along. Your view is that faith influences action, mine is that faith is entirely separate from action and therefore cannot influence it.

If you think I'm full of it, you'll find it on page 2 of the 8 Characteristics thread. Yes it is applied to monotheisms.

Not necessarily, just because we have some or even a high degree of understanding doesn't mean we have the full degree of understanding. We can truly never have the full degree of understanding when it comes to our faith which means there is always something about our faith we don't understand. Hence all faith is without understanding.

If faith included love for one's neighbor then yes your view is correct, but faith does not include love for ones neighbor, love for ones neighbor is an action entirely separate of faith.

Case in point there are many of those who believe who don't follow the Golden Rule even the slightest but only remind themselves that they do, that's why atheism has been given a good second look recently.

Jesus taught love for one's neighbor, but he never said anything that would indicate faith includes love for ones neighbor. He gave indications though that faith would lead you to Heaven, but not that it's linked to the Golden Rule. Your assumption that they go hand in hand is an assumption you seem to draw simply because Jesus is accepted as a religious figure.

Actually Jesus today is also accepted as a philosophical figure, and when referred to as such that's usually the first teaching that's brought up and it's highly emphasized because other philosophers such as Socrates emphasized that same point; Socrates lived hundreds of years before Jesus. Not only that but if Jesus truly was a carpenter then he knew Greek, because in Jesus' time you couldn't be a carpenter and not know Greek. It is entirely likely he picked that idea up from the Greek during his days in carpentry and thus spread a beautiful, probably since forgotten, ancient idea along with the rest of his teachings. That doesn't magically make it a religious idea overnight just because Jesus contributed to it's spreading, it's solely a humanistic idea that has been embraced by philosophers and religious figures alike over the past 2000 years.

There is no confusion on my part. Perhaps the confusion might be on your side since you're summing up my arguments with words that aren't even attributable to what I actually write. Like selfishness for instance. I never once gave even the indication that all faith is selfish, that's just how you chose to see my argument.

I've never said you made claims that you haven't made. I've explicitly said in plain English that the claims you make give implications that I don't think you intend to give.

As for me lacking comprehension I think you should look to your own shortcomings before you cast stones upon others, which is also something Jesus taught but I guess you missed that lesson.

I don't mind quarreling with you, actually I find it enjoyable because I get the opportunity to really debate this with someone who holds different views than I do. But you begin to discredit yourself when you start firing insults at those who don't share the same view as you.

Why don't you show me how faith can influence action? I figure it only fair since I've been asked to show something fundamental of my view.

Do you want me to describe the process? Or should I suggest you go find someone with a deep faith to study them?

You can take the question as you like, I was being serious. Why, for example, can reason influence our actions and not faith?

Just explain to me how faith can influence action. It's the core basis of your entire argument so obviously an explanation is necessary if it's to be considered.

How are we to understand our faith if we can't even explain how it can influence action?

Okay. As a matter of faith someone might attempt to follow the Golden Rule as best he or she can. Theres an example. As a matter of faith, we might take the Golden Rule into consideration when we chose to act or not to act, and if we are to act, we might take it into consideration in determining the right way to act.

A great many things influence our action, reason, our environment, various desires and biases. Faith should be counted among these influences.

Though, just so we avoid this confusion, we should also remember that our faith has influences, and that faith is just one influence, and then only if we allow it to be an influence. A given decision, regardless of influences, is our own, and we are therefore responsible. If your mother tells you to take out the trash, and you prefer to play your video game, when she yells at you for not doing as you were told, the video game is no excuse, you are responsible for not doing as you were told.