Faith as a way of knowing

[Chinaski]

How important is a knowledge or awareness of the concept of faith to the way we perceive the world? Would we view art in the same way? Do people create things in a different way when motivated by faith? Can faith be a valid method of acquiring knowledge, like mathematics and reasoning?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Knowledge of faith is important if one wants to understand art that has been inspired by delusions of the supernatural. However, actually having faith is something I would steer clear of. Especially when it comes to learning maths!

No matter how hard you sit there believing that your answers are right, 2 + 2 just ain't going to equal 5.

[Chinaski]

Knowledge of faith is important if one wants to understand art that has been inspired by delusions of the supernatural. However, actually having faith is something I would steer clear of. Especially when it comes to learning maths!

No matter how hard you sit there believing that your answers are right, 2 + 2 just ain't going to equal 5.

That's not what I meant by mentioning maths. Mathematics can be used as a method of acquiring knowledge, knowledge being defined as true beliefs. Can faith be a method of acquiring similar knowledge? If not, why not? If so, how so?

[FBM]

How important is a knowledge or awareness of the concept of faith to the way we perceive the world? Would we view art in the same way? Do people create things in a different way when motivated by faith? Can faith be a valid method of acquiring knowledge, like mathematics and reasoning?

I think a certain amount of faith in one's teachers is necessary, or at least helpful, in the early stages of education, whatever the subject. After all, life isn't objective. Ideally, though, when the student learns enough to judge things for himself, faith in the teacher isn't needed any longer and fades away. I know I worked a lot harder in classes taught by teachers I really believed in. IOW, faith should be used as a stepping-stone, not as a crutch. That's the only way I can see how faith, of a sort, might be helpful in acquiring knowledge. Religious faith, however, seems to be counter-productive to deep understanding, because it a) is set up as a permanent requirement, and b) discourages/bans skepticism with regards to the object of faith.

Sorry, I don't know much about art, but there does seem, at least sometimes, to be something relevant to faith going on there, too.

Good topic, btw. What motivated it? Are you thinking of getting a little religion?

[Chinaski]

No, I'm writing a series of pieces on Ways of Knowing, and faith is one of the possibilities, along with math, science, logic, emotion, etc. It's basically a comparative evaluation of each.

[FBM]

No, I'm writing a series of pieces on Ways of Knowing, and faith is one of the possibilities, along with math, science, logic, emotion, etc. It's basically a comparative evaluation of each.

Faith is the Yugo, with respect to Ways of Knowing. Why? Because faith, in its religious extreme, can convince you that you know something that just isn't demonstrable or testable.

[Chinaski]

No, I'm writing a series of pieces on Ways of Knowing, and faith is one of the possibilities, along with math, science, logic, emotion, etc. It's basically a comparative evaluation of each.

Faith is the Yugo, with respect to Ways of Knowing. Why? Because faith, in its religious extreme, can convince you that you know something that just isn't demonstrable or testable.

What about non-extreme faith? My definition of faith is "belief in that for which there is no evidence". According to that definition, faith is not a way of knowing (and this is what I'll be arguing). I'm trying to find some counter-arguments.

[FBM]

No, I'm writing a series of pieces on Ways of Knowing, and faith is one of the possibilities, along with math, science, logic, emotion, etc. It's basically a comparative evaluation of each.

Faith is the Yugo, with respect to Ways of Knowing. Why? Because faith, in its religious extreme, can convince you that you know something that just isn't demonstrable or testable.

What about non-extreme faith? My definition of faith is "belief in that for which there is no evidence". According to that definition, faith is not a way of knowing (and this is what I'll be arguing). I'm trying to find some counter-arguments.

Hmm. The faith in one's teacher(s) I talked about above isn't extreme, and like I said, it's only a temporary stepping-stone.

Well, here's a twist. Years ago, I had such faith in gawd that I wasn't afraid to ask questions and do research on the tough questions. I even got a B.A. in Philosophy with an emphasis in Religion as a prerequisite to Episcopal seminary. I had perfect faith that whatever the question, the answer would be in line with gawd's wyrd. As a result, I eventually asked enough questions to realize that gawd was just another myth.

That's probably not very useful to you, but I'm afraid that I don't have a lot of counter-arguments to the idea that faith is a waste of time.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Sorry, I misinterpreted your meaning in the OP - I thought you were asking if it was possible to learn maths through faith, but you meant learn in general through faith, as opposed to inducing through logic or maths.

I agree mostly with what FBM says about faith in ones teachers. Young children naturally believe what they are told by their elders up to the age of puberty. After that, they equally naturally question everything. So our earliest learning can be described as being built around a core of faith. Certainly, it is not possible to immediately question everything - a core of knowledge is required before one can apply occam's razor to what one is taught.

There is a tipping point in any subject, a point before which one does not have the core knowledge to study on ones own and beyond which one does. Consider reading as a prime example.

You cannot give a young child a dictionary and a library and ask that child to get on with it without first demonstrating the basics, teaching the alphabet, the pronunciation of letters, how letters modify each other, exceptions to the rules, etc. Similarly, the child needs to understand grammar to a degree and know how words flow together in conversation and in descriptive text. This is usually passed on passively through including the child in conversation and by reading aloud to the child. There then comes a point where the child is able to read for themselves and, more importantly, decide for themselves what they want to read.

But I would disagree with FBM in the use of the word faith here. The child does not have to have faith in the teacher, the child needs to trust the teacher. There is a subtle difference, although the two concepts are closely linked. Trust is based on an initial belief that is subject to modification in light of later demonstrations of the truth of what is taught, faith is not so malleable.

The same concept of trust comes into play in latter years when we read things for ourselves. We each assign a greater level of trust to some sources than to others. For example, most people generally trust wikipedia when it comes to easily verifiable facts, knowing that any obvious errors will be quickly spotted and amended. I have a similar level of trust to sites such as the BBC on many subjects, knowing that their levels of scrutiny are high enough to weed out the majority of false claims and spurious 'news' stories. However, when it comes down to more subjective areas - once opinion and interpretation comes into the equation - I take both of these sources with a much larger pinch of salt. (The BBC once told us we would all be wearing silver suits and driving flying cars by the year 2000 - I haven't forgotten that! ) This is what makes trust different from faith. If I had faith in the BBC, I would believe everything on the site without question - I do not.

[FBM]

My definition of faith is "belief in that for which there is no evidence".

Based on this, I'd have to agree with XC with respect to whether or not a young student has 'faith' in his teacher(s). The evidence that his teacher knows what he's about is that, well, he has a job as a teacher, meaning that there are other adult authority-figures who have given him/her the stamp of approval. Strictly speaking, that's not very strong evidence, but for a kid it's enough.

[Chinaski]

What if having faith were necessary to fully understand a certain piece of writing, or art?

[FBM]

What if having faith were necessary to fully understand a certain piece of writing, or art?

Do you mean conventional faith in the artist's skills, or religious faith in the subject of the art piece?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

What if having faith were necessary to fully understand a certain piece of writing, or art?

Examples? Otherwise it's meaningless speculation. I can't think of any case where that would apply.

[Chinaski]

I'm only hypothesizing here, but... Say only religious people could fully understand Bach's music, because without a complete openness to the concept of a supreme divine being, you will never fully understand or appreciate what Bach is trying to convey through is music.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'm only hypothesizing here, but... Say only religious people could fully understand Bach's music, because without a complete openness to the concept of a supreme divine being, you will never fully understand or appreciate what Bach is trying to convey through is music.

Read Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach. You will see that DRH understood Bach far better than most, while coming at his music from a mathematical POV.

Understanding that Bach was religious (or more to the point, that he was employed by church) may help to explain the subject matter of many of his works but it in no way lessens their impact, or makes them incomprehensible to those of us lacking in religious convictions. It is as ridiculous to say that you can't understand the Beatles without being on LSD.

You don't need faith to understand anything. In fact, faith can only ever convince you that you understand, it can never truly provide understanding.