Faith and how much we depend on it.

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

You'll never realize what you can do if you already know what you can't do.
That was a fairly profound statement when I first saw it. It's a thing that, in my mind is one of the major hurdles in many of our lives. Of course I can only speak for myself, but i think much of what we accomplish in life depends on conuring it.

I know that the conatations of the word Faith pretty much leads to the thought of God and religion, but I think it one of the major hurdles mankind needs to address if they are to be the person they were meant to be.

How deep are we as individuals dependent on that very issue are we?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You'll never realize what you can do if you already know what you can't do.
That was a fairly profound statement when I first saw it. It's a thing that, in my mind is one of the major hurdles in many of our lives. Of course I can only speak for myself, but i think much of what we accomplish in life depends on conuring it.

I know that the conatations of the word Faith pretty much leads to the thought of God and religion, but I think it one of the major hurdles mankind needs to address if they are to be the person they were meant to be.

How deep are we as individuals dependent on that very issue are we?

Something tells me that you are confusing "religious faith" with more mondane forms of "faith", where it really is rather synonymous with "confidence" or "trust".

Trust and confidence are not baseless beliefs. They are based on previous experiences and the successfull track record thereof.

Religious faith is nothing like that.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Something tells me that you are confusing "religious faith" with more mondane forms of "faith", where it really is rather synonymous with "confidence" or "trust".

Trust and confidence are not baseless beliefs. They are based on previous experiences and the successfull track record thereof.

Religious faith is nothing like that.

Why would you think I would concentrate of religion. I want every bodies input in my posts. I don't discriminate when I try to learn from others. This is outside the religious area for that very reason.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I relate belief to ocytocin (trust horemone). Trust in propositions, and also hopes as well as people.

There is no fear in love. Chilling out is called the relaxation response, and is the psychological opposite of fight or flight. Peace people.

Whats this got to do with faith? Well faith it is trust and a brain based bond to an idea or complex of ideas.

And true faith brings relaxation, trust, as a feedback to action, rather than fight or flight. You wont be uneasy in in a true faith, not adrenaline -ized, youll be at ease.

So you may have faith, but is faith causing faith?

 

[Soyeong]

Something tells me that you are confusing "religious faith" with more mondane forms of "faith", where it really is rather synonymous with "confidence" or "trust".

Trust and confidence are not baseless beliefs. They are based on previous experiences and the successfull track record thereof.

Religious faith is nothing like that.

Religious faith precisely is synonymous with "confidence" or "trust" and faith in God is based on His track record. It does not refer to a baseless belief, which is not actually humanly possible. Beliefs don't spontaneously pop into someone's head uncaused, and even if they did, they aren't maintained uncaused.

 

[The Cadet]

Religious faith precisely is synonymous with "confidence" or "trust" and faith in God is based on His track record.

Then can you demonstrate this track record?

 

[Soyeong]

Then can you demonstrate this track record?

Christians perceive the Bible the as recording many of God's interactions throughout history, or in other words, as being His track record. God is portrayed as being trustworthy in the past, and based on that, Christians can be confident that God will continue to be trustworthy in the future. Christians also often give testimonials about answers prayer or for how God has been working in our lives, which increase our faith because it is more evidence that God is trustworthy.

Non-Christians are free to question whether the Bible or the testimonials are true, nevertheless, from our perspective they are part of God's track record, so "religious faith" does not have a different meaning than "regular faith". Being of the opinion that someone's belief does not have a good foundation is very different from thinking that someone's belief does not have a foundation. Faith is not a way of forming a belief in the first place, but is the will to keep our minds focused on the good reasons that we have for holding a belief the someone or something is trustworthy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why would you think I would concentrate of religion.

Because this is a religious forum and the word "faith" in a religious context has a whole bunch of implications attached to it, that simply is not present when the word is used in other contexts.

Compare it to using the word "theory" in context of a science forum.

I want every bodies input in my posts. I don't discriminate when I try to learn from others. This is outside the religious area for that very reason.

So, in the case of "faith" in a context where it means "trust" or "confidence" in matters of how "confident" one is to succeed in a particular project, I would say it depends on various things. Like how well one can judge one owns abilities as well as the mental support one gets from the immediate environment.

For example, if you have parents that for some reason always treat you as if you are some kind of loser that can't do anything right as opposed to parents that constantly try to motivate you.

Or how one views life in general.

Some time ago, when I was still working as a freelance programmer, I started a new assignment and the very first thing I noticed was a saying that was written in huge letters on the wall of the office: "Keep your expectations low and don't get dissappointed". I was absolutely horrified when I read that. I immediatly told the program manager that "if that is how you see this team, you'll never accomplish great things".

Soon after that, I erased those words and replaced them with "Think big or stay small".

I'm one of those people who assumes that if one has a plan in the head, you'll only be able to put some 20% of that plan into practice. So, you'ld better make sure that the "100%" is an extremely ambitious, grand master plan. Then the 20% will be worthwhile.

And last but not least, one of my moto's in life is "you can't stand up unless you fall a few times first". Failure is part of life. More then that even, failure is part of success.

Not every plan results in success and that's fine. But for a plan to end successfully, one has to actually give it a try first... But yes, before one takes up the effort of giving it a try, one has to first be confident that it is at least possible for it to end successfully. And while there are ways to gain a good understanding of the risks involved, at some point you're indeed simply are going to have to have "faith" (=confidence) in your own abilities to be able to achieve your goals.

There isn't a single business out there where the founder didn't at some point make the jump into darkness, not really knowing if they would land on their feet. All one can do is analyse the risks involved and see if it is worth the trouble.


Another great saying in that respect, which is always in the back of my mind with every "risky" thing I undertake: plan for the worst, hope for the best.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Religious faith precisely is synonymous with "confidence" or "trust" and faith in God is based on His track record.

No. That's exactly the thing. There is no such track record. The idea that there is, is something that is believed on (religious) faith.

The track record of my own abilities is nothing like that. My past efforts and success/failure thereof are demonstrable.

I have my degree in software engineering.
I worked on countless projects that succeeded.
There's a real track record of those successes that need not be taken on "faith" that it occured.

It does not refer to a baseless belief, which is not actually humanly possible.

That's demonstrably not true.

Beliefs don't spontaneously pop into someone's head uncaused, and even if they did, they aren't maintained uncaused.

People believe all kinds of things for all kinds of (bad) reasons.
And you know that.

What is the track record of astrology? Mediums? Fortune tellers? Snake oil salesmen? Healing crystals?

These things are all believe on "faith" alone. No track record. Only misguided gullibility.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Christians perceive the Bible the as recording many of God's interactions throughout history, or in other words, as being His track record. God is portrayed as being trustworthy in the past, and based on that, Christians can be confident that God will continue to be trustworthy in the future.

Exactly. But what is this confidence based on? Answer: on their (religious) faith that the bible is accurate. Not on an actual track record, but on a claimed track record that is to just be "believed".

Christians also often give testimonials about answers prayer or for how God has been working in our lives, which increase our faith because it is more evidence that God is trustworthy.

People also give testimonials about being abducted by aliens, seeing big foot, the loch ness monster, seeing Elvis alive and well, ....

Non-Christians are free to question whether the Bible or the testimonials are true, nevertheless, from our perspective they are part of God's track record, so "religious faith" does not have a different meaning than "regular faith".

Again, this is not true.
The track record is not a tangible one that everyone can go ahead and verify. Instead, it is a claimed record that is to just be "believed".

Thats the difference.

Faith is not a way of forming a belief in the first place, but is the will to keep our minds focused on the good reasons that we have for holding a belief the someone or something is trustworthy.

That's not true either.

I have good reasons to accept that gravity is real. I see no purpose in using the word "faith" in context of gravity. And neither do you.
I never see anyone say that they have "faith" that if they jump from the eiffel tower, they will plummeth to their deaths. No, instead, that is called knowledge. And one doesn't require faith to accept that knowledge. Because we have evidence.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Something tells me that you are confusing "religious faith" with more mondane forms of "faith", where it really is rather synonymous with "confidence" or "trust".

Trust and confidence are not baseless beliefs. They are based on previous experiences and the successfull track record thereof.

Religious faith is nothing like that.

Religious faith is exactly like that.

 

[The Cadet]

Again, this is not true.
The track record is not a tangible one that everyone can go ahead and verify. Instead, it is a claimed record that is to just be "believed".

Eh... Nah. Once we start talking about evidence and reasons to believe, then the definition of faith has in fact shifted. You can consider the bible an unreliable record all you want (talking animals, scientifically impossible global flood, historic events that simply never happened, weak testimony of unbelievable miracles, yadda yadda yadda), but that's a different debate than the debate over the general validity of faith, because as @Soyeong defines it, it's essentially no different from standard reasoning and evidence. It's just that we think the quality of evidence presented is really weak. But that's not really a discussion we can have here, is it? :/

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Religious faith precisely is synonymous with "confidence" or "trust" and faith in God is based on His track record. It does not refer to a baseless belief, which is not actually humanly possible. Beliefs don't spontaneously pop into someone's head uncaused, and even if they did, they aren't maintained uncaused.

Again, you're denying that it's possible for someone to be unjustifiably confident in some claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Religious faith is exactly like that.

No, it's not and I explained why in other posts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Eh... Nah. Once we start talking about evidence and reasons to believe, then the definition of faith has in fact shifted. You can consider the bible an unreliable record all you want (talking animals, scientifically impossible global flood, historic events that simply never happened, weak testimony of unbelievable miracles, yadda yadda yadda), but that's a different debate than the debate over the general validity of faith, because as @Soyeong defines it, it's essentially no different from standard reasoning and evidence. It's just that we think the quality of evidence presented is really weak. But that's not really a discussion we can have here, is it? :/

I tend to disagree with that. Although I get what you're saying.
I guess you are right that the discussion concerning this "faith" thing then shifts to the validity of the "track record" that comes as the foundation for this "faith".

On the other hand, that was exactly my point and I emphasized it as well.
The "faith" of christians is in the bible and thus the bible becomes the foundation / the track record.

But this track record is merely a claimed track record. Just another thing that needs to be "believed" for no apparant valid reason.

I think that that is exactly what makes "religious faith" different from the more mondane, day-to-day, forms of "faith".

 

[The Cadet]

But this track record is merely a claimed track record. Just another thing that needs to be "believed" for no apparant valid reason.

Right, but at that point you're no longer disputing the epistemology, you're disputing the claims. Indeed, at this point the epistemology can be described in its most basic terms as roughly the same we would appeal to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Eh... Nah. Once we start talking about evidence and reasons to believe, then the definition of faith has in fact shifted. You can consider the bible an unreliable record all you want (talking animals, scientifically impossible global flood, historic events that simply never happened, weak testimony of unbelievable miracles, yadda yadda yadda), but that's a different debate than the debate over the general validity of faith, because as @Soyeong defines it, it's essentially no different from standard reasoning and evidence. It's just that we think the quality of evidence presented is really weak. But that's not really a discussion we can have here, is it? :/

Which is why I think it's useful to distinguish 'faith' as confidence in general from religious 'faith,' which seems to have a much more specific meaning.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Right, but at that point you're no longer disputing the epistemology, you're disputing the claims. Indeed, at this point the epistemology can be described in its most basic terms as roughly the same we would appeal to.

That's assuming the person in question is referring to 'faith' as confidence in general, which may or may not be justified to varying degrees. Often they add an important caveat that bears emphasising: they say that they would continue to believe just as strongly even if overwhelming contrary evidence were presented. That changes the nature of the discussion quite a bit, since then we are left to wonder about the reasonableness of holding such dogmatic commitments.

 

[The Cadet]

Which is why I think it's useful to distinguish 'faith' as confidence in general from religious 'faith,' which seems to have a much more specific meaning.

Oh, I agree. The conflation of terms here is very unhelpful.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Faith, and belief, in and about things about which we cannot always be reasonably (e.g. verifiably) certain, is built in to human cognitive processing. Someone recounts a story, others repeat, modify and embellish it; it is presented as true to people who trust the reliability of the sources relaying it to them - they consequently have faith that they aren't deceived, and so come to believe.

There is a strong parallel (and connection) here with the formation and development of autobiographical (personal) memories. One perceives a set of events as an experience and stores the personally salient points as associative memories. At each recall they are modified and embellished (sometimes with external contributions), forming new associations. We trust the reliability of the source - ourselves - consequently we have faith that our memories are reliable and not self-deceptive, and so come to believe them to be true. However, we now have consistent empirical evidence that our trust is largely misplaced, our faith in the reliability of our memories is mistaken, and our confident belief in their truth is unfounded.

The common thread is faith in trusted sources without verification.

Experience in the structured acquisition of knowledge leads to guidelines suggesting that, where possible, we should try to independently verify our sources, and when this isn't possible, treat their reports with Bayesian scepticism; i.e. use verified knowledge to assess the prior probability of the events occurring as reported.

For personal memories, it often doesn't matter whether they're reliable or accurate; for other beliefs, it can matter much more...