What's so great about faith?

[_The Nehor]

I wouldn't call that faith. It sounds more like trust to me (in the way that trust is different from faith). You trusted the people that told you that you'd make more money and the general evidence. No faith was required.

Wow, what a grandious statement! But I must inform you that I have never been moved by what people call faith to get out of bed in the morning. My desire to make money to feed my family is what does it for me. And trust me; feeding my family matters to me.

Again, what you're calling faith here I call trust. You trust your dentist and your parents that what they tell you is true, and as you practice their advice, you get a personal knowledge that it was right. Once again, no faith needed.

This assumes you think there's some utility in the myth of the atonement, but there's no way you'll ever be able to prove that the myth is real. All you'll ever be able to do is keep telling yourself that it has value until one day, you've completely convinced yourself, without any proof at all, that it has some value.

In order:

1. Trust in God and faith in Christ are very similar. Trust is a prereq for real faith and in many cases the terms are synonomous. When many people say they have faith in God much of the meaning is that they trust them. I trusted those people and had faith enough in their advice to follow through.

2. Would you get out of bed in the morning if you didn't believe that doing so would help feed your family? You have faith that getting up will in fact help your family and all the evidence so far suggests it does. Are you absolutely sure that while getting up today you won't lose all feeling in your legs while getting up, slam into the dresser, smash your nose into your brain, and instantly die? No, but you have faith enough to try anyways. I'm not meaning to be grandoise, I'm meaning to be practical.

3. Again, faith and trust are similar.

4. Or, you can try to use the atonement and see if it works. If it works once you figure it might be a fluke. You keep trying and see what happens. As the evidence grows your faith grows and you begin to understand more of the cause and effect relationship of it. Eventually it becomes a law you rely on like the sun coming up in the morning and you treat it accordingly. Eventually if you use it enough you come to such an understanding.

You're equating faith with belief, I equate it with experience. Many LDS have a passive acceptance of doctrine but do little or nothing to experience the rewards of faith because they don't seek any by relentlessly testing the Laws and Doctrines of God through actual use. Jesus said that if someone does his will they will know of whether the doctrine is true or not.

[_Sethbag]

You commonly will hear such things as "God can't make it too easy for us to know that he exists, because then we wouldn't have to have faith."

I think this is the kind of faith that Schmo is talking about. That is, what's so great about faith that having it is of such paramount importance that God would make it pretty hard to know he existed?

Let's take the Fall of Adam for instance. We know, scientifically, that things have been living and dying on Earth for billions of years, and complex animals of various sorts have existed and died on this earth for into the many hundreds of millions of years. This directly contradicts the claim made by the "faithful" that nothing on Earth died before Adam's fall, a few thousand years ago in the Garden of Eden. Now, we have direct evidence, mountains and mountains of it, of many different natures, from all over the world, explainable according to many different verified scientific principles which all point to the same conclusion, on the one hand, and "faith" that somehow the scriptures are right and Adam really did introduce death to the world, on the other hand. And you actually get people to eschew the entire world full of scientific evidence and stick with the scriptural argument, and justify it by saying that they have faith! This is idiocy, IMHO, not something admirable.

Faith in something which cannot be demonstrated, for or against, is one thing, and I'm fairly neutral about it. Faith in things which are directly contradicted by mountains of physical evidence, on the other hand, is delusional, wishful thinking, and is a sign of an irrational mind, or at least an irrational approach to reality, and is not to be admired.

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?

Why would God create human beings, and create in human beings the potential to develop rational thinking, critical thinking, and methods for examining claims that are based on verifying claims against demonstrable evidence, and then require us to actually act against these rational faculties in order to have "faith" in him, or in scriptures, or prophets, or whatever? Would God not be setting up the rational people for failure? How fair would that be? How fair would it be for God to make an Earth that looked exactly like an Earth that developed naturally, without supernatural intervention, and then act prejudicially against people who took the Earth on its own merits, and rationally concluded that there was no evidence for supernatural intervention, and refused to have "faith" that there was anyway?

[_truth dancer]

I don't get faith.

Folks say it is a great attribute but I just don't see it.

If it is then is it good to have faith in Zeus? Or Scientology? Or Allah? Should I have faith in leprechauns or psychics or the neighborhood astral traveler?

Seems to me folks think faith is a great thing so long as you have faith in the thing in which they think one should have faith.

;-)

~dancer~

[_truth dancer]

Hi Seth...

Why would God create human beings, and create in human beings the potential to develop rational thinking, critical thinking, and methods for examining claims that are based on verifying claims against demonstrable evidence, and then require us to actually act against these rational faculties in order to have "faith" in him, or in scriptures, or prophets, or whatever? Would God not be setting up the rational people for failure? How fair would that be? How fair would it be for God to make an Earth that looked exactly like an Earth that developed naturally, without supernatural intervention, and then act prejudicially against people who took the Earth on its own merits, and rationally concluded that there was no evidence for supernatural intervention, and refused to have "faith" that there was anyway?

Maybe the ability to think, reason, evaluate, preceive, and be rational is actually from Satan?

That would explain a lot of things actually!

:-)

~dancer~

[_The Nehor]

I don't get faith.

Folks say it is a great attribute but I just don't see it.

If it is then is it good to have faith in Zeus? Or Scientology? Or Allah? Should I have faith in leprechauns or psychics or the neighborhood astral traveler?

Seems to me folks think faith is a great thing so long as you have faith in the thing in which they think one should have faith.

;-)

~dancer~

Faith is a principle of experience. This means it is tested. And no, faith independent of all things is neither good or bad. Faith in Jesus Christ is what the LDS contend leads to salvation. His command is to test it and try it and see if he fulfills what he said he would.

Seth, the difference between faith and knowledge (stemming from critical thinking and rational thought) is that knowledge can be acquired by reading books, analysis, and examination before the fact. For example if I want to know what happens when you put salt in water I can read a chemistry book. If I want to know the effect of advertising on auto sales I pull up the statistics and look them over. If I want to know what happened in 1900 I pull out a history book and start reading. This method is correct for that.

Faith requires you to do the things God asks you to do and then get the knowledge. It's more active. You do the test and measure the results and decide whether to continue. Others can encourage you and tell you what happened when they tried it and offer advice on applying the test more accurately but in the end you have to do it and judge the results. Knowledge I can accept on trust from those who have done the tests, you can't acquire faith that way.

[_Some Schmo]

You commonly will hear such things as "God can't make it too easy for us to know that he exists, because then we wouldn't have to have faith."

I think this is the kind of faith that Schmo is talking about. That is, what's so great about faith that having it is of such paramount importance that God would make it pretty hard to know he existed?

Let's take the Fall of Adam for instance. We know, scientifically, that things have been living and dying on Earth for billions of years, and complex animals of various sorts have existed and died on this earth for into the many hundreds of millions of years. This directly contradicts the claim made by the "faithful" that nothing on Earth died before Adam's fall, a few thousand years ago in the Garden of Eden. Now, we have direct evidence, mountains and mountains of it, of many different natures, from all over the world, explainable according to many different verified scientific principles which all point to the same conclusion, on the one hand, and "faith" that somehow the scriptures are right and Adam really did introduce death to the world, on the other hand. And you actually get people to eschew the entire world full of scientific evidence and stick with the scriptural argument, and justify it by saying that they have faith! This is idiocy, IMHO, not something admirable.

Faith in something which cannot be demonstrated, for or against, is one thing, and I'm fairly neutral about it. Faith in things which are directly contradicted by mountains of physical evidence, on the other hand, is delusional, wishful thinking, and is a sign of an irrational mind, or at least an irrational approach to reality, and is not to be admired.

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?

Why would God create human beings, and create in human beings the potential to develop rational thinking, critical thinking, and methods for examining claims that are based on verifying claims against demonstrable evidence, and then require us to actually act against these rational faculties in order to have "faith" in him, or in scriptures, or prophets, or whatever? Would God not be setting up the rational people for failure? How fair would that be? How fair would it be for God to make an Earth that looked exactly like an Earth that developed naturally, without supernatural intervention, and then act prejudicially against people who took the Earth on its own merits, and rationally concluded that there was no evidence for supernatural intervention, and refused to have "faith" that there was anyway?

Yes! Exactly.

People have asked me the classic religious question, "Well what if you're wrong?" I suppose that question stems from Pascal's Wager. For me, the answer is simple. I tell them that I have no problem with walking up to god in the afterlife, looking him straight in the eye and saying, "Well dude, you made me this way. What the hell did you expect?"

[_Some Schmo]

Seems to me folks think faith is a great thing so long as you have faith in the thing in which they think one should have faith.

LOL!

Ain't that the truth... dancer? :)

[_mocnarf]

You commonly will hear such things as "God can't make it too easy for us to know that he exists, because then we wouldn't have to have faith."

I think this is the kind of faith that Schmo is talking about. That is, what's so great about faith that having it is of such paramount importance that God would make it pretty hard to know he existed?

Let's take the Fall of Adam for instance. We know, scientifically, that things have been living and dying on Earth for billions of years, and complex animals of various sorts have existed and died on this earth for into the many hundreds of millions of years. This directly contradicts the claim made by the "faithful" that nothing on Earth died before Adam's fall, a few thousand years ago in the Garden of Eden. Now, we have direct evidence, mountains and mountains of it, of many different natures, from all over the world, explainable according to many different verified scientific principles which all point to the same conclusion, on the one hand, and "faith" that somehow the scriptures are right and Adam really did introduce death to the world, on the other hand. And you actually get people to eschew the entire world full of scientific evidence and stick with the scriptural argument, and justify it by saying that they have faith! This is idiocy, IMHO, not something admirable.

Faith in something which cannot be demonstrated, for or against, is one thing, and I'm fairly neutral about it. Faith in things which are directly contradicted by mountains of physical evidence, on the other hand, is delusional, wishful thinking, and is a sign of an irrational mind, or at least an irrational approach to reality, and is not to be admired.

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?
Why would God create human beings, and create in human beings the potential to develop rational thinking, critical thinking, and methods for examining claims that are based on verifying claims against demonstrable evidence, and then require us to actually act against these rational faculties in order to have "faith" in him, or in scriptures, or prophets, or whatever? Would God not be setting up the rational people for failure? How fair would that be? How fair would it be for God to make an Earth that looked exactly like an Earth that developed naturally, without supernatural intervention, and then act prejudicially against people who took the Earth on its own merits, and rationally concluded that there was no evidence for supernatural intervention, and refused to have "faith" that there was anyway?

Very good Sethbag... I agree totally. But to answer your question "What makes faith so important? Let me just say that without "faith" like a little child. The ability to believe anything you are told. Then, how would all the scam artist make a living? Are you trying to put Amway salesmen, faith healers, southern "travellers", etc. out of work. Are you an anti-capitalist? You must must be a commy pinko!

[_Sam Harris]

I know this thread died pretty quickly, because all pretty much everyone did was agree with Schmo (with the exception of Nehor, I think...but you played into what they wanted you to say). I reserve the right to lurk on hiatus to see if anything interesting comes up occasionally. Some of y'all are beefing right now, what the hell is going on?

Anyways....

Schmo, you say faith is useless. I disagree. I understand why you feel that way, but sometimes I question why folks question concepts like this (faith, spirituality) because it's not the concept itself that should be questioned, rather the direction in which it is aimed. If you do not want to have faith in a higher spiritual power, fine. With that said, spirituality does not always have to be an external thing, even the Bible says that the kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:20, and forgive me, I'm not trying to preach, I'm just trying to give some insight on what some of us Christians really think versus what some of you who do not believe in God think we think).

Some synonyms for faith are hope, confidence, conviction, assurance....life without this? I'm not talking about aiming these things at God, though I do have these connections with God. But I have these with God as well as with myself. The feelings are interchangeable, but I cannot imagine life without them, they help me to spring back from difficulty.

Let me give an example, and forgive me for getting personal yet again, but it is the only way I know how to explain what I see: I grow seriously ill. There is nothing to explain how I got there, and there is nothing to explain that I may come out of it. The doctors cannot tell me why or if there is hope (goodness, even they use this word, and they are far more analytical than I) of a full recovery. They still can't. These days I'm in pain, in between insurance (which means no doc) and nearly out of the meds that sustain me. Do I rely on reason? Where does it get me?

At this point all reason can do is show me exactly where I am....but hope can paint me a picture of where I might be if I just get out of bed one more time.

There's nothing wrong with having faith in yourself. And there's nothing wrong with having faith in someone you trust. Shades is right, a truly trustworthy person will want you to test their mettle.

I am sorry, but relying solely upon the asceptic standards of deduction, reason, argumentation (you can argue things into the ground, you know, and never get anywhere but deeper), speculation, and not stopping to add a bit of heart (faith) into the equation, to me is useless. All this reason, and all this intellect, all this knowledge that some people who don't believe in God boast about having, what are you doing with it, since us believers cannot think for fear of letting go of our faith? Since we faithers are the problem, and you joke about it, what are you doing to counteract it?

As I sat in church today, pastor brought up a couple of "equations". One he had clung to in seminary, assured that it was true. It was:

Time + Knowledge = Growth

It's not.

There needs to be something added to this equation.

This is what he added.

Time + Knowledge + Constant Use = Growth

Since those who believe in the unseen, regardless of their personal experiences (like dreaming of attending the funeral of a loved one at age 12 just months before being told that the individual had cancer...coincidence...can be scientifically explained...I'm waiting) obviously cannot solve the world's problems, we're looking to those uninhibited by faith to do it for us. You have that gap of time on your hands that you can put to constant use. :-)

[_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.

Another secular example is: while as a student in the public school system, and because I lacked sufficient experience with, and understanding of, variuos subjected, I couldn't be absolutely certain that what I was being taught was acturally true and correct. As such, my growth in secular knowledge was dependant upon my having faith that what the teachers were teaching me was true and correct.

There are numerous other examples that could be cited. But, hopefully, this will suffice in illuminating what I view as the utility of faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-