What's so great about faith?

[_Tarski]

Can anyone provide a compelling reason for having faith on its practical merits?

It can be a comforting and motivating force and useful epistemic tool in cases of uncertainty--and this in secular as well as religious matters. For example, though it is far from a certainty, and at times there is evidence to the contrary, I have faith that the vast majority of drivers on the freeway will observe, to a reasonable degree, the rules of the road. That specific faith is comforting and motivates me to drive on the freeway.

Why be so silly? That is not faith in the sense of belief without sufficient evidence. There is plenty of evidence that dirving is statisitically safe enough to justify the risk. Otherwise you woudn't do it.
You feel comfortable driving exactly because of evidence.

[_wenglund]

Can anyone provide a compelling reason for having faith on its practical merits?

It can be a comforting and motivating force and useful epistemic tool in cases of uncertainty--and this in secular as well as religious matters. For example, though it is far from a certainty, and at times there is evidence to the contrary, I have faith that the vast majority of drivers on the freeway will observe, to a reasonable degree, the rules of the road. That specific faith is comforting and motivates me to drive on the freeway.

Why be so silly? That is not faith in the sense of belief without sufficient evidence. There is plenty of evidence that dirving is statisitically safe enough to justify the risk. Otherwise you woudn't do it. You feel comfortable driving exactly because of evidence.

Evidently we understand the word "faith" differently. To me, faith exists in degrees, and may be arrayed on a spectrum of confidence and trust: from weak or blind faith (belief in things in which there is little or no evidence, and where the level of confidence and trust are low) to strong faith (belief in things in which there is compelling evidence, where the level of confidence and trust are high, though insufficient to "know" with absolute certainty). As such, my rational understanding of "faith" reasonably fits (not to be confused with "silly") the driving example.

Granted, that may not fit your binary way of thinking. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo, you say faith is useless. I disagree.

I appreciate your response, GIMR. This actually was the sort of thing I was looking for from a faith proponent.

It occurs to me that the utility of faith only works for people who have faith in faith itself. The kind of thing you're describing would never work for me, because it requires several base assumptions which basically boil down to "believing that faith works."

It's as circular as a whirlpool, and I'd never allow myself to get sucked into it, but I will say that I'm sincerely glad it's working for you, especially given the situation you're in.

Thanks for posting.

[_Some Schmo]

Can anyone provide a compelling reason for having faith on its practical merits?

It can be a comforting and motivating force and useful epistemic tool in cases of uncertainty--and this in secular as well as religious matters. For example, though it is far from a certainty, and at times there is evidence to the contrary, I have faith that the vast majority of drivers on the freeway will observe, to a reasonable degree, the rules of the road. That specific faith is comforting and motivates me to drive on the freeway.

Why be so silly? That is not faith in the sense of belief without sufficient evidence. There is plenty of evidence that dirving is statisitically safe enough to justify the risk. Otherwise you woudn't do it. You feel comfortable driving exactly because of evidence.

Evidently we understand the word "faith" differently. To me, faith exists in degrees, and may be arrayed on a spectrum of confidence and trust: from weak or blind faith (belief in things in which there is little or no evidence, and where the level of confidence and trust are low) to strong faith (belief in things in which there is compelling evidence, where the level of confidence and trust are high, though insufficient to "know" with absolute certainty). As such, my rational understanding of "faith" reasonably fits (not to be confused with "silly") the driving example.

Granted, that may not fit your binary way of thinking. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's pretty funny man... "binary thinking..." LOL, good stuff.

Again, it's the classic misnaming of a concept and then extending that name to what the concept really refers to in order to give it credibility. Faith in oncoming traffic is not at all like faith that god exists. It's not a matter of degree, it's a matter of being two completely different things. Faith does not require evidence. It is not faith to trust that people will keep to their own side of the road, because we have tons of evidence that people tend to do that.

Your post is a great example of what I meant last week by lack of intellectual honesty.

[_Sam Harris]

Schmo, you say faith is useless. I disagree.

I appreciate your response, GIMR. This actually was the sort of thing I was looking for from a faith proponent.

It occurs to me that the utility of faith only works for people who have faith in faith itself. The kind of thing you're describing would never work for me, because it requires several base assumptions which basically boil down to "believing that faith works."

It's as circular as a whirlpool, and I'd never allow myself to get sucked into it, but I will say that I'm sincerely glad it's working for you, especially given the situation you're in.

Thanks for posting.

Hello Schmo,

I was kind of hoping you'd give me more feedback. I kind of see the situation like this: I'm not against reason and logic, they have their place in this world, and a very big one that all should appreciate. I know that I do. But at times, they only show us where we are, and can get us no further. Their function is almost mathematical in a sense. There are simply some things in life you cannot treat as an equation. Reason paints an "as is" picture in many cases, whereas hope and faith paint a picture of "what can be". That picture may not necessarily be solidified, but it provides encouragement. I find it hard to believe that all we need in life is "what is" especially when "what is" is something so grim, even in today's world.

I asked in my last post for a solution to faith. Look around you, Schmo. Can you find something better? I keep seeing these posts about how great life is without it, but what are you and those living without faith doing that puts your life on a level above mine and those like me? I ask in all earnestness...

[_Some Schmo]

I'm not against reason and logic, they have their place in this world, and a very big one that all should appreciate. I know that I do. But at times, they only show us where we are, and can get us no further. Their function is almost mathematical in a sense. There are simply some things in life you cannot treat as an equation. Reason paints an "as is" picture in many cases, whereas hope and faith paint a picture of "what can be". That picture may not necessarily be solidified, but it provides encouragement. I find it hard to believe that all we need in life is "what is" especially when "what is" is something so grim, even in today's world.

I asked in my last post for a solution to faith. Look around you, Schmo. Can you find something better? I keep seeing these posts about how great life is without it, but what are you and those living without faith doing that puts your life on a level above mine and those like me? I ask in all earnestness...

When you ask the question, "what are you and those living without faith doing that puts your life on a level above mine and those like me?" you have an implicit assumption going that we have the same priorities. I could only claim that what I was doing was of a higher level if we had common priorities, but we don't, so I can't. My priority is to understand reality at all costs, and to not make claims about reality without concrete evidence. It seems your priority is to find strength in the unknown and improvable. I have no problem with that at all. If it was both our priority to find strength in the unknown, you'd be living your life at a higher level than I am. The fact is, we have different values and goals.

But it's exceptionally fallacious to think that rational people have no thoughts of the future. You don't need faith to have a vision of where you'd like to be, and you don't need faith to have hope. And personally, I think it's a lot more gratifying to achieve one's goals completely on your own inner strength rather than giving credit to some imaginary force of some kind (ie "higher power").

All the strength I need comes from my own head and heart. No external forces necessary.

[_Scottie]

I've often thought that if a person tells you (or feels the need to tell you) to "just trust me", you damn well shouldn't.

As long as that person is someone in which trust has proven true before, eg, someone you CAN trust, I see no problem with them saying, "Just trust me".

Now, if it's a guy selling Amway that you've never met before, telling you to "just trust him" that you will make a 6 figure income in 3 years....welllll....

I just don't buy the arguments that everything about religion, and Mormonism in particular for this board, is so damn hard to demonstrate to be true, on the grounds that God can't make it too easy for us to "know" because that would subvert the need for "faith". So what? What, exactly, is the overriding virtue of faith which makes having it of such paramount importance?

Isn't it interesting that God can't make Himself known, yet so many claim to KNOW that He exists?

Faith is a principle of experience. This means it is tested.

And yet God has failed time and time again to deliver on His promises of what He will give us if we have faith. How many of us have never received Moroni's promised answer, even though we had faith? How many of us have not been healed even though we had faith?

You must must be a commy pinko!

Isn't that pinko commie? I haven't heard that since 8th grade!! lol

It is not faith to trust that people will keep to their own side of the road, because we have tons of evidence that people tend to do that.

I know many Christians that would argue that we see miracles every day! That there is TONS of evidence that God's has His hand in their lives.


As for my 2 cents...I'm not sure that I agree with you, Schmo. I think that there is a fine enough line between faith and trust that it's very hard to determine which is which.

[conspiracy theory]
There is no way I can ascertain that America is what it says it is. For all I know, everything I watch is strictly controlled by the government. Perhaps the history books have all been re-written. Perhaps the USA is on a quest for World domination, and the only reason men are signing up for the military is because they believe they are stomping out the evils in the middle east. How do we know that those evils are really happening? What if we're being spoon fed lies about the Taliban and terrorists simply to produce patriotism? What if WE are the evil country? What if North Korea is simply developing nuclear arms to stop our mad, tyrannical conquest?

I certainly don't trust our leaders, however, I have faith that the USA isn't doing this.
[/conspiracy theory]

[_Some Schmo]

As for my 2 cents...I'm not sure that I agree with you, Schmo. I think that there is a fine enough line between faith and trust that it's very hard to determine which is which.

Well, the two words are often used interchangeably, and in the Merriam-Webster definition of faith I quoted, they even use the word "trust."

But what I've been referring to here all along is where the two words diverge in meaning. The distinction I make between the two words is that trust can be based on evidence, and faith cannot be (otherwise no faith is needed).

And I obviously have a stricter standard for what I consider evidence than most religious types do. I do not consider a person's internal singular experience to be a form of concrete testable evidence.

[_wenglund]

Can anyone provide a compelling reason for having faith on its practical merits?

It can be a comforting and motivating force and useful epistemic tool in cases of uncertainty--and this in secular as well as religious matters. For example, though it is far from a certainty, and at times there is evidence to the contrary, I have faith that the vast majority of drivers on the freeway will observe, to a reasonable degree, the rules of the road. That specific faith is comforting and motivates me to drive on the freeway.

Why be so silly? That is not faith in the sense of belief without sufficient evidence. There is plenty of evidence that dirving is statisitically safe enough to justify the risk. Otherwise you woudn't do it. You feel comfortable driving exactly because of evidence.

Evidently we understand the word "faith" differently. To me, faith exists in degrees, and may be arrayed on a spectrum of confidence and trust: from weak or blind faith (belief in things in which there is little or no evidence, and where the level of confidence and trust are low) to strong faith (belief in things in which there is compelling evidence, where the level of confidence and trust are high, though insufficient to "know" with absolute certainty). As such, my rational understanding of "faith" reasonably fits (not to be confused with "silly") the driving example.

Granted, that may not fit your binary way of thinking. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's pretty funny man... "binary thinking..." LOL, good stuff.

Again, it's the classic misnaming of a concept and then extending that name to what the concept really refers to in order to give it credibility. Faith in oncoming traffic is not at all like faith that god exists. It's not a matter of degree, it's a matter of being two completely different things. Faith does not require evidence. It is not faith to trust that people will keep to their own side of the road, because we have tons of evidence that people tend to do that.

Your post is a great example of what I meant last week by lack of intellectual honesty.

That is certainly one fundamentalist/sopolistic (i.e. a mind that is rigidly closed to all but its own narrow world view) way of seeing my comments. And, in light of your evident mindset, it is not surprising that the best you can do by way of a countering what I said, is to laugh, re-assert your claim (ironically sans reasoning or evidence), and falsely accuse me of lacking intellectual honesty.

However, those less overly restricted/blinded by their way of thinking will recognize that my concept of faith fits rationally the first (and thus most commonly used) authoritative definition in the dictionary.

Again, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Scottie]

And I obviously have a stricter standard for what I consider evidence than most religious types do. I do not consider a person's internal singular experience to be a form of concrete testable evidence.

I'm trying to get a sense of what you consider evidence.

What if 100 people see a crippled woman in a wheelchair get smacked in the head by an Evangelical leader and, miraculously healed, she starts dancing around the room? Would this then qualify as evidence? Would these people now be justified in having faith in God, having seen His miracles?

What if you were the crippled woman in the wheelchair. Would this be self internalized?


Wade, I agree with you that since the line between faith and trust is so blurry that it is very difficult to distinguish between the 2. There are definiate levels of trust just as there are levels of faith, if you can actually distinguish between the 2.

I have absolutely no evidence that I will have a job tomorrow. I certainly don't trust management. It is entirely possible that I could come to work and find the company has sold out to a large corporation and they are moving the plant to China. It has happened before to me. Yet, I still go into debt with the faith that I will be able to pay my bills.