I'm curious what religious people mean when they say faith. I hear debates between atheists and religious people, and it seems like this is a frequent stumbling block in the discussion. Often I hear atheists use it to mean "belief in something beyond the evidence for it", which raises objections from religious people. I have also heard religious people use definitions like, "believing in that for which you do have evidence", but that doesn't seem to map with common usage or explain why someone wouldn't just say knowledge or justified belief. Let me illustrate this a little more.
When someone is admonished to have faith, the second definition doesn't seem to fit, as asking someone to trust what they have evidence for doesn't make sense. Everyone has trust in that which THEY think has sufficient evidence. If they don't trust, then you would explain why the evidence was better than they were giving it credit for, correct?
Or- when you say someone needs to "take a leap of faith," you don't mean they need to trust that which they have evidence for, right? If generally means to have confidence in the positivity of an outcome, when the outcome is unknown (or unknowable).
Faith - what does it mean to you (Theist responses, please).
Moderator: Moderators
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #2
Back when I was a Christian it was my understanding that "Christian Faith" simply meant to basically have faith in four things:
1. That the Bible is the true description or "Word" of God.
2. That Jesus was the only begotten Son of God.
3. That Jesus spoke the truth.
4. That the New Testament accounts of what Jesus said are reliable.
Most Christians don't think much about numbers 1 and 4. They just kind of assume that much is true and take it for granted without worrying about it much.
What they are really placing their faith in is numbers 2 and 3.
That Jesus is the son of God and that his promises can be trusted.
For the most part they totally ignore the fact that everything we have about Jesus is hearsay rumors reported by other people. They typical accept that everything in the New Testament that has been attributed to Jesus actually came from Jesus basically verbatim. And therefore it must be the truth.
I think also that they are far more fixated on the promises of an eternal afterlife than on anything else. Their faith basically amounts to the following:
1. Jesus can be trusted to speak the truth.
2. Jesus promises eternal life with him.
Period. This is really the crux of what most Christians are actually interested in.
They aren't concerned with "proving" any of this, or even questioning it. Why would they want to question it? Jesus promises eternal life. Jesus tells the truth. What's to question? Anyone questioning that must be a lunatic. That's their line of thinking.
Why would you want to question someone who's claiming to be the TRUTH and is promising you eternal life? You'd need to be a fool to question that. That's the basis of Christian faith.
They aren't concerned with the petty details. Especially if those details might bring into question the TRUTH of Jesus. They don't want the promises of Jesus to be false. They want the eternal life for crying out loud.
So they simply have faith that "Jesus tells the TRUTH". And they totally ignore the fact that nothing in the Bible even came directly from Jesus himself. They are convinced that everything attributed to Jesus came from him. They even say, "Jesus said this, and Jesus said that".
You never hear them say, "Well John promised this. Or Matthew promised that. Or Luke promised whatever, and so on."
They never act like any of this is dependent on those guys. It's always "Jesus said this, and Jesus said that, and Jesus said the other thing". Many Christians even attributed things that Paul said to Jesus. Even though Paul never claimed to be quoting Jesus in any case.
So their main "Faith" is that they have the WORD of Jesus, and that Jesus tells no lies because Jesus has proclaimed that he is the TRUTH.
That's Christian faith as far as I can see.
I'm no longer a Christian so I no longer have faith that everything attributed to Jesus must be truth. But when I was a Christian, that's what Christian faith meant to me, and the Christians I knew.
This is why so many Christians are so tenacious about clinging to Christianity. Take away Jesus and you take away the promise of TRUTH. Without Jesus they no longer have a promise of eternal life made by someone who claims to be the living TRUTH.
Jesus is the only one promising eternal life here. And he's also claiming to be THE TRUTH.
Without Jesus there is no "promise" of an afterlife.
Jesus made a Promise and claimed to be the TRUTH.
That's why Christians cling to this legend.
That's the bottom line right there.
No Jesus = No Promise.
1. That the Bible is the true description or "Word" of God.
2. That Jesus was the only begotten Son of God.
3. That Jesus spoke the truth.
4. That the New Testament accounts of what Jesus said are reliable.
Most Christians don't think much about numbers 1 and 4. They just kind of assume that much is true and take it for granted without worrying about it much.
What they are really placing their faith in is numbers 2 and 3.
That Jesus is the son of God and that his promises can be trusted.
For the most part they totally ignore the fact that everything we have about Jesus is hearsay rumors reported by other people. They typical accept that everything in the New Testament that has been attributed to Jesus actually came from Jesus basically verbatim. And therefore it must be the truth.
I think also that they are far more fixated on the promises of an eternal afterlife than on anything else. Their faith basically amounts to the following:
1. Jesus can be trusted to speak the truth.
2. Jesus promises eternal life with him.
Period. This is really the crux of what most Christians are actually interested in.
They aren't concerned with "proving" any of this, or even questioning it. Why would they want to question it? Jesus promises eternal life. Jesus tells the truth. What's to question? Anyone questioning that must be a lunatic. That's their line of thinking.
Why would you want to question someone who's claiming to be the TRUTH and is promising you eternal life? You'd need to be a fool to question that. That's the basis of Christian faith.
They aren't concerned with the petty details. Especially if those details might bring into question the TRUTH of Jesus. They don't want the promises of Jesus to be false. They want the eternal life for crying out loud.
So they simply have faith that "Jesus tells the TRUTH". And they totally ignore the fact that nothing in the Bible even came directly from Jesus himself. They are convinced that everything attributed to Jesus came from him. They even say, "Jesus said this, and Jesus said that".
You never hear them say, "Well John promised this. Or Matthew promised that. Or Luke promised whatever, and so on."
They never act like any of this is dependent on those guys. It's always "Jesus said this, and Jesus said that, and Jesus said the other thing". Many Christians even attributed things that Paul said to Jesus. Even though Paul never claimed to be quoting Jesus in any case.
So their main "Faith" is that they have the WORD of Jesus, and that Jesus tells no lies because Jesus has proclaimed that he is the TRUTH.
That's Christian faith as far as I can see.
I'm no longer a Christian so I no longer have faith that everything attributed to Jesus must be truth. But when I was a Christian, that's what Christian faith meant to me, and the Christians I knew.
This is why so many Christians are so tenacious about clinging to Christianity. Take away Jesus and you take away the promise of TRUTH. Without Jesus they no longer have a promise of eternal life made by someone who claims to be the living TRUTH.
Jesus is the only one promising eternal life here. And he's also claiming to be THE TRUTH.
Without Jesus there is no "promise" of an afterlife.
Jesus made a Promise and claimed to be the TRUTH.
That's why Christians cling to this legend.
That's the bottom line right there.
No Jesus = No Promise.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #3
Richard Dawkins defined faith as belief in something for which there is no evidence. But that is NOT the Christian faith. Christian faith is trust in God based on evidence (cosmological, teleological, axiological, historical, experiential, etc.). It is, therefore, a reasonable faith and not a "blind faith" as some mistakenly believe.
Trusting God is the same as trusting your teacher or doctor or father or friend or spouse because they have proven themselves trustworthy in the past based on their actions. To be a Christian involves being in a relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ by the infilling of the Holy Spirit. As you get to know God personally and intimately, your trust in him grows just as your trust in family, friends, etc. grow as you spend time with them and get to know them better.
As for admonishing someone to have faith, I would not use the verb "admonish" at all. I would encourage someone to trust God because of the evidence, including the trustworthiness of Scripture based on knowledge as to why it is reliable. See the work of scholars such as Richard Bauckham, Daniel Wallace, Craig Blomberg, Gary Habermas, for example. I would not expect someone to believe anything -- religious, scientific, historical or whatever -- without valid evidence.
The phrase "leap of faith" is attributed to Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. It has been interpreted in many ways, but the closest and best understanding to my mind is this: While he believed that reason had its limitations, he did NOT think that faith was born out of thoughtlessness. He said it was an act of the will made in spite of one's fears, doubts, and sin. That's what the leap is all about. It isn't made blindly, but with awareness of what one is doing and why one is doing it.
Given that entire books have been written about Kieregaard's philosophy, it's not an issue that can be thoroughly explored in a forum like this. Be aware that his views on faith have never represented the traditional understanding of the Christian faith. But I do admire the man's brilliance.
Trusting God is the same as trusting your teacher or doctor or father or friend or spouse because they have proven themselves trustworthy in the past based on their actions. To be a Christian involves being in a relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ by the infilling of the Holy Spirit. As you get to know God personally and intimately, your trust in him grows just as your trust in family, friends, etc. grow as you spend time with them and get to know them better.
As for admonishing someone to have faith, I would not use the verb "admonish" at all. I would encourage someone to trust God because of the evidence, including the trustworthiness of Scripture based on knowledge as to why it is reliable. See the work of scholars such as Richard Bauckham, Daniel Wallace, Craig Blomberg, Gary Habermas, for example. I would not expect someone to believe anything -- religious, scientific, historical or whatever -- without valid evidence.
The phrase "leap of faith" is attributed to Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. It has been interpreted in many ways, but the closest and best understanding to my mind is this: While he believed that reason had its limitations, he did NOT think that faith was born out of thoughtlessness. He said it was an act of the will made in spite of one's fears, doubts, and sin. That's what the leap is all about. It isn't made blindly, but with awareness of what one is doing and why one is doing it.
Given that entire books have been written about Kieregaard's philosophy, it's not an issue that can be thoroughly explored in a forum like this. Be aware that his views on faith have never represented the traditional understanding of the Christian faith. But I do admire the man's brilliance.
-
ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #4
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance / essence of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen / unproven.
Faith is an unproven hope... it is the base of our true free will decisions because a free will decision is coerced by proof of the truth so all free will decisions are made by faith.
Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
If you wait for the proof of the truth about GOD before you will follow Him, your choice to follow Him is not by faith but proof / sight and heaven can only be entered by faith.
the necessity of hope:
Romans 8:23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?
Peace, Ted
Faith is an unproven hope... it is the base of our true free will decisions because a free will decision is coerced by proof of the truth so all free will decisions are made by faith.
Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
If you wait for the proof of the truth about GOD before you will follow Him, your choice to follow Him is not by faith but proof / sight and heaven can only be entered by faith.
the necessity of hope:
Romans 8:23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?
Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
Post #5
Ttruscott and Overcomer-
It seems you're both Christians who came to opposite or at least inconsistent definitions of faith.
Ttruscott's seems in line with the notion that Faith means believing or trusting in something for which there isn't evidence. Perhaps believing it and then seeing the evidence later. While I appreciate Divine Insight's response (avoids obvious pun) I'll leave it aside for the moment, to avoid muddying the waters.
Overcommers view is that faith means trusting that which you have evidence for, like trusting someone that has shown themselves to be trustworthy.
You see the problem? This is a word that is central to you faith, correct. And yet both of you can't agree on a definition. If I'm giving instructions on how to do something, we need to establish what the words mean to follow them. If I teach my child to drive a car and when I say "brake" she understands this to mean "the pedal which causes acceleration", we're in big trouble.
Would either of you care to try to reach some common definition? Am I supposed to be looking for evidence, then trust that evidence or am I supposed to just trust without requiring evidence?
It seems you're both Christians who came to opposite or at least inconsistent definitions of faith.
Ttruscott's seems in line with the notion that Faith means believing or trusting in something for which there isn't evidence. Perhaps believing it and then seeing the evidence later. While I appreciate Divine Insight's response (avoids obvious pun) I'll leave it aside for the moment, to avoid muddying the waters.
Overcommers view is that faith means trusting that which you have evidence for, like trusting someone that has shown themselves to be trustworthy.
You see the problem? This is a word that is central to you faith, correct. And yet both of you can't agree on a definition. If I'm giving instructions on how to do something, we need to establish what the words mean to follow them. If I teach my child to drive a car and when I say "brake" she understands this to mean "the pedal which causes acceleration", we're in big trouble.
Would either of you care to try to reach some common definition? Am I supposed to be looking for evidence, then trust that evidence or am I supposed to just trust without requiring evidence?
-
ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #6
Classic mixing of ideas - there is a huge and to me overwhelming EVIDENCE for the objects of my faith...!...there is just no PROOF. What comes later is the conviction that our faith is so unbelievably wonderful that faith itself is PROOF of grace!Tailor wrote: Ttruscott and Overcomer-
It seems you're both Christians who came to opposite or at least inconsistent definitions of faith.
Ttruscott's seems in line with the notion that Faith means believing or trusting in something for which there isn't evidence. Perhaps believing it and then seeing the evidence later.
want to try again?While I appreciate Divine Insight's response (avoids obvious pun) I'll leave it aside for the moment, to avoid muddying the waters.
Overcommers view is that faith means trusting that which you have evidence for, like trusting someone that has shown themselves to be trustworthy.
You see the problem? This is a word that is central to you faith, correct. And yet both of you can't agree on a definition.
Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
Post #7
[Replying to ttruscott]
Ttruscott, I'm not trying to take your words out of context, mearly to clarify what seems to be unclear. Let me try to sum up this thought again and you tell me if I'm getting close:
To you, faith means believing things, after you have evidence, but with absolute conviction, even though the evidence you have for it is less than conclusive enough to believe in something that strongly. That ability to feel conviction of this belief, in greater amount than you have reason to based on the evidence alone, is proof that the object of this belief is true.
Faith always seems to involve belief or trust in relationship to evidence or the lack thereof, but it seems these relationships change between Christians (or other members of the same Religeon) and sometimes I hear different uses by the same person within the same discussion.
Ttruscott, I'm not trying to take your words out of context, mearly to clarify what seems to be unclear. Let me try to sum up this thought again and you tell me if I'm getting close:
To you, faith means believing things, after you have evidence, but with absolute conviction, even though the evidence you have for it is less than conclusive enough to believe in something that strongly. That ability to feel conviction of this belief, in greater amount than you have reason to based on the evidence alone, is proof that the object of this belief is true.
Faith always seems to involve belief or trust in relationship to evidence or the lack thereof, but it seems these relationships change between Christians (or other members of the same Religeon) and sometimes I hear different uses by the same person within the same discussion.
