Faith and Belief... Whats the difference (if any)?

[SkyChief]

In these interviews, the distinction between Faith and Belief and Rationality is discussed. Clearly, these terms are NOT synonymous, yet many folks seem quite comfortable substituting one for the other.

Before commenting, please review these 9 interviews:
[/url]https://www.closertotruth.com/series/re ... n[url]They are relatively short; you can view all of them in under an hour.

Not very much drama here, but somewhat enlightening. Two of these interviews make a lot of sense to me.

Tell us where you stand. I hand it over to you guys :pope: The link failed. sorry. What a bleeding mess.

[Divine Insight]

Here I fixed your link: You had the slash in the wrong URL tag.

Religious Faith: Rational or Rationalization?

I'll go watch these interviews.

[Divine Insight]

I watched the first 6 of these. I like this Closer to Truth host. I've watched many of his interviews and I would love to sit down and have a discussion with him myself on this very topic.

Of the six interviews I watched I like the points brought up by J. L. Schellenberg about faith simply being willing to imagine that something could or might be true. And perhaps especially to even want it to be true as well. I think that is a very good definition of "faith". At least certainly one valid definition. There may be other valid definitions such as thinking of faith as "trust".

I can also see how someone who has a very strong desire to have faith (imagination) in a God could easily see this desire to be a 'belief'. In other words, they simply want it to be true so much that they surrender to the idea that it actually is true, rather than merely that it could or might be true. In fact, this could be faith taking that "second leap" of not merely imagining that something could be true, but actually trusting that it's true.

Like the host of Closer to Truth, I too would like to have faith that there exists a "God" (or at least a higher essence to reality) and because of this perhaps I do have faith. I'm certainly open to the possibility that there could be a higher essence to reality. And I can even go further and say that I actually believe that it's certainly possible. This is nowhere near the same as believing that the possibility is certain.

However, at this point we're only considering the concept of a "God" or a supernatural essence of reality in general. I'm actually quite open to this as a very real possibility. But now when we move into specific religions this all changes dramatically for me.

In the interview with Alister McGrath, McGrath suggests that for him, Christianity offers rational solutions that strongly appeal to him. For me this would be extremely the opposite. I have absolutely no desire to even "imagine" that Christianity could be true. So I have no desire at all to place any faith in Christianity. And I also point out that it's not really possible to claim to have faith in Christianity unless a person accepts the dogma of Christianity (i.e. the Bible).

So I don't view Christianity as something that is open to personal imagination. I see a lot of Christianity who actually imagine Christianity to be whatever they would like for it to be whilst seriously denying or ignoring what the Bible actually has to say on the matter. Or more to the point they give extremely unconvincing apologetic non-literal interpretations of the Bible in an effort to try to twist it into something they would rather it had actually said. I personally see no reason to go down that road.

I tend to agree with Robert Kuhn (the host of Closer to Truth) that if we are going to place our "faith", whether it be belief, imagination, or trust, in a God, it only makes sense to fact-check the dogma that describes that God or religion. And if we see contradictions, falsehoods, or even irrational absurdities, then we have very good reason to withhold our "faith". Placing our belief, trust, or even imagination, in an extremely problematic dogma of a God makes absolutely no sense to me.

There is also the element of "desire". What's would be the point in placing our faith in any religion or God that we don't truly desire to be true? That would be utterly foolish. So I have no motivation to place my faith in Christianity, or any of the Abrahamic religoins.

Now, having said all of the above, if we move over to look at something like Buddhism this all changes dramatically on many levels. Buddhism doesn't have self-contradiction, IMHO. Buddhism doesn't contain absurdities such as having a God command or behave in ways that are clearly ignorant and what I would consider to be immoral. Buddhism also doesn't conflict with any known scientific knowledge. And finally Buddhism explains why there is suffering in this world without contradiction.

So Buddhism is a religion that I can place my faith in. Although this is actually wrong, because we should never place our faith in any "religion". What I really meant to say is that, Buddhism describes a "God" that I could easily place my faith in.

And this brings us full-circle to the very definition of what is meant by "faith".

Well, as I stated above, faith can have three elements, imagination, belief, and trust.

Can I imagine that the God of Buddhism exists? Yes I can.

Can I trust the God of Buddhism? Yes, based on my understanding of the God it would be totally trustworthy 100%.

So can I then take the extreme leap of faith to actually believe that the God of Buddhism is real? Well, no. And there are two very good reasons why I see no reason to take that leap.

First, to claim to "believe" that the God exists seems to me to be a bit pretentious. I would be claiming to believe in something that I cannot know to be true. I simply see no reason to go there. The closet I'll get to that is to simply say, "I believe it's possible that the God described by Buddhism exist". Whether it actually does exist or not I have no way of knowing.

And there is an even more important second reason why there is no need to take this extreme leap of faith. In Buddhism it's simply not important to believe in God. The God of Buddhism does not claim to be a jealous egotist who will throw a temper tantrum and hurt people who don't believe in him. The God of Buddhism simply doesn't require that anyone believe in him. In fact, I don't even know why I'm calling this God a "him" because the God of Buddhism doesn't have any sexual gender or orientation at all. I would actually rather refer to God as an "it". This is probably a more suitable label since the God of Buddhism is far more mysterious than the extremely simplified anthropomorphized egotistical God of Christianity.

So if the God of Buddhism actually exists there's no need to believe in God anyway. In fact, a belief in a God shouldn't change anyone's behavior. If a person has to change their behavior because they believe in a God, then they aren't being themselves anyway.

One thing I can be certain of, if there is a God, he, she, or it, is going to know precisely who I am without any pretentious charades because I'm going to just be who I am. If that's not good enough for God, then so be it. And that's the way it should be. People who behave in a manner that is contrary to who they truly are just to appease a God probably aren't fooling God anyway.

In any case, that's my lengthy response to these interviews.

[SkyChief]

...faith can have three elements, imagination, belief, and trust.

Can I imagine that the God of Buddhism exists? Yes I can.

Can I trust the God of Buddhism? Yes, based on my understanding of the God it would be totally trustworthy 100%.

So can I then take the extreme leap of faith to actually believe that the God of Buddhism is real? Well, no.

Are you familiar with the Deist god? Would this god meet your criteria for a god worthy of faith?

Not a trick question. Not too long ago I considered putting faith in this god before I ultimately came to reject it. Rejected only for the lack of ONE thing: Evidence.

[Divine Insight]

...faith can have three elements, imagination, belief, and trust.

Can I imagine that the God of Buddhism exists? Yes I can.

Can I trust the God of Buddhism? Yes, based on my understanding of the God it would be totally trustworthy 100%.

So can I then take the extreme leap of faith to actually believe that the God of Buddhism is real? Well, no.

Are you familiar with the Deist god? Would this god meet your criteria for a god worthy of faith?

Not a trick question. Not too long ago I considered putting faith in this god before I ultimately came to reject it. Rejected only for the lack of ONE thing: Evidence.

I personally see no value in Deism at all. It's basically an abstract philosophy that claims that an unknown God supposedly exists that doesn't interact with our world. If that's the case then what is there to place any faith in? That an imaginary "God" exists and will "hopefully" be something we end up liking? I just don't see where Deism has much to offer in the way of any meaningful theology.

Buddhism, on the other hand is not Deism. Buddhism is based on Pantheism or Panentheism. Not to imply that this makes it anymore worthy of faith. But at least it can make more statements about what God is like.

I will be the first to grant that the philosophy of Buddhism is based on many culturally accepted premises that cannot be shown to be true. But I think it owns up to these facts which at least merits respect. Buddhism, also confesses to be a "Philosophical Mysticism" that is indeed believed on faith. It also does not condemn anyone for not believing in Buddhism. In fact, the Dalai Lama actually instructs people that they should keep the faith they were taught as a child (assuming of course that it's working for them in a positive way).

But I just wanted to make the point that Buddhism has absolutely nothing to do with Deism. Buddhism is based on Pantheism or Panenthism not Deism.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by SkyChief]

I think it depends on the context.
One could say they have faith their car will start in the morning but that's likely because they've seen their car, and/or other cars, start when asked.
But one could also say they have faith their car will start because someone else told them it would.
In the world of religion, faith seems to be the word of choice over belief when it comes to expectation of said deity.
One can believe God will do X but only if he wants to do it. They tend to have faith when it comes to an expectation of God doing something.
Just my 2¢

[Plumbus Grumbo]

[Replying to post 1 by SkyChief]

The forum is not letting me quote you...sorry about that.

In my view the difference is quite simple, but I know my view might be incorrect.

Belief merely refers to an idea a person/mind thinks is accurate. (I believe my car will start the next time I attempt to start it). (It might not, and it'll complicate my day somewhat).

Faith refers to belief put into action. (When I insert the key into the ignition and then it, I am using a bit of faith).

I have some bad habits. I believe they are detrimental. But I don't act upon my beliefs (I am a weak person in some regards If I act upon my beliefs and work to change my habits to align with my beliefs about them, I would employ faith--acting/working because of my beliefs.

[Divine Insight]

Here I fixed your link: You had the slash in the wrong URL tag.

Religious Faith: Rational or Rationalization?

I'll go watch these interviews.

I would just like to clarify that SkyChief was actually asking about "Religious Faith" as discussed in the interviews I linked to in the above post. (the link in the OP didn't work)

So this wouldn't apply to "secular faith" like having faith that your car will start. That's a different kind of faith entirely. There are actually good reasons to believe that a car will start (i.e. it was specifically designed to do that dependably)

But placing your faith in an unseen God that is only based on rumors and folklore is quite different.

Placing your faith in the idea that your car will start is far more justified. There are very good reasons to expect that to happen. Plus, I think we are all aware that mechanical and electrical failures do occur on occasions. Therefore even though we don't dwell on it, in reality we all believe and have faith, that there will be times when we will go to start our car and it won't start because of some type of failure. We wouldn't be shocked if that happened. Upset maybe, but shocked? Nah.

[Plumbus Grumbo]

Here I fixed your link: You had the slash in the wrong URL tag.

Religious Faith: Rational or Rationalization?

I'll go watch these interviews.

I would just like to clarify that SkyChief was actually asking about "Religious Faith" as discussed in the interviews I linked to in the above post. (the link in the OP didn't work)

So this wouldn't apply to "secular faith" like having faith that your car will start. That's a different kind of faith entirely. There are actually good reasons to believe that a car will start (i.e. it was specifically designed to do that dependably)

But placing your faith in an unseen God that is only based on rumors and folklore is quite different.

Placing your faith in the idea that your car will start is far more justified. There are very good reasons to expect that to happen. Plus, I think we are all aware that mechanical and electrical failures do occur on occasions. Therefore even though we don't dwell on it, in reality we all believe and have faith, that there will be times when we will go to start our car and it won't start because of some type of failure. We wouldn't be shocked if that happened. Upset maybe, but shocked? Nah.

I disagree somewhat. Some religious people have faith precisely because of coincidences that seem to have validated their belief. For example, a person may be diagnosed with a disease, consider a particular spiritual belief, experience the benefits of a positive attitude and the luck of remission, and feel that she is "healed" by her belief in her deity/by the deity.

Also, some believers have low expectations and their God consistently "meets" those expectations, so their faith is justified by their easy metric. (This is problematic for them, however, because they are not using that same metric on other beliefs that would then justify faith for those other beliefs). I feel that respect for such views goes a long way in convincing such a person to consider any contrary ideas of which (you) wish to convince him.

[Divine Insight]

I feel that respect for such views goes a long way in convincing such a person to consider any contrary ideas of which (you) wish to convince him.

The problem I have with this is that if we give irrational ideas "respect" then we are condoning and loaning support to irrational thinking.

Some religious people have faith precisely because of coincidences that seem to have validated their belief. For example, a person may be diagnosed with a disease, consider a particular spiritual belief, experience the benefits of a positive attitude and the luck of remission, and feel that she is "healed" by her belief in her deity/by the deity.

I think it's ok to acknowledge this coincidence and how it could cause a person to support a belief in a deity. But at the same time shouldn't we also point out that there are many other possible explanations that don't require the existence of a magical deity?

In other words, respecting what a person is thinking, and respecting the soundness of the conclusions they draw, are two entirely different things.

I would also argue that this is especially true if they are arguing that their conclusion is the only conclusion that makes any sense. In other words, at that point they are attempting to claim that their conclusion (being the only reasonable conclusion) is proof of the conclusion. After all, if they claim it's the only reasonable conclusion, then they are indeed proclaiming that it stands as an absolute truth.

And if you claim to "respect" that position then you have no choice but to agree with them that they have reasonable "proof" that their favorite deity does indeed exist. Because, after all, that is their position which you are claiming to "respect".