Does faith require an object?

[InkBlott]

Does faith require an object? Can we float it out there without attaching it to any defined term whatsoever?

 

[quatona]

I tend towards the notion that not only faith, but also e.g. love or anxiety do not require objects. To me, they are states of mind. Directing them towards an object - IOW making them manifest - seems to be a very common desire, though.

 

[InkBlott]

I tend towards the notion that not only faith, but also e.g. love or anxiety do not require objects. To me, they are states of mind. Directing them towards an object - IOW making them manifest - seems to be a very common desire, though.

How do you define faith then? Beyond it being a state of mind.

 

[quatona]

How do you define faith then? Beyond it being a state of mind.

That´s a tough call...
I am afraid I can´t give you my conclusive definition of this word, at least not right now.
Let me try and improvise, for the time being:
It´s pretty close to optimism: The unshakable conviction that everything is and will be alright - but without determining goals or criteria as to what constitutes "alright" upfront. Insofar it also can be said to have elements of fatalism.
Does this give you an idea?

 

[InkBlott]

That´s a tough call...
I am afraid I can´t give you my conclusive definition of this word, at least not right now.
Let me try and improvise, for the time being:
It´s pretty close to optimism: The unshakable conviction that everything is and will be alright - but without determining goals or criteria as to what constitutes "alright" upfront. Insofar it also can be said to have elements of fatalism.
Does this give you an idea?

Yes, it does. Thank you.

In retrospect, my OP, even after I edited it for clarity, is far too vague. It would seem I was expecting the denizens of this forum to read my mind.

To be specific, my OP was a reaction to the idea of claiming faith in God while allowing the term 'God' to go undefined due to it being beyond human ability to define such, or barring that, while embracing the via negativa in which God is defined only in terms of what God is not. I have maintained an atheistic view for some years out of a lack of a definition for the term 'God.' I have, at times, been criticized for not taking an agnostic approach, as if that would be more logical, but it seems illogical to me to grant even uncertainty to an undefined term.

Be that as it may (and not wanting to stray this into the area of apologetics which I understand is not allowed for non-Christians) it puzzles me when I am encouraged to have faith in God even by those who acknowledge the lack of definition for the term. If faith is a sort of optimism that there might be something that we can ultimatley connect to the term 'God' and that this something would not be anitithetical to either hope or love (which I Cor. 13 interstingly suggests is greater than faith) while addmitting that there is nothing we can say about the definition of this term beyond a vague assertion that God is not not love (double negative intended) then...meh...why bother with the term at all. Why not go about the business of loving and creating an atmosphere of hope and call that good enough?

Your reference to the term 'fatalsim' as it relates to faith interests me also, as I'm following an interesting discussion on Limited Atonement on another website. However, it would seem that soteriology is also a forbidden topic for such as myself, so I suppose we will have to limit ourselves to a rather pure discussion on the subject of faith.

 

[DelindaJane]

Okay, I'm going to wade in. Hope you don't mind.

Just because whomever you have spoken to in the past was not able to define God to your satisfaction is not the same as saying that God is undefinable.

Secondly, Faith is believing in something/one, etc., irregardless of whether one can see it or not. I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, for instance. I haven't seen the sun come up tomorrow. But, I have faith that it will.

Fatalism, is not a term that should be attached to Christian faith imo. Because fatalism is the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable, and the submissive attitude to events, resulting from such a belief. I suppose it would depend on what one's definition is of God. But, the Christian God allows for free will. Thus precluding fatalism as a realistic attitude within that context.

As far as God not not being love, you are correct. God is love. Those that know love, know God. And those that don't know love, don't know God. Hope you see how that works.

Hope that helps.

 

[brinny]

Does faith require an object? Can we float it out there without attaching it to any defined term whatsoever?

This brings back memories.....I had similar questions.

Faith, to believe in God, is a gift from God and is imparted unto us from Him..

 

[InkBlott]

Okay, I'm going to wade in. Hope you don't mind.

Not at all. Thank you for replying.

Just because whomever you have spoken to in the past was not able to define God to your satisfaction is not the same as saying that God is undefinable.

I'm afraid it goes beyond my not having found a satisfactory definition yet. It is the realization that any definition, by virtue of the nature of human thought, is going to involve descriptions of the human experience. It is all we have. If something is entirely Other (which is what 'holy' means, if I understand correctly) then it will entirely defy definition. Whatever we say about it, no matter how we stretch our imaginations and our terms, no matter how bizarrely we reconfigure the symbols available to us (as Ezekiel did) we still end up with a human figure rising out of the plasma of the human experience.

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schwiegen."

As quatona suggested, my silence may leave me with a sense of optimism that is not quite attached to anything, but I have to ask if it is advisable or beneficial to attach it to a vastly, even infinitely imprecise definition or if it is better to allow it to remain nebulous and to live with that tension.

Secondly, Faith is believing in something/one, etc., irregardless of whether one can see it or not. I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, for instance. I haven't seen the sun come up tomorrow. But, I have faith that it will.

One might suggest that your body of knowledge regarding the sun is such that you have actually calculated the odds (however fuzzy) of it rising. Having done so, you consistently organize your plans around the very high probability that it will do so. May I also suggest that you are likely aware that a solar cataclysm of some sort is possible, but that no likelihood of such a thing happening over the next however many hours between you and the next sunrise is, to your knowledge, currently evidenced.

Last week I took a boat tour of a flooded cave. Deep within it were blind fish. One might suggest that if I were to lay before them my line of reasoning as to the likely rising of the sun tomorrow, they would be far more likely than you or I to have to take that on faith. Considering that my line of reasoning is utterly beyond their understanding given their limited neural capacity and that there exists no mutual language with which I might even attempt to communicate it, and you get closer to a good analogy. The fish are not agnostic as to my claim. They are utterly blank in regard to it. Silent.

Fatalism, is not a term that should be attached to Christian faith imo. Because fatalism is the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable, and the submissive attitude to events, resulting from such a belief. I suppose it would depend on what one's definition is of God. But, the Christian God allows for free will. Thus precluding fatalism as a realistic attitude within that context.

I was considering the term in light of a discussion I've been following elsewhere today regarding Limited Atonement. It occurred to me that whatever terms those who regard themselves as atoned under that doctrine may use to describe their response (humility in this particular case), that fatalism might be the best term for the response of those who feel they have probably not been atoned. In the case of this particular doctrine, it would seem that faith and fatalism could be closely tied.

Obviously this is not a part of your belief system. I wouldn't expect you to craft an apologetic for it. However, the doctrine does, I believe, rise out of a firm conviction that God is sovereign, which connects it to our topic. Absolutes are unfailingly problematic to combine when defining them in human terms (Love/Sovereignity, Mercy/Justice, etc.). Attempting to define the term 'God' can have the side-effect of pushing and pulling faith to the breaking point, of crushing the very optimism that quatona named as being a definition of faith. I'm not sure what we can do about that.

As far as God not not being love, you are correct. God is love. Those that know love, know God. And those that don't know love, don't know God. Hope you see how that works.

If I understand the via negativa properly, one begins with a phrase such as "God is love," finds it inadequate or too limiting as a definition for that which is sublime or absolute or whatever, reverses it to its opposite, "God is not love," contemplates the ramifications of such, and finally adds in the double negative to bring one back to the original concept but in an open, un-undefined fashion with, "God is not not love."

I recall that in the Gospel of John, Christ is quoted in many locations as encouraging his disciples to love one another as the best means of knowing God. In fact when Jesus promised his disciples (John 14:2) that he was going to his father's house where there were many mansions, if one reads on far enough (ignoring the chapter break), one finds out these mansions are actually being built in the hearts of those who love one another and that this is where Christ and his father will be dwelling. I find that one of theism's most appealing word pictures.

Hope that helps.

Of course. Thank you again. Your comments have been very thought provoking.

 

[InkBlott]

This brings back memories.....I had similar questions.

Faith, to believe in God, is a gift from God and is imparted unto us from Him..

Thank you for your reply. I was afraid my topic was too nebulous for discussion and that it would sink slowly to the bottom of the page. (Actually, I more often lean toward the TL;DR sort of posts as evidenced immediately above. )

What is it like to have this gift imparted? Is it a necessary quality of a faith that is imparted by God that one can define that for which one has this faith? Can you describe that in which you have faith, and if so by what means?

Have your questions been answered? Abandoned? Transformed?

I hope that's not too many questions, but I am interested.

 

[DelindaJane]

I'm afraid it goes beyond my not having found a satisfactory definition yet. It is the realization that any definition, by virtue of the nature of human thought, is going to involve descriptions of the human experience. It is all we have. If something is entirely Other (which is what 'holy' means, if I understand correctly) then it will entirely defy definition. Whatever we say about it, no matter how we stretch our imaginations and our terms, no matter how bizarrely we reconfigure the symbols available to us (as Ezekiel did) we still end up with a human figure rising out of the plasma of the human experience.

Please note that I did not say human definition. I said definable.

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schwiegen."

About which one cannot speak, over it must one were silent? I think that as human beings we are always trying to put meaning into what we perceive. Whether we can or not, does not seem to deter us.

As quatona suggested, my silence may leave me with a sense of optimism that is not quite attached to anything, but I have to ask if it is advisable or beneficial to attach it to a vastly, even infinitely imprecise definition or if it is better to allow it to remain nebulous and to live with that tension.

That is a question only you can know the answer to. As for me, I'll take optimism over pessimism, possibility over a personal belief in perceived absolutes like "if I don't understand something, it isn't possible", any day.

One might suggest that your body of knowledge regarding the sun is such that you have actually calculated the odds (however fuzzy) of it rising. Having done so, you consistently organize your plans around the very high probability that it will do so. May I also suggest that you are likely aware that a solar cataclysm of some sort is possible, but that no likelihood of such a thing happening over the next however many hours between you and the next sunrise is, to your knowledge, currently evidenced.

Have you seen the movie Knowing? One might say that I go to bed each night hoping that a solar cataclysmic even will not occur and I will live to see another day. But, I'll do you one better, it's important for my own sanity not to dwell on such negative possibilities. For if I were to do so, I would the ability to be able to go on.

Last week I took a boat tour of a flooded cave. Deep within it were blind fish. One might suggest that if I were to lay before them my line of reasoning as to the likely rising of the sun tomorrow, they would be far more likely than you or I to have to take that on faith. Considering that my line of reasoning is utterly beyond their understanding given their limited neural capacity and that there exists no mutual language with which I might even attempt to communicate it, and you get closer to a good analogy. The fish are not agnostic as to my claim. They are utterly blank in regard to it. Silent.

Yes, however, we are not fish. Though we may be blind. Yet God is still God, the creator of all things, including fish who are blind, because they have no need to see and us humans who choose not to, of our own choice.

I was considering the term in light of a discussion I've been following elsewhere today regarding Limited Atonement. It occurred to me that whatever terms those who regard themselves as atoned under that doctrine may use to describe their response (humility in this particular case), that fatalism might be the best term for the response of those who feel they have probably not been atoned. In the case of this particular doctrine, it would seem that faith and fatalism could be closely tied.

Honestly, fatalism is a comforting thought in a way. It eliviates one from the necessity of taking personal responsibility, or for that matter doing anything at all.

Obviously this is not a part of your belief system. I wouldn't expect you to craft an apologetic for it. However, the doctrine does, I believe, rise out of a firm conviction that God is sovereign, which connects it to our topic. Absolutes are unfailingly problematic to combine when defining them in human terms (Love/Sovereignity, Mercy/Justice, etc.). Attempting to define the term 'God' can have the side-effect of pushing and pulling faith to the breaking point, of crushing the very optimism that quatona named as being a definition of faith. I'm not sure what we can do about that.

I haven't stated my personal belief system. But, I'll let you in on part of it. I accept that I do not have the capacity to understand fully the nature of God, mankind or the mysteries of the Universe. I accept that although I may believe something to be true, that is not the same as it being true. I accept that although I believe that I have choices in life, I may in reality not. Thus fatalism could very well be a reality. And all this talk about faith, Christianity and otherwise, historical and contemporary may be just that...talk.

If I understand the via negativa properly, one begins with a phrase such as "God is love," finds it inadequate or too limiting as a definition for that which is sublime or absolute or whatever, reverses it to its opposite, "God is not love," contemplates of the ramifications of such, and finally adds in the double negative to bring one back to the original concept but in an open, un-undefined fashion with, "God is not not love."

Have to laugh at the double talk there. I getcha. I was merely quoting a Biblical principle/scripture. One in which there are too many philosophical possibilities. I do not believe that God is only love. I believe that God is everything. That everything that exists, exists within God. And everything that does not exist, such as black holes, (and all the other science things that I'm not quite scientifically educated enough to postulate upon) are also God.

I recall that in the Gospel of John, Christ is quoted in many locations as encouraging his disciples to love one another as the best means of knowing God. In fact when Jesus promised his disciples (john 14:2) that he was going to his father's house where there were many mansions, if one reads on far enough (ignoring the chapter break), one finds out these mansions are actually being build in the hearts of those who love one another and that this is where Christ and his father will be dwelling. I find that one of theism's most appealing word pictures.

There are several that I find appealing. Jesus was very poetic.

Of course. Thank you again. Your comments have been very thought provoking.

Thank you as well. It's enjoyable to talk to one who is not so firm in his own belief that he knows everything and those who might have a different viewpoint are dullards who need to be verbally squashed.

Be well, and have a wonderful day!

 

[InkBlott]

Please note that I did not say human definition. I said definable.

Noted. Presumably God would be able to define God (or would not not be able to ). However, as humans, the only definitions available to us are human definitions. Our metaphors are all extrapolated from human experience. What else are we to do in the face of a question that turns out to be a question we are not equipped to formulate?

About which one cannot speak, over it must one were silent

? I think that as human beings we are always trying to put meaning into what we perceive. Whether we can or not, does not seem to deter us.

"Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent." It is the final sentence in Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. There are things in the Tractatus that I do not understand, and things with which I do not agree, but do I find myself in passionate agreement with that last sentence.

I agree, we do want to attach meaning to the things we perceive. I see that very much as a human trait. Whether sentience always creates meaning I do not know, but human sentience certainly does. That we create meaning, post hoc, for those things which were apparently mechanistic prior to our perception of them interests me. That our doing so sometimes goes into the mix of what we (we in general, not you and I specifically) mean when we say "God" puzzles me.

That is a question only you can know the answer to. As for me, I'll take optimism over pessimism, possibility over a personal belief in perceived absolutes like "if I don't understand something, it isn't possible", any day.

I also value optimism though I sometimes despair despite myself.

I agree that "if I don't understand something it isn't possible" is not a good approach. For instance, I do not presume to discount those portions of the Tractatus that I do not understand. If I care to study them further I would need to learn propositional calculus, which I might some day choose to do. In the meantime I reserve judgment. I have a certain faith based upon his having been awarded his doctorate on the merits of the book that the formulae are not utter bunkum. However, if Wittgenstein had simply offered us a blank page and the assertion that he had solved the problems of philosophy, to ask me whether I agree with his solutions would be a nonsense question. There is not even enough information available for me to get so far as to reserve judgment as I would be reserving it for all eternity.

That is more where I stand on the question of God.

Have you seen the movie Knowing? One might say that I go to bed each night hoping that a solar cataclysmic even will not occur and I will live to see another day. But, I'll do you one better, it's important for my own sanity not to dwell on such negative possibilities. For if I were to do so, I would the ability to be able to go on.

Yes. I've seen the movie and I agree with your point.

Yes, however, we are not fish. Though we may be blind. Yet God is still God, the creator of all things, including fish who are blind, because they have no need to see and us humans who choose not to, of our own choice.

I am not convinced it is our own choice. To go back to my (doubtless stretched) Wittgenstein analogy, if Wittgenstein had presented us with a blank page, the information as to his philosophies would not be unavailable to me because I refuse to see. It would be unavailable because it would exist only in a form (his inward thoughts) that I am not equipped to perceive. I would be factually blind to them. I would not even know if the alluded to philosophies actually existed or if he were only bragging and thinking all the time of nothing more profound than his next meal. I would be ill advised to talk as if I knew what he would say if he had deigned to say it or to convince myself that my imaginings were factual or that I owned any allegiance to them. Anyone listening to me would be justified in saying that they know no more about Wittgenstein's philosophies after having heard me expound but do now have some information as to my own.

Such do I find any information regarding God.

Honestly, fatalism is a comforting thought in a way. It eliviates one from the necessity of taking personal responsibility, or for that matter doing anything at all.

Agreed.

I haven't stated my personal belief system. But, I'll let you in on part of it. I accept that I do not have the capacity to understand fully the nature of God, mankind or the mysteries of the Universe. I accept that although I may believe something to be true, that is not the same as it being true. I accept that although I believe that I have choices in life, I may in reality not. Thus fatalism could very well be a reality. And all this talk about faith, Christianity and otherwise, historical and contemporary may be just that...talk.

Of course. I do not know your personal belief system. I only meant that I could glean from what you had stated that you apparently do not hold to Limited Atonement. I did not want to give the impression that I expected you to provide an apologetic for something to which you do not hold.

As to the rest, I agree.

Have to laugh at the double talk there. I getcha. I was merely quoting a Biblical principle/scripture. One in which there are too many philosophical possibilities. I do not believe that God is only love. I believe that God is everything. That everything that exists, exists within God. And everything that does not exist, such as black holes, (and all the other science things that I'm not quite scientifically educated enough to postulate upon) are also God.

There are several that I find appealing. Jesus was very poetic.

Do you believe that all things exist within God and are God? (Not looking to debate. Just interested.)

Thank you as well. It's enjoyable to talk to one who is not so firm in his own belief that he knows everything and those who might have a different viewpoint are dullards who need to be verbally squashed.

Be well, and have a wonderful day!

You too. Sorry my posts are so long. I would blame it on my long absence and self-enforced silence, but I was just as wordy before.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
This brings back memories.....I had similar questions.

Faith, to believe in God, is a gift from God and is imparted unto us from Him..

Thank you for your reply. I was afraid my topic was too nebulous for discussion and that it would sink slowly to the bottom of the page. (Actually, I more often lean toward the TL;DR sort of posts as evidenced immediately above. )

What is it like to have this gift imparted? Is it a necessary quality of a faith that is imparted by God that one can define that for which one has this faith? Can you describe that in which you have faith, and if so by what means?

Have your questions been answered? Abandoned? Transformed?

I hope that's not too many questions, but I am interested.

It's as if a murkiness, a curtain has been lifted and one gains more clarity to see "spiritually". For as you must have heard by now, God is Spirit. We are but clay and return to the dust from whence we came. He gifts us, His children, with faith and our spiritual eyes are opened. The faith He imparts on us, enables us to be introduced to Him, God Almighty, our Father, our Abba.

The emptiness His pre-introduced child experienced, is replaced with a filling of His Holy Spirit, as we are transformed, and we delight in Him, and He in us, as He rejoices over us with singing.

Faith is imparted to a child of the Most High God, by Him.

LOL it was a bit of a maze, following your questions. Nevertheless, perhaps some of what i wrote in response will be understood.

 

[InkBlott]

It's as if a murkiness, a curtain has been lifted and one gains more clarity to see "spiritually". For as you must have heard by now, God is Spirit. We are but clay and return to the dust from whence we came. He gifts us, His children, with faith and our spiritual eyes are opened. The faith He imparts on us, enables us to be introduced to Him, God Almighty, our Father, our Abba.

The emptiness His pre-introduced child experienced, is replaced with a filling of His Holy Spirit, as we are transformed, and we delight in Him, and He in us, as He rejoices over us with singing.

Faith is imparted to a child of the Most High God, by Him.

LOL it was a bit of a maze, following your questions. Nevertheless, perhaps some of what i wrote in response will be understood.

I apologize for the abstruseness of my questions.

I understand your words but I have not had your experience. I cannot grok it.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
It's as if a murkiness, a curtain has been lifted and one gains more clarity to see "spiritually". For as you must have heard by now, God is Spirit. We are but clay and return to the dust from whence we came. He gifts us, His children, with faith and our spiritual eyes are opened. The faith He imparts on us, enables us to be introduced to Him, God Almighty, our Father, our Abba.

The emptiness His pre-introduced child experienced, is replaced with a filling of His Holy Spirit, as we are transformed, and we delight in Him, and He in us, as He rejoices over us with singing.

Faith is imparted to a child of the Most High God, by Him.

LOL it was a bit of a maze, following your questions. Nevertheless, perhaps some of what i wrote in response will be understood.

I apologize for the abstruseness of my questions.

I understand your words but I have not had your experience. I cannot grok it.

No problem. Sometimes it is wise to forgo clarity. It is understandable that you cannot grok it. Grokking is not always possible.

 

[JGL53]

I have faith in my ability to discern and distinguish the highly plausible from the highly improbable.

I, too, as someone mentioned above, have faith that everything is going to work out for the best for everyone, in an absolute and timeless way, regardless of what manifests in the temporal experiential reality of the phenomenal universe.

Does either or both of those count as "faith", or does someone need to define the word faith for us all and see if consensus can be reached?

 

[InkBlott]

I have faith in my ability to discern and distinguish the highly plausible from the highly improbable.

I, too, as someone mentioned above, have faith that everything is going to work out for the best for everyone, in an absolute and timeless way, regardless of what manifests in the temporal experiential reality of the phenomenal universe.

Does either or both of those count as "faith", or does someone need to define the word faith for us all and see if consensus can be reached?

Well, I don't know. Do we?

Do you regard either of these as faith that lacks an object or for which you can define no object?

 

[JGL53]

Well, I don't know. Do we?

Do you regard either of these as faith that lacks an object or for which you can define no object?

I would say they were both a state of mind.

The first would also be concerned with the phenomenal universe of my experience so, yes, there would be an object or objects of my faith or understanding.

The second is ultimately definitely a subjective experience but it is based on initial certain logical understandings and interpretations of my experience of the phenomenal universe.

It seems to me you are just posing the old "Can there be consciousness without an object?" question.

If so, I suppose it all depends on how one defines "consciousness".

 

[InkBlott]

I would say they were both a state of mind.

The first would also be concerned with the phenomenal universe of my experience so, yes, there would be an object or objects of my faith or understanding.

The second is ultimately definitely a subjective experience but it is based on initial certain logical understandings and interpretations of my experience of the phenomenal universe.

It seems to me you are just posing the old "Can there be consciousness without an object?" question.

If so, I suppose it all depends on how one defines "consciousness".

I'm not familiar with the old "Can there be consciousness without an object?" question. Please explain.

 

[InkBlott]

It's as if a murkiness, a curtain has been lifted and one gains more clarity to see "spiritually". For as you must have heard by now, God is Spirit. We are but clay and return to the dust from whence we came. He gifts us, His children, with faith and our spiritual eyes are opened. The faith He imparts on us, enables us to be introduced to Him, God Almighty, our Father, our Abba.

The emptiness His pre-introduced child experienced, is replaced with a filling of His Holy Spirit, as we are transformed, and we delight in Him, and He in us, as He rejoices over us with singing.

Faith is imparted to a child of the Most High God, by Him.

LOL it was a bit of a maze, following your questions. Nevertheless, perhaps some of what i wrote in response will be understood.

I hope you don't mind me returning to your reply.

I've often heard it said that we who are atheists have no room for criticizing those who have expressed faith in God, as we ourselves have faith in science or logic or whatever. May I conclude, from what you've said above, that you would not compare the two? I don't think, from what you've describe here, that I would consider the two as equivalent in that the state you are describing seems to have broken into your awareness in a spontaneously transformative fashion. Perhaps great scientific discoveries have that quality to them, but my run-of-the-mill respect for and reliance upon science and logic certainly do not.

 

[quatona]

Yes, it does. Thank you.

In retrospect, my OP, even after I edited it for clarity, is far too vague. It would seem I was expecting the denizens of this forum to read my mind.

To be specific, my OP was a reaction to the idea of claiming faith in God while allowing the term 'God' to go undefined due to it being beyond human ability to define such, or barring that, while embracing the via negativa in which God is defined only in terms of what God is not. I have maintained an atheistic view for some years out of a lack of a definition for the term 'God.' I have, at times, been criticized for not taking an agnostic approach, as if that would be more logical, but it seems illogical to me to grant even uncertainty to an undefined term.

Be that as it may (and not wanting to stray this into the area of apologetics which I understand is not allowed for non-Christians) it puzzles me when I am encouraged to have faith in God even by those who acknowledge the lack of definition for the term. If faith is a sort of optimism that there might be something that we can ultimatley connect to the term 'God' and that this something would not be anitithetical to either hope or love (which I Cor. 13 interstingly suggests is greater than faith) while addmitting that there is nothing we can say about the definition of this term beyond a vague assertion that God is not not love (double negative intended) then...meh...why bother with the term at all. Why not go about the business of loving and creating an atmosphere of hope and call that good enough?

Your reference to the term 'fatalsim' as it relates to faith interests me also, as I'm following an interesting discussion on Limited Atonement on another website. However, it would seem that soteriology is also a forbidden topic for such as myself, so I suppose we will have to limit ourselves to a rather pure discussion on the subject of faith.

Ok, I think I understand better now what you are looking for.
I´m not entirely sure that the following is strictly on topic, but I´m sure you can handle it anyway.

Faith/confidence/optimism/fatalism for me personally is referring to my ability to at some point in time (retrospectively, and with additional experiences) framing my experiences in a positively meaningful way - even though I might currently not yet be able to.
Whether this ("my ability to...") is a properly defined object to my faith is debatable. I don´t think so, but for me it´s sufficient. When it comes push to shove, I guess I would have to admit that "faith" in this definition is self-referential. I have faith in my faith, confidence in my confidence etc., which is - at least in terms of proper definitions - a highly questionable statement.
In any case, all this doesn´t point anywhere outside myself.

Now, "faith" in the theistic sense is directed towards an allegedly existing object outside onself. Personally, I am inclined to think that the desire to imagine our inner processes and states as being distinct, separate entities outside ourselves is strange, naive, and at the same time unparsimonous and unnecessarily complicated. However, I suspect that for some people it is helpful.
There must be a reason why this is a common technique in literature, dramas, metaphores, fables, poetry - and even in our dreams. If I read the bible as making use of this technique (with god, satan, angels, heaven, hell etc. being our inner states and processes explained as external entities), it certainly and immediately starts making a lot of sense.
If, as I tend to think, the function of "god" is being the spaceholder for their hopes, faith, confidence, then keeping it undefined or merely defined ex negativo is very useful. God is a. outside (myself), and b. beyond (beyond time, space, knowledge, comprehension, logic, younameit). This, of course, does not a proper definition make, but it serves its purpose perfectly: even in cases where I can´t - not even in retrospect and in the light of further experience - attach positive meaning to an experience there is still the faith that there is a beyond-meaning (and, being ascribed to a "higher" entity, even a greater, better, "objective" meaning) that will be intelligible to me once I will have entered this beyond-realm.
Of the two versions "faith in my faith" and "faith in god" (both of which do not operate with proper definitions) I think the latter is more powerful, in that it offers additional options.
Does it work for me? No.