What is faith? Really?

[Hermit]

Where's the circularity?

We accept its truth based upon that trust in God, as He is demonstrated to be goodness itself (a demonstration found in natural theology) and our trust in the documents.

As for "a demonstration found in natural theology", perleeeeeease. I look at nature, and I reason. Oh, look, a beautiful butterfly. Therefore God. That's not even aspiring to circularity. It's short-circuiting all thought processes.

No one reasons like that at all. :/

You don't? Go on, then. Tell us how you reason about trusting god, trusting the documents about god and please outline your concept of natural theology. I am genuinely curious.

[SpeedOfSound]

I have a slight twist on faith. I have faith. Faith that it's all going to be alright no matter what particular things is going on or going to happen. I see faith as the exact opposite of belief. Letting go as opposed to clinging on. Belief in various religious doctrines is not faith but simulates faith or acts as a vehicle to faith by it's vagueness. If you can become convinced of something with ridiculous vague promises about a good turnout in the end then for the duration of your life you can simulate faith. I believe that within twenty or thirty years or sooner I will fizz out of existence, for the most part. I may have the wonderful experience of fertilizing a weeping willow tree if I get my way. But I will be GONE. I have great faith that this will not be unpleasant at all. I really don't give a fuck about living forever anyway. I look forward to complete annihilation. So I guess that's my kind of heaven. In fact if I were to wake up in some kind of afterlife it would really piss me off.

I trust life. I trust that with faith I can handle anything it throws my way. Or not. Either way it's all okay and that is faith. Belief is bullshit. Clinging. Making deals. Trying to buy insurance for your very existence. All a bit labored and frantic if you ask me.

Though, even I would have my great faith challenged while falling 80 stories to my death but I have faith that there would even be something cool about that.

[mistermack]

No one reasons like that at all. :/

You seem to be pretty light on any kind of reasoning. A few airey fairey phrases doesn't constitute argument, just a smokescreen.
Your only example of faith being like a child trusting it's mother is clearly flawed. You seem to be HINTING that there is something out there that convinces you that the bible and the god story can be trusted, but you have shown no sign of sharing it.

I'm personally not impressed by any mysterious bullshit. If people are vague and mysterious, they are usually trying to work a con. Very Christlike, actually.

[JimC]

It seems to me that religious faith has similarities to being addicted to something. It produces a warm inner glow (a little like gin, I suppose), one is use to it and comfortable with it. One invents a cloud of rationalisations around the addiction, as after the fact justifications for the emotional high...

[Jason]

For Christians, "faith" is defined in your book. Go read it. Something about believing in invisible unicorns or whatever that dude that wrote Revelations saw on his acid trip.

Faith is like trust, but instead of being based on a reliable history it's based in whole or in part on some dubious reasoning.

Example:

I trust my son with my car because he's a responsible kid and has borrowed it dozens of times without incident.

I have faith my son will be careful with my car because he's family and I believe in him.

[Seth]

I believe that's what Christians call a "leap of faith."

You "believe"?
You don't know, you have no evidence to support this, you just believe?

...so it's an Act of Faith on your part?

Actually it's a rhetorical wisecrack because I know that's what Christians call it.

[Seth]

For Christians, "faith" is defined in your book. Go read it. Something about believing in invisible unicorns or whatever that dude that wrote Revelations saw on his acid trip.

Faith is like trust, but instead of being based on a reliable history it's based in whole or in part on some dubious reasoning.

Example:

I trust my son with my car because he's a responsible kid and has borrowed it dozens of times without incident.

I have faith my son will be careful with my car because he's family and I believe in him.

Both are statements of faith and belief because both are predictions of the future based on knowledge of the past.

The fact that your son is family and you believe in him is not based on zero experience upon which you base that belief.

Belief in God is, or may be based on the personal experiences of the individual expressing that belief. Whatever the objective scientific truth, I have enough experience with the Christian religious faith to understand that these conclusions are not based on pure speculation absent any experiential manifestations of the truth of the claims made by others. Whatever the mechanism, whether miraculous or merely mass psychosis, people do actually experience things they cannot explain as a part of worship and prayer, and strange things do happen that people attribute to divine influence or action.

You wrongly think that somebody says to somebody else "God exists, pray to him" and this forms belief in the proposition. That's not how it works at all. And you are probably incapable of understanding how it does work because of your atheistic skepticism, which does one of two things: it either blocks you from experiencing the physical, mental or emotional phenomena associated with religious worship because you refuse to take that "leap of faith" to suspend your active disbelief, or your skepticism and derision of the very idea of God is a disabling criteria to God and therefor he is (in his infinite wisdom) blocking you from receiving the blessings of the Holy Spirit.

The reason that I understand this is because at one stage of my life I experienced phenomena that I could not explain as a part of religious worship which shook my foundation in rationality and reality. I still cannot adequately explain the source of those phenomena, but I have not gathered sufficient corroborative or contrary evidence so far that would allow me to make a rational and logical conclusion on the source of those phenomena, and therefore I am declining to draw a conclusion either for or against the proposition that the phenomena were a product of a deity. I eschew the "Science Fallacy" which states that all things can be explained objectively by science and therefore anything that cannot be scientifically explained and verified is "supernatural" and a figment of human imagination.

That's why I do not associate with the label "atheist," am not a member of the Atheist religion, because it is my experience that the former is irrational and illogical and the latter are generally bigoted and arrogant in their own religious beliefs. I do not presume to judge the claims of others with respect to their experiences with religion. Nor am I an agnostic because I believe that it is in fact possible to know the truth about the existence or non existence of God (or gods). That will occur when an individual's knowledge of the universe is perfected. Of course this is unlikely to occur in my or your lifetimes, but reason requires me to withhold judgment, and particularly to withhold derision and dismissal of the claims of others to things I have not experienced but they say they have. Unless such beliefs lead the person to commit acts against others that are not peaceable, it is not within my rational or moral authority to disrespect their beliefs or their practices. It is my moral and ethical duty to tolerate their religious expressions and practices that are peaceable, just as it is to tolerate all expressions and practices that are peaceable, religious or otherwise.

And that's the essence of Tolerism™.

[Seth]

It seems to me that religious faith has similarities to being addicted to something. It produces a warm inner glow (a little like gin, I suppose), one is use to it and comfortable with it. One invents a cloud of rationalisations around the addiction, as after the fact justifications for the emotional high...

And that would be wrong how, exactly? If religious faith gives people peace and comfort and a warm inner glow, why should anyone else deride them for their faith, provided they manifest it peaceably?

My philosophy is that if it gets you through the day without hurting anyone else, it's fine by me.

[Jason]

For Christians, "faith" is defined in your book. Go read it. Something about believing in invisible unicorns or whatever that dude that wrote Revelations saw on his acid trip.

Faith is like trust, but instead of being based on a reliable history it's based in whole or in part on some dubious reasoning.

Example:

I trust my son with my car because he's a responsible kid and has borrowed it dozens of times without incident.

I have faith my son will be careful with my car because he's family and I believe in him.

Both are statements of faith and belief because both are predictions of the future based on knowledge of the past.

False on all counts. Faith is not a prediction of the future based on knowledge of the past and in the second case there exists no past experience.

[JimC]

It seems to me that religious faith has similarities to being addicted to something. It produces a warm inner glow (a little like gin, I suppose), one is use to it and comfortable with it. One invents a cloud of rationalisations around the addiction, as after the fact justifications for the emotional high...

And that would be wrong how, exactly? If religious faith gives people peace and comfort and a warm inner glow, why should anyone else deride them for their faith, provided they manifest it peaceably?

My philosophy is that if it gets you through the day without hurting anyone else, it's fine by me.

If it leads to no unpleasant actions towards others (which faith often does), then it can be tolerated, sure...

However, it needs to be understood that it usually involves accepting a model of how the universe works that is unsupported by evidence, i.e. a god delusion. If this was simply a personal, quirky view, then one can leave them to their comfortable little emotional sheltered workshop...

However, typically, they insist that the view of the universe provided by their faith is the only correct one, and that people with different models (via different faiths, or no faith at all) are not only wrong, but frequently, in danger of eternal damnation.

Most faith people cannot help but spill their delusions onto everyone else, arrogantly assuming universal application without evidence.

[Svartalf]

Because a truly good god would not let bad things happen to the undeserving. Job is proof the Book deity is evil, and reality obviates even the need for scriptural proof.

[Seth]

Because a truly good god would not let bad things happen to the undeserving. Job is proof the Book deity is evil, and reality obviates even the need for scriptural proof.

So what makes you think God is a "truly good god?" Why does a god have to be good at all? An evil god merely gives us a better reason to worship him/her/it, lest we piss it off.

And, who are you to judge God, pray tell? Perhaps God has a plan that involves bad things happening to good people as a necessary condition.

Or not.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

And why is an "insight into the nature of reality" any sort of metric by which God can or should be measured?

As usual, you miss the point by a mile. Believers insist that their faith is enough to tell them their particular deity exists (often while vehemently denying that someone else's faith allows them the same right, of course...)

Having established the equation "I have faith, therefore god", all the other corollaries that flow from this (god created the universe, miracles happen, etc.) are allowed to follow automatically, thus establishing a theocratic view of how the universe works.

Which is, of course, utter and complete bullshit.

Unless their show of faith yields some evidence to them to which you are not privy that makes their claim valid...

You see, it is YOU who is creating the false equation by assuming that faith alone convinces people that their deity exists. Faith may be a necessary precondition to reception of the evidence to create knowledge. That is in fact what the Bible says. Paraphrased, it says "if you have faith I will reveal myself to you."

[Seth]

For Christians, "faith" is defined in your book. Go read it. Something about believing in invisible unicorns or whatever that dude that wrote Revelations saw on his acid trip.

Faith is like trust, but instead of being based on a reliable history it's based in whole or in part on some dubious reasoning.

Example:

I trust my son with my car because he's a responsible kid and has borrowed it dozens of times without incident.

I have faith my son will be careful with my car because he's family and I believe in him.

Both are statements of faith and belief because both are predictions of the future based on knowledge of the past.

False on all counts. Faith is not a prediction of the future based on knowledge of the past and in the second case there exists no past experience.

I didn't say faith is a prediction, I said that your statements are predictions of the future that constitute an expression of faith.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Unless their show of faith yields some evidence to them to which you are not privy that makes their claim valid...

Private evidence is no evidence at all, in the sense that it cannot be judged by others.

I could claim that I have evidence, springing from my secret mind powers, which tell me that rEv is actually an alien from Arcturus IV, here to judge humanity on its many failings...

You are not privy to my special evidence, but, from your statement, you must not disbelieve it...