http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1202464,1202464

Faith in yourself and your work gives one strenght and endurance to complete something, faith in this sense has nothing to do with a religion, or do you think faith is only for religious people? If so, then you are delusional, faith is a function of the brain like concentration is a function of the brain, you fell for a raped quote.

I agree with you. I use faith in many ways more that just 'religion' since I don't believe in 'religion'.

Also, thanks for referencing the other thread. I never read that before and found it quite interesting!

Always a good strategy to call people who disagree with you delusional.
Oh, wait, no it's not. Never mind.

My disagreement is in how you use the term "faith."

"Faith" is belief without anything to back it up.
Which isn't necessarily a "function of the brain."

Our brains have the ability to imagine how things might go.
Our brains have the ability to reach tentative conclusions based on incomplete knowledge/evidence.

Neither of those are "faith."

The "stenght[sic] and endurance to complete something" doesn't require "faith." It's equally possible using the brain abilities described above -- which, while based on incomplete knowledge/evidence, still have some foundation in evidence, and accept that the outcome may not be what you imagined it will be.

"Faith" isn't a reasonable assessment of probability with acceptance of an unforeseen outcome. It's belief with NOTHING behind it. It's fantasy -- even if by accident what you imagine DOES happen. You may now and then get "lucky" and have your "faith" pay off, but that's just coincidence, since your "faith" had no basis behind it whatsoever. Using "faith" is no more useful than flipping a coin (actually, flipping a coin probably has better odds of a payoff, even though -- like "faith" -- the basis is random).

Imagining a positive outcome for some task, using that visualization to "endure" and have strength, and seeing something through, using your experience, your knowledge of the world and people, and your knowledge of your own strengths/weaknesses...none of those are "faith." And they're far more likely to help you succeed in something that "faith" is.

"Faith," religious or not, isn't very useful. Certainly not as useful as using at least SOME facts in making decisions.

Haha. Hey Henry, looks like we have one more reader!

[For clarity, please note that the poster who uses a capital "H" Human as moniker did not write the OP.]

Human

Oh, wait -- somebody's hijacking your Human name?
Not nice :)

Yep, not nice. I saw it early and hoped the style of it was clearly not mine, and so go ignored.

Good thing, though: one of Henry's more interesting posts got bumped :^)

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, not nice. I saw it early and hoped the style
> of it was clearly not mine, and so go ignored.

I was suspicious, but not convinced. Thanks for clearing it up :)

Didn't know there where other humans here.
I just picked a name from memory, normally you get a message when a name exist, I didn't get any.

Wait a minute. Some other human is resurrecting one of my posts of three years ago. Now I am flattered!

Thank you, human.

Cheers, Henry!

Perhaps the word confidence is better suited to describe faith that isn't draped in religious overtones.

Confidence in a belief system is a ubiquitous human trait, just as much as belief systems are a ubiquitous part of human perception.

The trouble lies in suspending certain perceptual safeguards in order to have confidence or faith.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps the word confidence is better suited to
> describe faith that isn't draped in religious
> overtones.

When used colloquially, "faith" is synonymous with "believe" or, sure, "confidence". The word swirls around ideas of hope and optimism. "As a team, we gotta have FAITH in one another, we gotta BELIEVE in ourselves, we gotta have CONFIDENCE that we can beat those guys! Let's get out there and show them what FAITH can do! TEAMWORK!"

Like the extremely detailed and long-winded internet quibbling over exactly what each preferred definition of "atheist" means, I'm equally fascinated by the same energy to relegate "faith" as *only* a religious term. In the above sports example, "faith" is like its latin root, fides, and operates like "fidelity" etc. I see no reason to circumscribe how the word "faith" is used. It's a remarkably flexible, secular term.



> ...just as much as belief systems are a
> ubiquitous part of human perception.

Now that is an interesting claim, one with which I share wholeheartedly. It is why I've been on this "worldview" kick lately.



> The trouble lies in suspending certain perceptual
> safeguards in order to have confidence or faith.

Yep. And yet, so many successful teams and individuals in all sorts of endeavours credit exactly this kind of suspension as the very reason for their success.

Human

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep. And yet, so many successful teams and
> individuals in all sorts of endeavours credit
> exactly this kind of suspension as the very reason
> for their success.

Many "successful" teams and individuals also credit "gods" of various kinds as the very reason for their success.

Which doesn't, of course, mean that we should take their claims as valid. :)

I often have those who seem to put great value in "faith" insist that I use "faith" all the time -- such as when I sit down in a chair, and have "faith" that it will support me.

Never mind that a glance at a chair, using a lifetime of experience, and some knowledge of furniture construction, and a knowledge of my own weight, all used to quickly (and perhaps even subconsciously) assess the probability of a chair supporting me isn't "faith" at all...

"Faith" is sitting down without even looking to see if there's a chair there to sit on. Now, using only "faith," you might now and then get lucky, and a chair will be behind you.

It's far more likely, however, that you'll fall on your ass.

Ha!

However, the man of faith may perchance be less likely to fall between two chairs than the man always weighing probabilities. ;^)

"Perhaps the word confidence is better suited to describe faith that isn't draped in religious overtones."

COMMENT: Suggesting an alternative word for non-religious "faith" based upon one's objections to religious faith, or as an attempt to diminish religious faith, begs the question as to whether religious faith is somehow inherently objectionable, whereas "faith" applied in other contexts is not. Changing the word does not address the issue. All applications of "faith" represent a psychological commitment, without certainty, to some proposition. The word is neutral as to the truth or rationality of any particular belief.

"Religious faith" is a mental state or psychological attitude that is directed to the acceptance of a belief that motivates one's behavior. What particular experiences and assumptions lie behind such faith is another question. In some cases one might find reasons to criticize the underlying assumptions, whatever they might be, and thereby criticize the faith it generates.

"Scientific faith" is no different. It is also a mental state or psychological attitude that is directed to the acceptance of a belief that motivates one's behavior. What particular experiences and underlying assumptions lie behind such faith is another question. In some cases one might find reasons to criticize the underlying assumptions, whatever they might be, and thereby criticize the faith it generates.

"Faith," in whatever context, is rational if there are reasons that support the underlying belief; i.e. if there are "reasons to believe." As argued at length in the OP link, such reasons do not require strict scientific evidence, IN ANY CONTEXT! There may be reasons to believe that fall short of such evidence. Moreover, there are scientific "reasons to believe" even in the context of religious faith! (Again, see OP link)

In short, there is nothing inherently objectionable about religious faith; it depends upon the specific propositions believed, and the nature and veracity of the underlying facts and experience that support such beliefs. Similarly, there is nothing inherently non-objectionable about scientific faith; it too depends upon the nature and veracity of the underlying facts and experience that support such beliefs.

Notwithstanding the above, at least for me the window of rationality is much larger for scientific beliefs than for religious beliefs because rationality is encompassed by its methodology, whereas in religion rationality is more or less an afterthought.

I would reply that my concession is part of my statement.

Ignoring contextual meanings in an effort to make a point is exactly what I would love to avoid in conceding that there might, perhaps, be a better word.

A month ago my five year old had a terrible accident that necessitated a trip to the emergency room, surgery, and short stay in the hospital. As a parent I was at a bit of a loss on how best protect my son since I was at the mercy of doctors I had never met. My level of trust in the surgeon came from the fact that he was present at the hospital, everyone seemed to know him, he had a smock on, he had a good recommendation from the ER doctor, a man equally unknown to me, and the folks in the OR did what he asked them to do.

All of those evidences of his ability are duplicated by an LDS bishop. Yet I would never, even as a TBM, put the kind of trust in a bishop as I did this surgeon. My confidence in the surgeon's ability to help my son was so much more powerful than the faith I might have in a bishop.

So yes, even if the words mean the same thing, the distinction is merited. At least in my mind.

Jacob, your story touched one of my most harrowing moments as a father.

My boy was a skater. Lots of broken bones etc. One day he couldn't pee, at all. Trip to Emergency.

Turned out he broke his urethra. It required reconstructive surgery.

This kid, and I mean a kid maybe 27-28 years old, was flown in from another city to perform the surgery. He came in wearing a pair of ripped up blue jeans and a popped-up Lacoste collar. Holy shit, this is the dude that's gonna fix my boy's penis!? This cocky, fashion conscious brah is my kid's surgeon?! Yep.

I had faith that our educational system and the colleges that he was under wouldn't allow for his success sans merit. Did I have confidence? Hell no! But I had faith.

Hope all went well for your child. As for my boy, he tells me it's a bit crooked and sprays a little, but well enough.

Cheers,

Human

Perhaps faith and desperation aren't all that dissimilar.

I don't see self confidence as faith. Faith is believing in something you can't know and have no evidence for. Self confidence is based on knowing your own strengths, talents, and knowledge. Self confidence is understanding what you do know and how to use that to your own advantage. This allows one to act with the benefit of knowledge and understanding whereas acting with faith is acting on wishing and hoping.

Done & Done Stated "Faith is believing in something you can't know and have no evidence for."
___________________________________________________________

According to Webster:

Definition of faith

plural
faiths
play \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\

1
a
:
allegiance to duty or a person
:
loyalty •lost faith in the company's president
b (1)
:
fidelity to one's promises (2)
:
sincerity of intentions •acted in good faith


2
a (1)
:
belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2)
:
belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1)
:
firm belief in something for which there is no proof •clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2)
:
complete trust

:
something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially
:
a system of religious beliefs •the Protestant faith

—
on faith

:
without question •took everything he said on faith

____________________________________________________

Comment: 'Proof' according to Webster versus 'evidence' according to D&D is much different!!!!!

I believe the 'vast majority' of 'believers' have some 'evidence' to base their belief on and very little 'proof' that would be convincing to others!

Well I guess it would be nice
If I could touch your body
I know not everybody
Has got a body like you, uhh

But I've got to think twice
Before I give my heart away
And I know all the games you play
Because I play them too

Oh but I
Need some time off from that emotion
Time to pick my heart up off the floor
Oh when that love comes down
Without devotion
Well it takes a strong man, baby
But I'm showing you the door

'Cause I gotta have faith
I gotta faith
Because I gotta to have faith faith
I gotta to have faith, faith, faith

Baby
I know you're asking me to stay
Say please, please, please, don't go away
You say I'm giving you the blues
Maybe
You mean every word you say
Can't help but think of yesterday
And another who tied me down to lover boy rules

Before this river
Becomes an ocean
Before you throw my heart back on the floor
Oh baby I reconsider
My foolish notion
Well I need someone to hold me
But I wait for something more

Yes I've gotta have faith
Unh I gotta faith
Because I gotta to have faith, faith, faith
I gotta to have faith, faith, faith

I just got to wait
Because I got to have faith
I gotta have faith
I gotta, gotta, gotta have faith

Before this river
Becomes an ocean
Before you throw my heart back on the floor
Oh baby I reconsider
My foolish notion
Well I need someone to hold me
But I wait for something more

'Cause I've gotta have faith
Unh I gotta faith
Because I gotta to have faith, faith, faith
I gotta to have faith, faith, faith

I think there is a distinction between blind faith, ie putting your trust in something without any evidence, and faith in general which is more about trusting something with minimal or only personal evidence.

Obviously, blind faith is more 'woo-woo' to non-believers, but we must discriminate between the two types. Science uses faith, as demonstrated in linked op, but it is not the 'blind faith' that atheists relegate religious beliefs to.

'A leap of faith' is a technique sometimes employed by writers to advance their story - avid readers sometimes rate authors by how 'blind' or 'big' their leaps of faith are as the narrative can be ruined for some with too big a leap written into the story.

Sometimes, especially in a religious context, it appears that hope and faith are sometimes transposed, or muddled. For example, someone with religious faith may be perceived by the non-religious as merely having an unfounded hope that something will happen eventually. Even in science, when new experiments are devised, it is hoped that the outcome will be as expected. When the first experiment is successful, newer more specific experiments are designed and these will carry a bit of faith rather than hope, since there is some evidence from previous experiments that indicate the later experiments will also have outcomes as expected.

Perhaps with our ever evolving language we should differentiate between 'hopeful/blind' faith, which has no evidence at all, and 'trusting' faith which has personal evidence for the person carrying it. I suppose at the other end of the spectrum we would have 'complete' faith, ie, we all have complete faith the sun will rise in the morning as there is plenty evidence for all to see that it should and it is almost guaranteed, ie, it would exceptional if it did not.

Language is a funny thing - it can unite and divide, all at once.