Let's discuss this thing called "FAITH!"

Frank - Just sharing my opinion here, but I think it approaches either disingenuousness or irrationality to make the statements you are making and then wonder why people consider them inflamatory. You are not asking a question, you are stating that faith is irrational, then asking people to agree or disagree but not be offended if they happen to have faith and you've labelled their faith as irrational. See my point?

I do think there is a valid question to be asked here, but in all honesty I think you've quite completely failed to ask it. It's as though you've said you think faith is stupid, and challenged people to agree or be labelled idiots who defend the notion of faith.

Maybe you should consider asking a less loaded "question", such as "What does 'faith' mean to you?" Then offer your own answer and allow others to offer theirs.

faith
Trespasserswill, I appreciate your position, but is it not also possible that one could read Frank's question as an invitation for the faithful to base their faith on something outside of, or beyond, knowledge, which is the goal of science but not the goal of religion? I think "faith" is a poor substitute for science when it comes to properties of the physical world. But as I use the term, it refers to an issue that science is not built to address. What is the ATTITUDE I should have toward the Great Unknown (and perhaps Unknowable)? How should I FEEL about my inevitable death and, perhaps, suffering, and that of my loved ones? This can apply to a host of existential questions which are not amenable to scientific analysis, yet they are of crucial importance for us.

COMMENT:

I'm not at all sure why you are of that opinion, T, but I disagree completely.

I think I stated my question in a reasonable and courteous way -- and while doing so, I expressed my reasons for why I feel as I do.

Here is what I said:

"It seems to me that "faith" is little more than blind acceptance -- and that "faith" is a much over-rated human enterprise.

Essentially, expressing a "belief" (a guess or estimation about the unknown) and then insisting that belief is right to the exclusion of any other possibilities (having faith in it) is more a vice than a virtue -- more a failing than an asset.

I understand this may seem like an insult, but it is not intended that way. It is an observation -- and I'd really like to see it discussed thoroughly.

Comments?"
***

That is exactly what I feel.

Now, are you suggesting that I should lie; that I should pretend that I think faith is something more than blind acceptance?

I am sure it is disturbing for anyone who cherishes "faith" to read those words -- but to be honest, I think those words may put faith in a more reasonable light than some of the nonsense that attaches to it among theists - or for that matter, atheists.

If you, T, see a difference between "I have faith that there are no gods" and "I am blindly accepting that there are no gods" or "I have faith that there is a God" and "I am blindly accepting that there is a God"-- please explain what the difference is.

With all the respect in the world, I express myself quite well, thank you, and I do not really need advice in that department.

I would very much like your take on the question -- rather than your guesses about my motives for asking it.

Frank - I'm not claiming that you want to insult people, just that I think you may do so when you write that you see faith as a "failing". For the most part, when I want to know what other people think about X, I start out by keeping what I think to myself. (Check a few of the topics I've started.)

Anyhow, I was just offering my opinion. You're free to agree or not. No offense express or implied. :wink:

faith
Sorry to turn this dialog into a trialog, but I do insist that "faith" is a failing when applied to questions answerable by science, such as the age of the world or the emergence of biological types, but that it is appropriate when dealing with questions that must be answered for psycho-spiritual reasons but inherently unanswerable by scientific methodology. Humanity has dealt with the unknown by means other than science for eons. Knowledge was not born with science. Science is just the most effective way to answer certain kinds of questions, not the only way to do so. And perhaps "spiritual intuition" is the only method for dealing with other kinds of questions.

Re: faith

I'm glad you decided to chime in. You bring up an excellent idea; that perhaps faith is an "asset" in some instances but not (and so, a "failing") when applied in others.

JLN, we did not get into a good cross dicussion on that "Invalid Faith" that I so liked before. I am very much a yin and yang type of person, and your argument in this regard was very insightful - thanks!

I appreciate all the constuctive criticism, but I really do want a more detailed contribution on the question of the difference between having "faith" in an unknown -- and simply "blindly accepting" the unknown. Especially in the context of religion.

Once again, I am not intending to be insulting -- I am merely stating an observation that I think is self-evident.

Consider this: Suppose "accepting something on faith" is identical to "blindly accepting it" -- and the difference in wording is a function of trying to keep that fact hidden because it causes discomfort.

Wouldn't it be worthwhile to bring that information out into the open?

Of course, some of you may note significant differences between "blindly accepting an unknown" and "accepting the unknown on faith."

I just haven't heard any compelling examples thus far.

Tresspasser, how about you?

When Max jumps from a chair in the hopes of me catching him, he does so, not "blindly" but rather on the basis of a "faith" which has been born out from previous jumps and subsequent catches.

When one expresses a faith based upon and within God, one does so not blindly, but rather based upon positive previous experiences of an exhibition of that faith.

I know I am speaking Farsi to those who do not possess a faith or belief in God, but that is the basis of my faith.

The thing I love about this thread is that everyone is right - thanks Max!!!

Maxsdadeo- First, let me say that I respect the RIGHT of a person to have faith in a God, even if I don't happen to agree with the premise.

I do have a problem with your example. Max has learned from experience that if he jumps from a chair, you will catch him. That is not faith. It is a conclusion based on prior knowledge, that if in the past you have caught him, the probability is that you will do so in the future.

Hi AZ Bird (in FLA!), Max don't know nothin' 'bout no probability, but you are correct, he does have positive prior experiences.

That is my point, those who espouse and live a faith have these same positive prior experiences.

Can we prove that they will occur again? No, we can't.

Why do we continue?

Faith.

faith
Yes, Maxsdadeo is right in describing Max's "faith" (which can be read as "confidence" or "belief") that he will be caught by him as a "valid faith" because Max bases his confidence on daddy's past reliability. But when Maxsdadeo uses this case as empirical support for the notion of faith in a God with whom no-one has ever had an experience, I call this an "invalid faith." It is--I agree with Frank here--a "blind" faith, or at least a very myopic one. But this does not condemn people who choose to practice this faith, so long as they do not condemn those who do not.

JL, you miss my point, we HAVE had an experience, just because you have not does not negate the fact that I and others who similarly hold a faith have.

Attempts to Prove this to you are futile.

But the real fact that they have occurred and will continue to occur is the driving force of my faith.
There is a reason it is referred to as the "Peace which passes all human understanding"... and with that I gotta go.... lenten service dontchaknow...

maxsdadeo- I come from the "whatever rows your boat" school of philosophy. If your faith gives you joy and meaning in life, so be it.

My problem is concerned with those folks who would use their faith to surpress the rights of other people- the people who believe that "it's my way, or the highway". I am seeing more of this in both the US and the rest of the world. If people can't learn to respect the rights of others to believe what they wish, no one is safe, and peace is just an illusion!

faith
And there's the impasse, Maxsdadeo: you say you do have evidence based on experience justifying your faith in God, but you can't share it with an unbeliever. How in the world, then, do Christians hope to convert atheists? You would get nowhere with THAT position in the thread called "Can one PROVE the non-existence of God?"

faith
And that's the bottom line, Phoenix.

I will let you in on a little secret.
Christians don't convert or hope to convert anyone.

God does that.

But only when you ask him to.

That is free will.

I have seen it happen.

I think it will continue.

Why?

Faith.

maxsdadeo; i would doubt very if you have ever had an atheist rapping at your door with the intent of converting you, we would like the same respect.

Frank - I don't think anyone is denying that faith is an act of blind acceptance. I think the difference is that to the believer, the act of blind acceptance in-and-of itself has value. It is like the trust a husband gives his wife. Without seeing her every moment of every day he trusts that she is behaving in a way that shows him respect and of which he would approve and be proud. He trusts this blindly. That trust is something he gives to her, as faith is something a believer gives to God.

That faith is blind does not make it bad, it just makes it faith.