What's the utility of faith?

[_beefcalf]

Sethbag:

Hoops is a guy. I do not know why he uses the basketball chick avatar.

Once you get used to it, it doesn't seem so weird.

Hoops, is that why you made the cryptic comment about his statement 'bursting with faith'? That he has faith that you're a girl?

[_jon]

So of what utility is faith now? Faith is belief without evidence

Thoughts?

Buff, from my experience within Mormonism (I have zero experience of any other religion) Faith is belief despite the evidence.

Most true believing Mormon's will have the line 'I know Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God' within their testimony. Yet every single piece of evidence and research points to the clear fact that he wasn't. The only way you can have Faith in Joseph Smith (and therefore Mormonism as a whole) is to ignore the glaringly obvious.

Is that Faith? I'm not sure it is.

Faith in my mind, is really hope by another name, and you really only need hope when the evidence before you is inconclusive or unsure.

[_GR33N]

What is the utility of faith? Faith doesn't seem to be a principle that applied in the premortal existence, and yet we were able to be tested and make choices. It doesn't appear to be a principle that will be used in the afterlife either - faith will be replaced by knowledge. So we're not practicing for the afterlife with faith - it's only utilized in this life.

I think faith was a principle in the premortal existence. I believe we had a knowledge of God and that we wanted to be tested and make choices. To do that we had to have faith in God that he could provide a way for us to be tested and have a way to return to him.

So of what utility is faith now? Faith is belief without evidence, and practicing faith in almost anything will have negative consequences. If you have faith in the wrong religion, you won't make it to the CK. If you have faith in a con artist, you will be swindled. If you have faith in a violent or perverse person, you or your loved ones may be victimized. If we have faith in pseudo-science, human progress is impeded.

My perception is that faith does not always have negative consequences and often has very positive consequences. Your perception may be tainted by your own personal experience or personal knowledge (or lack therof) of faith. Faith in pseudo-science (evolution) abounds and human progress is impeded by it.

So, even if you accept that the restored gospel is true, faith in most things is potentially damaging and dangerous. From a scientific perspective, faith will almost always yield the wrong answer. We don't need faith to make choices - we didn't need it in the pre-existence. In fact, the more information you have, the better you are able to make choices. We learn much more by the exercise of an informed decision after considering all the facts than we do by guessing. So free agency is really impeded by faith and enhanced by knowledge.

I accept that the restored gospel is true and my faith has yet to be damaging or dangerous. From a scientific perspective its true that the more information you have the better you are able to make a choice. Although, not all information is available to us and so faith is required to make a choice on some matters. We have some help on this. "By their fruits, ye shall know them"

I would submit that faith as a religious principle is strictly an ad hoc doctrine, a theological innovation brought about to comfort believers in the face of a world that isn't really haunted by gods and demons and magic. People who don't suffer from hallucinations and don't eat spoiled food or hallucinogenic drugs don't tend to see gods or angels or hear voices. Faith is the ad hoc doctrine that explains why. Faith doesn't seem to have any value beyond that, however.

Thoughts?

God asks us to have faith in him, when we do He does comfort us in the face of life's negative consequences. Comfort and knowledge based on faith is of great value.

[_Sophocles]

According to Daniel C. Dennett, even within religion faith is a relatively new phenomenon:

Oh, God is very definitely beyond the verification process of science. God has been designed to be beyond the verification process of science. This is one of the classic adaptations of religions--is to create this gulf so that science can't get anywhere near God. That's true. But science can understand that very fact. Science can understand how religions evolved. And by the way, that idea is completely absent in folk religions which are the ancestors... The idea of God being, as it were, beyond science. They don't make a distinction between science and religion. Folk religions it's all the same, it's all one, it's just what everybody knows. And they have no concept of faith. They don't need a concept of faith. It's only once you start getting this separation between science and other things that people think they know--when maybe they don't--that's when the idea of faith looms and becomes a very attractive idea. And indeed it is. It protects the idea of God from disproof.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/475

[_Buffalo]

Believers, please resolve this for us if you can.

1 Jn. 5: 4
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

Faith is the asset you earned before you were born by the diligent practice invested in the love and will of God. If you paid little attention to God and his will before you came into this world, it is certain you cannot pay any attention to it now. Then we had little to distract us. Now we have the whole world against it.

Think of it as a residual of love. If you carried great love in your heart for billions of years. How can moving down into another dimension separate you from it?

Now if you are going to say humanity had no pre-thoughts before they were born, demanding the evidence, consider how advanced in thinking every baby is. We NEVER teach them to think, neither do we teach them to love. Both they do already and there ain't no chemical explanation of it. Even dogs do it. That is a God proof. Not the only one but a good one.

Babies aren't born with "advanced thinking." They all seem pretty befuddled when they come out. They learn pretty quickly, sure. None of that, by the way, constitutes the least shred of evidence for a pre-existence.

[_Buffalo]

- in other words, belief in absence of credible evidence.

That's not the faith we espouse. In fact, we are called to embrace a faith that is directly contrary to that. Of course, you will require that we explain in natural terms that which is non-natural, or beyond natural.

Oh, that's good to know. Where's your credible evidence?

[_Buffalo]

What is the utility of faith?

I'll answer that with another question:

What is the utility of faithlessness?

The opposite of faith is skepticism, or critical thinking. The utility is an ability to rationally weigh the evidence and make informed decisions based on facts, not feelings. It helps you to discern fact from fiction and avoid being conned.

Your turn.

[_Buffalo]

My perception is that faith does not always have negative consequences and often has very positive consequences. Your perception may be tainted by your own personal experience or personal knowledge (or lack therof) of faith. Faith in pseudo-science (evolution) abounds and human progress is impeded by it.

We can see clearly that GR33N's faith has damaged him. Unable to engage in critical thought due to his faith mindset, he calls real science "pseudo-science" and clings to mythology as if it were literally true.

[_Buffalo]

According to Daniel C. Dennett, even within religion faith is a relatively new phenomenon:

Oh, God is very definitely beyond the verification process of science. God has been designed to be beyond the verification process of science. This is one of the classic adaptations of religions--is to create this gulf so that science can't get anywhere near God. That's true. But science can understand that very fact. Science can understand how religions evolved. And by the way, that idea is completely absent in folk religions which are the ancestors... The idea of God being, as it were, beyond science. They don't make a distinction between science and religion. Folk religions it's all the same, it's all one, it's just what everybody knows. And they have no concept of faith. They don't need a concept of faith. It's only once you start getting this separation between science and other things that people think they know--when maybe they don't--that's when the idea of faith looms and becomes a very attractive idea. And indeed it is. It protects the idea of God from disproof.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/475

That's really a brilliant observation, thanks for sharing that.

[_Hoops]

Oh, that's good to know. Where's your credible evidence?

I don't think that's the point of the thread. Though you started it, so maybe it is. Nonetheless, we are called to have sound, thought-out reasons for our faith. We've come to a conclusion. You may not accept our reasons, you may disagree with the conclusions, but to say that your position is the only reasonable one, or is the most reasonable one, - well, we would disagree.

So the faith we have is a gift from God. Its utility is that it helps us make sense of the world.