Does everyone have faith in something?

Great Debates
61

Sigh… why does it seem that discussions on faith in general, and Christianity in particular always seem to degenerate into grumpy debates over evolution vis a vis creationism… etc. Neither of which really have much to do with faith, and even if so, only tangentially and completely miss the heart of the idea.

Well, I was tempted to just sit here and lurk this one out… but the following quote by MEBucknet talked my into replying…

Well, being one of those silly, rude Christians who believes in the inerrancy and truth of the Bible I couldn’t resist responding… but first a few disclaimers…

First, I will be relying fairly (very) heavily on the Bible itself. This may seem (or be) tautological to some, but it is the most tangible expression of my faith, and I think it is very difficult, if not impossible, and most likely dangerous, to explain the Christian viewpoint of faith without relying heavily upon it. Those of you who don’t believe in the authority of the Bible, read into this what you will, but I encourage you not to merely dismiss anything merely because it is in the Bible (which you may or may not feel is a bunch of bunk), take what I quote in good faith and judge my thoughts on the merits, and not arbitrarily. But I am a Christian and as such, believe the Bible is the best way to ground how I feel Christian faith works.

Second, and here the quoting begins. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians, 2:1-5, “When I came to you brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with mise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirits power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on Gods power.” In short, I, as Paul does, come to you humbly. I do not profess to know everything nor do I profess, nor expect, to convince you I am right. That is neither my duty nor my job. I am woefully untrained to do that, such work ultimately will be undertaken by God, because as the last line I quoted indicates, the Christian view of faith, laid out by the Bible, is all about an intimate personal faith and connection with God, initiated by you (usually, but sometimes He steps in). It is NOT, merely, about faith in abstract theological precepts nor a mere hope.

And so, kids, I turn now to the book of Job, the story of a faithful man’s tested of faith amid terrible suffering. I will not be able to do justice to the story, nor try to, in the short space here, so I encourage you to read the whole book sometime when you get a chance, if for anything but for the literature and the wonderful quasi-Socratic dialogue.

Anyhow, as it is written in Job, God was challenged by Satan that his faithful follower, Job, was faithful only because he was comfortable. "‘Does Job fear God for nothing?’ Satan replied…“You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.” (Job 1:10-11)

In short, God was challenged that this devout believer was the worst of sinners, and such (nay all) faith was merely a superficial grasp for comfort. God takes up the challenge, and thus we have are story.

To make a long story shorter, Job loses all his comfort and goes through all this nasty suffering. In anguish and desperation, with tested faith, he calls to some friends for encouragement. They, feeling themselves faithful men in their own right, chastise Job. His friend, Eliphaz, tells Job, “Blessed is the man whom God corrects; so do not despice the disciple of the Almighty.” (Job 5:17).

Job, less than encouraged (understandably) by these words, responds, “What stength do I have, that I should still hope? What prospects, that I should be patient? Do I have the strength of stone? Is my flesh bronze? Do I have any power to help myself, now that success has been driven from me?” (Job 6:11-13). Job goes on in the next bit of the conversation to wonder what he has done to deserve his suffering and complains against God. His friends react with shock. They ask him how he can dare question God. They respond.

“Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens – what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave – what can you know?” (Job 11:7-8). They continue with some advice. “Yet if you devote your heart to him and stretch out your hands to him, if you put away the sin that is in your hand and allow no evil to dwell in your tent, then you will lift up your face without shame; you will stand firm and without fear. You will surely forget your trouble, recalling it only as waters gone by. Life will be brighter than noonday and darkness will become like morning. You will be secure, because there is hope.” (Job 11:13-18).

Job, again, doesn’t react to this very well. He cries out, “Your maxims are proverbs of ashes; your defenses are defenses of clay.” (Job 13:12). He continues, in seeming despair, speaking directly to God, “Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. he springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure… Man’s days are determined; you have decreed the number of his months and have set limits he cannot exceed. So look away from him and let him alone, till he has put in his time like a hired man.” (Job 14:1-2; 14:5-6) Then, he again speaks to his friends, the would-be comfortors. “I have heard many things like these; miserable comforters are you all! Will your long-winded speeches never end? What ails you that you keep on arguing? I also could speak like you, if you were in my place; I could make fine speeches against you and shake my head at you.” (Job 16:2-4). Easy for them to say such things, in their comfort, Job is saying.

However, he has not lost his faith in God. He questions Him, but he still retains his faith and trust in Him. This is important. He says, “Oh, that my words were recorded, that they were written on a scroll, that they were inscribed with an iron toolon lead, or engraved in rock forever! I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes – I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!” (Job 19:23-27) However, he later goes on to utter the questions oft uttered by both believers and non-believers on why some wicked men live comfortable lives and good men suffer. In short, why do bad things happen to good people? (Job 21:1-34).

In the end, God eventually speaks directly to Job, much later in the converation (I’ve just covered about half!!) God rebukes Job, He says, “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!” (Job 40:2). Job responds to God’s chastisement with humility and repentence. However, a surprise is afoot for the reader…

When I first read the book of Job, I expected God to be angry at Job for questioning Him and to praise Job’s friends for their seemingly pious speech. Wasn’t I surprised to see the opposite!! It is written in the Epilogue to the book of Job, “After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite [Job’s friend], ‘I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.’” (Job 42:7)

“Huh?”

That was my reaction to this, as may be yours. Luckily, I have a great study Bible, which helped shed some light. I will quote what it says, “Despite Job’s mistakes in word and attitude while he suffered, he is now commended and the counselors are rebuked. Why? Because even in his rage, even when he challenged God, he was determined to speak honestly before him. The counselors, on the other hand, mothed many correct and often beautiful creedal statements, but without living knowledge of the God they claimed to honor. Job spoke to God; they only spoke about God. Even worse, their spiritual arrogance caused them to claim knowledge they did not possess. They presumed to know why Job was suffering.” (Zondervan NIV Study Bible. Barker, ed., p771, emphasis added). In short, Job, by questioning God and bringing his case directly to Him and placing his trust in Him, showed immense faith, despite his incredible trials. His advisors on the other hand, placed their faith on mere theology and flowery speech, and did not feel that intimate connection and personal trust in God that is so important for Christian faith.

That’s pretty much my explanation on Christian faith. But I will continue with a little more substance from the ever important New Testament as well. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians, “The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he connot understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judement: ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?’ (Paul is quoting Isaiah 40:13) But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:10-16).

Seems kinda funny, to have faith we must first accept the Spirit of God so that it can teach us, and create that personal relationship with God… sounds kinda, well, tautological.

It’s not really, basically, you just need to sit down with a Bible, read it, and open your heart to what is written there, without prejudice, and let it lead you to where you are taken. For, of course, as Jesus said, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8). That is the central goal of any witnessing Christian, not to convince you that they are right. Mere words, from mere humans will never do that. The best we can hope for is to prod you into the direction to seek God for yourself, and try to connect with him yourself. Can I describe what such a connection is like, what it is like to be with the Spirit that Paul talks about, what it is like to be taugh by it (as I have in writing this… never having really thought about the subject)? No, I can’t. My personal relationship with God through Jesus and the Spirit, that so strengthens my faith is just that, immensely personal and so awesome that I myself don’t completely understand it. I can only hope to have only a tenuous grasp of such wisdom and love. I can only tell you it is wonderful, and I can only pray that others will be prodded themselves into seeking for themselves instead of settling for the comforts of simple human desires. For when you experience His love you cannot help but love all of your fellow man with all of your heart.

And it is this next lesson, the fundamental teaching of Christianity so often missed by nonbelievers and forgotten by believers is just that: love, not theology or even faith, for if you love God, and allow him to fill you with love, real love, you will experience Him and faith, and all sorts of other good stuff, will result. I’ll close with these beautiful words, written by Paul in 1 Corinthians.

“And now I will show you the most excellent way.”

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prohecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perserveres.”

“Love never fails. But where they are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”

“And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13:1-13).

Please consider these words the next time you decide to question the motives of Christians, or make sweeping generalizations about them.

Oh, and I don’t claim that my analysis is complete, or right, I did this mainly as an intellectual, and spiritual exercise, if you agree, please let me know, if you don’t, that’s ok, too, exercise your free will (if you must be stubborn)! Feel free to email me if you don’t want to post to a public forum. However, I encourage you to keep an open heart and mind in whatever you do in life. Oh, and honestly read the Bible if you get a chance too… (at least give it a try! If for nothing but your personal intellectual edification). Don’t just sit there trying to “prove it wrong” but question why this is so important to many many people, and what is so darned attractive about this text… the text is dripping with good stuff… give it a good wring. I highly recommend the Gospels, of course, and also the Pastoral Letters, especially Romans and 1 Corinthians. :slight_smile:

Sorry for the length, and if I got too preachy (especially that last paragraph, oops!)

Much love,

–M

62

I did, and that’s NOT what you said. You said that pure math must be tested by finding a physical science which uses such math. That’s simply false. Pure math does not require testing through physical science.

That’s a false dichotomy. “Supported belief” still requires faith. The problem is that you’re equating faith with “blind faith” – the kind that requires no evidence. Not all faith is blind faith. Faith can be rooted in evidence to varying degrees, but so long as it has no proof, it remains faith.

63

I have read a Bible withot prejudice, with my heart as open as it gets. I’ve never felt the Spirit, I’ve never felt that God wanted a relationship with me.

There are no valid logical proofs for the Bible to be divinely authored/inspired or inerrant. I don’t believe it to be those things as a result.

64

**

This is precisely what I did. As a Christian, I knew that many people can read their own desires into the Bible, so I tried to approach it with a completely open mind, ready to shed any and all preconceptions about my religion in the face of what the Bible actually says.

**

This is, quite simply, an empty promise. You need to understand that many people love God and open their hearts to him, and nothing happens.

When I read it, I ultimately found my self trying to “prove it right.” I was unable to do so; to me, the falsity of the Bible was so blatantly apparent that it could not be ignored or explained away.

-Ben

65

Can I get an “Amen!”?! :smiley:

66

I think we’re drifting back into collapsing together all the different sorts of “faith” or “confident belief”–“Well, yes, my belief that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the world last Thursday is grounded in faith–but after all, you have faith too, since you believe that objects continue to exist when you aren’t looking at them. So our beliefs are exactly the same!” The definition of “strong” faith I cited defines it as belief “without logical proof or material evidence.” (emphases added). There is, after all, very little that can be “proven” outside of the most formal sense of the word in pure mathematics. (“IF you accept these axioms, THEN such-and-such necessarily follows.”) This is not to say all religious belief reduces to “strong” faith (i.e., belief without evidence, not just belief without “proof”). In fact, thinking about various things I’ve seen posted to the message board, in a number of threads, it has occured to me that “blind faith”, or belief which is explicitly acknowledged to rest on no evidence, may be more associated with theologically liberal believers, not conservative or “fundamentalist” ones. It’s the conservatives who are more likely to go haring off after Noah’s Ark, or talking about moon-dust and the “Empty Tomb”. It’s liberals who seem more likely to just boil it down to “Well, that’s just my personal faith committment”. (There is, however, an argument made by some conservative Protestant Christians, which seems to be that there’s plenty of evidence for the existence of God, but unbelievers more-or-less willfully refuse to see it because of their sinfulness, and that they will only see if they are given “faith” through the power of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God.)

67

andros, for one, has great faith that this thread will not die the death it so richly deserves.

To answer the OP, no–not everyone has a religious faith in something. Because you cannot imagine your live without God, Jenkinsfan, you assume that no one can live without God or a God-surrogate. And you are simply incorrect in that assumption.

68

I have just stumbled into this site today, and have never posted to a board before, but I was attracted to this debate and would like to add my two cents. But now I see that is is quite a treatise - so my apologies…

I have been thinking a lot about faith and its definition in the past year or so. It started with my attempt to read Sartre’s ‘Being and Nothingness’. Having no philosophy training I didn’t get past the first chapter, though I did enjoy the comic book version :). In any case the phrase “in good faith” caught my attention. What does it mean to act in good faith? I started thinking about this question and here’s what I came up with:

Everybody starts developing a world view from the day they are born, and hopefully, (if they are acting in good faith) they continue to develop it through out their whole lives as they incorporate the evidence of their new experiences.

Since everyone has different experiences everyone will have a slightly different world-view. I believe that a person acting ‘in good faith’ will do their best to develop a consistent world view - i.e. one which is consistent with their experience and which is <i>self consistent</i>.

Both the thiestic and atheistic world-views can be self-consistent and so it seems that on this criterion alone both are equally valid and the one you choose will depend on your own experiences.

My understanding of the ‘divine’ is that it is something outside of nature - it is supernatural. In contrast anything which follows the laws of nature, as discovered by science, is ‘natural’ and thus not divine. So anything we can measure and test is natural, and the things we can not test in this way are divine or supernatural - so by definition we can not hope to find evidence for or against any divine entities or forces and if we could they would loose their divinity - that’s why theists are always going on about the importance of ‘faith’.

Since divinity is by definition untestable and immeasurable we must make a ‘leap of faith’ either way. We must choose to believe that there is ‘something more’ or that there isn’t (unless you take the agnostic fence-sitting position which is completely useless as a philospohy).

One must have some ‘working world view’ - a model of the universe that dictates one’s behaviour and response to the outside world. My world view is that we are here by virtue of the fact that there are enough planets that some form of life was bound to spring up eventually and that after I die I will rot in the ground, but hopefully not before I have a had a chance to enjoy my short existence.

I believe that humans are for the most part at the mercy of our DNA, which leads to a fascinating mixture of curiosity intelligence, self-preservation and cooperation. (Though I
used to have a belief in the inherent goodness of people I have had to throw it out; having no absolute definition of the word good.)

I believe that my subjective experience can be the most pleasant by fulfilling my potential for intellectual pursuit, humanitarian action and developing personal relationships.

I take all this on faith and try to act accordingly, giving value to those things which most reasonably should have value within my world view, and acting in accordance with those values.

My working definition of faith I think combines several of the definitions mentioned above - it is a belief in a particular set of axioms and values, but not those dictated to me by any outside authority. They have been developed through my own ‘material experience’ and probably shaped by the bio-chemical structure of my brain, but they cannot be ‘proven’. I am aware enough to realize that the rejection of any and all supernatural forces is just as impossible to support as the belief in something supernatural, though it seems to me more reasonable than the belief in any <i>particular</i> ‘god’.

Just to get in on the name calling for a minute: Any atheists who think their position is more defensible than the general theistic view are deluding themselves, but any creationist who believes that the earth and man sprang full-formed from the mind of god are just as delusional.

My apologies again for the diatribe. Since the highest value within this world view is intellectual honesty (with oneself), I would be interested in any comments people have on this ‘philosophy’.

69

Welcome, bystander. Always good to have more scientists aboard! I have the utmost of respect for anyone who voluntarily subjects herself to grad school.

While I agree that a secular view of the world is inherently subjective, it is nevertheless internally consistent, which cannot be said of most religions. Further, I would argue that science is indeed more defensible than religion, if only inasmuch as replicated results can be corroborated by a very large number of subjective perceptions. Any group of theists will be unable to agree on their perceptions of their God, whereas anyone who wants ot make the observations and crunch the numbers can verify that the sun is the center of the solar system.

IOW, yes science is also subjective, but it’s at least consistently so, and does not change from observer to observer. Unlike God.

70

I did not mean to suggest that science was less defensible than religion, only that the non-existence of god was no more defensible than the existence of god. Many great scientists are also theists, but I am not one of them. I don’t think that faith in the reliabilty of science negates the possibility of god - but it does negate the possibility of an overly interfering god - unless the acts of god are subject to the rules of nature, which isn’t a very satisfying god is it?

For me the non-existence of god seems more plausible and so I act and think in accordance with that world view, recognizing that god maybe, just maybe, is up there shaking his bemused head at my misguided ways.

Perhaps you would call this agnostic, but I would say it is simply a realistic perspective on an atheistic faith that I hold quite passionately.

71

Gotcha.

'Course I confess to having some difficulty with the idea of atheism as faith. Sounds like in your case it’s a lack of faith in the existence of a god, rather than a faith that there is no god.

Or am I misunderstanding again?

72

I have no faith. Therefore, I am an atheist. To say that ‘everyone has faith’ is ignorant and arrogant, just like saying that ‘everyone has blond hair’ or ‘everyone has black eyes’. I do not believe in science. Science is simply a process for weeding out bad theories and finding good ones. I do not believe in reason. Reason is another process, and the axioms it is based on are borne out by experiment. Therefore, there are people without any faith whatsoever, because I am one of them.

73

andros:
Atheist: No faith.
Nihilist: Faith in nothing.
Agnostic: Faith that we cannot know whether a deity exists.
Any questions?

74

I would say that saying ‘everyone has faith’ is more like saying “everyone has eyes” - the colour depends on what allele you get but you have to have some allele - there is no default setting here. Sadly some people truly do not have eyes, and some people truly do not have faith - because they don’t have the strength of conviction to commit themselves fully to one world view.

I have a very strong conviction that there is no god, but I think it is very arrogant to say that that is the default position and only those taking the opposite view require faith.

75

None, and didn’t before. I was merely asking bystander for clarification on her position. Rest assured, I know very well the definitions of atheist and agnostic. Although most agnostics generally consider themselves to be abstaining from faith rather than having “faith that [they] cannot know.”

76

bystander:
If thinking that there is a deity does not require faith, I would like to see proof for a deity’s existence. I have questioned the existence of supernatural beings and have found the evidence for them lacking. I question everything, in fact, and only accept that for which there is evidence. Therefore, I accept nothing without evidence. Therefore, I have no faith. I do not commit myself to one worldview because I am not blind or weak. It takes guts to go against what you have been taught. If you lack that courage, do not condemn those who have it.

77

OK, I’ll bite.

What is the shape of the Earth? On what evidence do you base your belief that it’s an oblate spheroid?

Well duh, you say? But you’re taking other people’s word for it, aintcha?

Ultimately, of course, one has very little chance to verify in person everything that one accepts. I have no reason to believe you exist, Derleth.

But I believe that you do.

78

Dear Derleth,

Did you read my post? I said that believing in any kind of deity requires faith - and so does believing that there is no deity of any kind. If there can be no proof or even evidence, then by (my) definition there can be no proof against, and so taking either position requires a leap of faith.

You say that you do not believe anything without evidence, but do you believe things without proof?

I’m sorry if I devalued your world view - one in which it is impossible to know and therefore one should not pretend to know - it is indeed quite valid if you are satisfied that it is consistent with your experience and that you are acting consistently with it. But then what sort of criteria do you use for decision making processes? If you do not have a model of how the world universe operates how do you react/behave? How do you attach value to anything?

79

As anyone can see by looking at the earth’s shadow on the moon, the earth is shaped like a coin.
Duh. :slight_smile:

How supported belief collapses into faith. I think someone addressed the issue further up…
To take things, like the existence of trees, for example, and use that to support a claim of god’s existence (ie-how else did this stuff get here?) is pretty lousy. I have used some bad logic before, so I’m not commenting on the person who used it for sure, just the logic. See, trees and god have nothing to do with each other as such. The same argument can be used for a house (I’ve read watchtower books! very interesting stuff). We see a house, we assume it was built by humans. We see a universe, so it must have been built by something!
Incidentally, to have supported belief in god on the first mover evidence, like Aquinas, is rather in error, too. Houses are much more hospitable than the universe, and we paltry humans made it. You would think god could do better :smiley: A common sense proof, if you will. I leave disproving this first mover idea as an excersize to the reader. :slight_smile: Not necessary for the post.

Using the bible, as well, to back up God is terrible. Using personal, non-repeatable experience to back up god is even worse. Scientists, for example, can repeat experiments. You don’t even have to believe they’ll work for them to work. To use “evidence” for god, you already have to believe in god as a prerequisite. I hope this is obviously off for everyone. And even if it isn’t, there are people who have believed in god and nothing happened short of everyday life. Are theists trying to tell me they “believed” wrong? C’mon.

Supported evidence can rest on faith if it is interpreted incorrectly. This is why science is an ongoing process. The canals of mars, the “earth on the other side of the sun,” perpetual motion machines…truly, “supported” beliefs are a tricky thing. There was once this crazy bastard who thought the earth revolved around the sun.

The difference between supported belief and faith. When we assume something to be true on some sort of evidence, we can then proceed to use this assumption to create a hypothesis. We then test the hypothesis. If the hypothesis was found to be correct, is is not an act of faith to assume the original assumption was correct. We truly have a supported belief, here. 1) supported by evidence and 2) supported by the fact that believing in it leads to a testable conclusion. The hypothesis was “proved” and the assumption was further supported.
So far as I have seen, the only hypothesis that can be formed from an otherwise ill-formed assumption is, “I think I can make some money of this.” Usually the case, but we find this didn’t support the original assumption unless the original assumption was that people can be duped into believing just about anything.

80

So, semantics. Works for me. :smiley: