Just how virtuous is faith really?

[OnceConvinced]

This thread is inspired by a question Divine Insight asked recently, questioning just why we should consider faith virtuous.

Theists talk of faith as if being faithful is some kind of great virtue. Something that is so crucial to our well being. Sure, the bible tells us this, but really why is faith so virtuous? Why is it so important to a god?

I especially ask this from a non-theist perspective, why should anyone see faith as virtuous? As something desirable?

[rikuoamero]

Including you.

I addressed this issue here.

can you do to show that what you claim to be the passed on teaching of God (such as no blood transfusion) actually IS the passed on teaching of God?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe the bible to be the word of God (ie that it contains God's communication of his standards and requirements for mankind). If you would like to discuss the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses in further please feel free to post a question in the appropriate forum, I'm sure sooner or later someone interested in discussing this topic with you will choose to speak with you.

Regards,

JW

There would be no point to that discussion. You have already agreed on this thread that anyone posting what they believe about the bible would merely be posting their subjective belief, and not anything actually objectively true. So yes, JWs believe the Bible to be the word of God. They have an interpretation of it, and among those interpretations, is the teaching that blood transfusions are forbidden.
At the end of the day, you can't actually move away from "This is my subjective belief" when trying to convince a non-believer why blood transfusions are a bad idea. You've already agreed that it would just be your own subjective belief.
Subjective beliefs =/= the objectively true command of God.

[OnceConvinced]

As we can see, faith can lead people to do horrendous acts.

So faith has an effect on people's actions. If that is true can it be proven that that effect is always negative. And if it cannot can one reasonably assume that faith can have both a negative and a positive effect on actions.

It could be either negative or positive.

It's all about what one does based on that faith.

Again, so if faith can provide the "basis" for action, why the implied assumption that it cannot move anyone on earth to posititve actions?

I never implied such a thing. Faith CAN move someone to perform positive actions. My point is that the faith itself is not what is virtuous. It's what one does based on faith. One could have wonderful plans about what they're going to do for God and it could be virtuous stuff, but that does not make their faith virtuous. It's the benevolent actions that are virtuous.

Since faith is an internal belief system, we would reasonably take into account the personal testimony of those that do what is commonly considered as "good works" and claim they were motivated by their faith. Based upon what therefore do we conclude that this cannot be so?

They may be motivated by their faith, but if they were to just have faith and then not take any action, what then?

My point is that it's not the faith itself that is virtuous. It's the actions.

What motivates us to do good is not always virtuous. It could be something terrible that happens that motivates us to do good, but desires to do good do not make the man virtuous. You can have all the good intentions in the world, but if you don't take actions, then your faith is worthless.

the bible backs me up quite clearly on this:

James 2:14-27
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, Depart in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

So you can't at all consider faith to be virtuous.

Do you consider yourself in a position to tell people what they "can" or "cannot" do or do you really mean you "should not" as in "I do not, and you should not either"? (as in I'm right and anyone that disagrees with me is wrong).

Fine, let's change "Could" to "should". No problem. Are you trying to side track the point I am making? Note my point is: It's actions that one would say is virtuous. There's nothing virtuous about good intentions if no actions are ever taken. In fact that faith, as the bible quite plainly states, is dead!

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 57 by Clownboat]

How would you differentiate 'hope' and 'faith'? They seem interchangeable to me.

I guess they are somewhat to me as well since I used hope right in my definition of faith.

For me there are 2 definitions of faith:

1) Believing in something with no proof. i.e. to accept something as true without evidence to back it up. I would consider this 'blind faith'.

2) Hope that something is true until proven it's not. i.e. I have some evidence to show that it's been true in the past, but I can't guarantee it will continue to be true in the future. I'm going to have a positive outlook and be confident it will be true, but I don't know 100%.

Part 2 (Hope) is forward looking with a positive outlook. Part1 (Belief with no proof) is in the present as well as forward looking.

In other words I don't hope my glass of water is full right now, I can see that it is. I do hope my glass is full of water next time I'm really thirsty. It might not be, that will be a bummer. It should be since I usually keep it full, but hey, sometimes I get wrapped up responding to messages.

If I were to have blind faith that my glass will be full next time I'm really thirsty and use the first part of my definition, I would be deluding myself. I have no way to predict the future since I have don't have that power. There is no evidence that my glass will definitely be full just because I wish it were so. Likewise there is no point in me having blind faith that your glass is currently full of water. You might not even have a glass or like water.

I have no idea if that helps or we are just having a pleasant conversation and talking in circles. I hope this is helpful. I don't have blind faith that it will be.

This helps, though I don't understand why there is a need to have different kinds of faith... like blind faith.

Faith - Believing without any evidence or reasoning.
Blind Faith - Believing without any evidence or reasoning.

With hope, well hope seems to describe a desire. In this case, a desire for what you have placed your faith in.

If you're with me so far, a Christian or Muslim for example would first have to apply faith to the god concept in order to establish their belief. From there, a 'desire' or a hope that their god concept is true takes over.

I say all this in hopes to clear up what 'faith' is. Inventing all sorts of types of faith only muddies the waters it seems. Either way, I don't see how something that by definition leads to false beliefs can be a virtue, even if the person really, really, really also has hope that what they place their faith in is real.

So again, with my wife, a car or the sun, I don't see how I am applying any 'faith' because I have reasons for believing. It also would seem a bit silly to say something like, I sure 'hope' the sun will appear to come up tomorrow due to the reasons we have for assuming that exactly that will happen. Contrast that with something like the idea that Allah will return one day or that a dead man rose from the dead, the only thing we can due is to apply faith (call it blind or not) and then hope that our faith warranted.

Thanks again for the discussion.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 60 by benchwarmer]

Benchwarmer,

I understand what you are saying about "faith". I see nothing wrong with having faith in something that cannot be disproved. I can have "faith" in a supernatural essence to life just as you can. In fact, if faith=hope then I do have "faith" that life has a supernatural essence and I will continue exist even after my physical body dies. Of course, just because I hope (or have faith) that this will be the case that doesn't mean that this will be the case.

However, putting all of that aside for the moment we can even go further than this and ask why anyone would "hope" or have "faith" that Christianity is true.

What is Christianity asking us to believe?

Well to begin with it's asking us to believe that we have willingly turned against a supposedly benevolent Creator who stands for all that is good, and that we lust after that which is bad.

To begin with we can ask, "Is this even true?" It's certainly not true for me. I haven't willing rejected any all-decent all-good God in favor of lusting after things that are bad.

So why would I want to place my faith or hope in the idea that this accusation is true?

It would seem to me that the only reason I would want to place my faith in this is if I was also convinced that it's necessarily true, AND must be true if there is to be an afterlife.

In my case, I know that it's not true. I don't reject everything that is good and lust after all that is evil. It's simply not true. Therefore if this has to be true for an afterlife to exist, then I guess there must not be an afterlife.

It would seem to me to be extremely strange and weird for me to have faith or hope that I actually reject all that is good and lust after all that is bad, just so there might be an afterlife.

I would be far more ready to accept other possible philosophies, rumors, or fairy tales of an afterlife that don't require me to have faith or hope that I lust after evil and reject all that is good.

In fact, such philosophies actually exist. So if I'm going to place my "faith" or "hope" in a philosophy that promises life after death why not hope that one of those philosophies are true?

In short, if I'm going to have "faith" or "hope" that one of the popular mainstream religions of the world today are true, the very best one for me to "hope" is true would be Buddhism. In Buddhism, my next life after this one will not only exist, but it will be guaranteed to be better for me than this life was.

I might add here quickly that this may not be true for everyone according to Buddhism. But based on the philosophy of Buddhism my next life will most likely be far better than this one.

Placing my "faith" in Christianity seems rather dismal.

To begin with in the very BEST CASE scenario I will be granted eternal life in a paradise, NOT because I deserve it, but simply because I will have been granted GRACE even thought I don't deserve it. I'm not sure if I would want to live for eternity in a paradise where it had been made crystal clear that I don't even deserve to be there.

The WORSE CASE scenario is that I will have somehow not met the criteria for GRACE and so I will instead be cast into an eternal state of horrible anguish and torment for ETERNITY! A far worse situation than I'm currently experiencing to be sure.

And all of this is based on the "faith" and "hope" that I actually deserve to be condemned to eternal torture and that if I am granted GRACE it will only be because I appeased some specific criteria, or (as some Christians actually believe) that God has somehow just happened to like me better than other people and has decided to grant me GRACE on a whim.

It seems to me that if I were going to place my "faith" or "hope" in a religion, Buddhism WINS hands-down. At least in Buddhism I get what I deserve.

In Christianity it appears to be a far less just system where I could be damned for any number of trivial reasons, many of which I may not even be fully aware of.

In fact, I just came from a threat where a man was using Bible Verses to support that God actually deludes some people into believing lies. That's in the Bible!

2 Thesselonians 2:11
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Why in the world would I want to place my "hope" or "faith" in a religious dogma that tells me that my creator could be deluding me into believing lies?

Why would I want to hope that this is true?

[Kenisaw]

That is why we humans cannot speak in absolutes.


JW

Nothing can.

Well you'd have to know everything to know that for sure.

No you wouldn't, because we've shown that morals cannot ever be objective or absolute. A moral is a subjective standard, even for god creatures.

Thanks (sincerely) for the discourse on this topic. It was very enlightening.

[JehovahsWitness]

There would be no point to that discussion.

Then why did you ask?

[JehovahsWitness]

Well then you've answered your own question.

... why should anyone see faith as virtuous? As something desirable?

Because ...

Faith CAN move someone to perform positive actions. ...

It could be [...] positive.

If I told you "this vitamine could help you lose weight and move you to want to exercise having a positive effect on your health and well being " I'm sure you can understand why some would view such a thing as positive and something desirable.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 62 by OnceConvinced]

There's nothing virtuous about good intentions if no actions are ever taken.

I looked over your original question very carefully and there is no mention of "good intentions" therein. If we were discussing "good intentions" I may well have taken taken another line of reasoning, the word you mention repeatedly is "faith" so I took it that your question was related (not to the virtue of "good intentions" but to) "faith". Feel free to clarify

... why is faith so virtuous? Why is it so important to a god? [...] why should anyone see faith as virtuous? As something desirable?

[rikuoamero]

There would be no point to that discussion.

Then why did you ask?

Excuse me but could link me to where that question came from? I don't remember everything I post, so if you could link me back to it, I might be able to remember what it was I was thinking at the time.

UPDATE - Found it, it was the top of this page.
What I meant was that if you are out proselytizing and trying to convince someone that these are the teachings and commands of the one true god, you shoot yourself in the foot and destroy any chance you have of convincing that other person when you say "These are just my subjective opinions, equal in veracity to those of that other person over that, that Catholic, or that guy over there, the Southern Baptist, or those two dudes over there, the Muslims."

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 69 by rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 58 by JehovahsWitness]