Does faith require an object?

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
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.
The idea that we define something is a common misconception. We define the meaning of the words we use.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Please note that I did not say human definition. I said definable.
Since "defining" is defined as a means to make human language usable and verbal communication possible, I actually don´t see any alternative to human definition.





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.
I fail to see how either of this follows. Could you elaborate?
And how - to a conscious being that is downright unable to not do anything at all, but, au contraire, has to act permanently - is the removal of the necessity to do anything at all comforting?
 
Upvote 0
I

InkBlott

Guest
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.

Yes. The below is helping me clarify my thoughts...

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.

I work in a clinic that serves a small town that recently lost a fine young man to a freak accident. I've encountered several tearful patients who have asked me for prayers and have gone on to speculate as to what reasons God might have for allowing such a thing. For the most part I've simply made sympathetic replies that have hidden my thoughts on the matter, but one co-worker who knows that I'm an atheist specifically asked my opinion as to why it happened. I replied to her that gravity goes about its business without regard to the weight of the consequences but that we in the community, being conscious, are able to lend meaning to this otherwise tragic event. We're human beings. It's what we do.

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.

I understand the young man's mother has decided to herself that the Great Tribulation is immanent and that God has taken him now in order to both spare him the coming trials and provide an opportunity for others to examine their lives and be saved. I've been told that this realization has comforted her.

I simply cannot decide this sort of thing to myself. I cannot imagine that the meaning is the cause for the tragedy rather than the other way around. That is what theism seems to demand.

What I can do is project an imagined future me, look back from this perspective (as it were) and endue this tragedy with meaning based upon actions I and others choose to taken in response to the event. For instance, if I and several members of the community were to stir ourselves to take up a charitable cause that interested him, thus multiplying the effects he would have had on his own, that would create meaning. I can have faith in faith, as you have suggested, surmising that from a sufficiently inclusive perspective all such tragedies might be redeemable in such a fashion so that nothing of value is ever truly lost. My surmising it does not make it so, and I do not anticipate ever obtaining such a view, but it seems to me that living one's life as if it were so would be advantageous.

That does not seem to make me a theist, nor does it constitute the sort of experience brinny has described. I would acknowledge that it is faith. It isn't, however, a defining characteristic of my atheism.
 
Upvote 0
I

InkBlott

Guest
I fail to see how either of this follows. Could you elaborate?
And how - to a conscious being that is downright unable to not do anything at all, but, au contraire, has to act permanently - is the removal of the necessity to do anything at all comforting?

I took DelindaJane to be referring specifically to the Christian concept of atonement. But perhaps she meant more than that...
 
Upvote 0

brinny

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places
Supporter
Mar 23, 2004
248,783
114,476
✟1,339,553.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
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 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.

I am saying, as you put it, transforming faith, comes from something other than ourselves (at least from my own experience as a child of God). It is a gift, yes, in that we are given something it was not possible for us to possess in our "natural" state. It makes possible, a belief in a God that appears invisible at the moment.

You appear insightful. I'm wondering then, is your reliance on science of the limited kind?
 
Upvote 0
I

InkBlott

Guest
I am saying, as you put it, transforming faith, comes from something other than ourselves (at least from my own experience as a child of God). It is a gift, yes, in that we are given something it was not possible for us to possess in our "natural" state. It makes possible, a belief in a God that appears invisible at the moment.

You appear insightful. I'm wondering then, is your reliance on science of the limited kind?

That's an interesting question.

There are questions that science cannot answer. Last year my mother had an MRI that showed tumors in her brain. Those results were reliable. We were right to take them strictly to heart. A biopsy would have told us more. What science could not tell us was whether my 89 year old mother should have the biopsy. She decided against.

On the other hand it seems to me that philosophy and physics (so to speak) do find a point where they join. The very act of thought involves a physical exchange of information that can, potentially, be traced down to the opening and closing of a single chemical switch. Is that tiny bit of information the purview of philosophy? Is it thought itself in its most atomic form? Or is it the purview of physics in that it can be observed and measured?

Meh. Heck. I don't know.

Do you have faith in your experience?
 
Upvote 0

JGL53

Senior Veteran
Dec 25, 2005
5,013
296
Mississippi
✟14,276.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Upvote 0
I

InkBlott

Guest
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I work in a clinic that serves a small town that recently lost a fine young man to a freak accident. I've encountered several tearful patients who have asked me for prayers and have gone on to speculate as to what reasons God might have for allowing such a thing. For the most part I've simply made sympathetic replies that have hidden my thoughts on the matter, but one co-worker who knows that I'm an atheist specifically asked my opinion as to why it happened. I replied to her that gravity goes about its business without regard to the weight of the consequences but that we in the community, being conscious, are able to lend meaning to this otherwise tragic event. We're human beings. It's what we do.



I understand the young man's mother has decided to herself that the Great Tribulation is immanent and that God has taken him now in order to both spare him the coming trials and provide an opportunity for others to examine their lives and be saved. I've been told that this realization has comforted her.

I simply cannot decide this sort of thing to myself. I cannot imagine that the meaning is the cause for the tragedy rather than the other way around. That is what theism seems to demand.

What I can do is project an imagined future me, look back from this perspective (as it were) and endue this tragedy with meaning based upon actions I and others choose to taken in response to the event. For instance, if I and several members of the community were to stir ourselves to take up a charitable cause that interested him, thus multiplying the effects he would have had on his own, that would create meaning. I can have faith in faith, as you have suggested, surmising that from a sufficiently inclusive perspective all such tragedies might be redeemable in such a fashion so that nothing of value is ever truly lost. My surmising it does not make it so, and I do not anticipate ever obtaining such a view, but it seems to me that living one's life as if it were so would be advantageous.

That does not seem to make me a theist, nor does it constitute the sort of experience brinny has described.
Seems we are thinking and conceptualizing along similar lines here.

Your last sentence made me wonder:
I would acknowledge that it is faith. It isn't, however, a defining characteristic of my atheism.
Leaving aside that in the absence of a proper definition of theos/God labeling oneself "atheist" is highly problematic (I don´t even know what I am supposed to not believe in) - how can there be a defining characteristic for the lack of a belief?

Right now I have been thinking about the following problem of the theistic belief in finding the god-given meaning (as opposed to actively lending meaning).
The whole thing seems to work from the premise that there´s
1. the human meaning (if something means something to me or someone else)
2. the external beyond-meaning that god sees in things, and which is completely independent and possibly even contrary to and or irreconcilable with the human meaning ("god´s mysterious ways, beyond human comprehension, bigger picture, who are we to question....?" - we all know the countless phrases pointing towards this assumption).

Yet, theists often and naturally assume that once an occurance (that previously didn´t have intelligible meaning to them) starts becoming positively meaningful this meaning therefore must be meaning(2) - the divine beyond-meaning. An assumption for which there is actually no basis, since the premise is that meaning(2) and meaning(1) are independent and possibly contrary/irreconcilable.

Thus, my actual question seems to be: How do I determine that if something is meaningful(1) to me I have finally found meaning(2)?
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
United States
✟12,575.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sorry for being late, I had said;

There will always be faith. It will always exist. Even though we reject it. That is why it doesn't require an object. We channel it. I and others attach it to a certain definition, due to reasons known to ourselves again, certain experiences, etc. But it is certainly possible to float it out there too.

...to the OP in the other thread...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I

InkBlott

Guest
Sorry for being late, I had said;

There will always be faith. It will always exist. Even though we reject it. That is why it doesn't require an object. We channel it. I and others attach it to a certain definition, due to reasons known to ourselves again, certain experiences, etc. But it is certainly possible to float it out there too.

...to the OP in the other thread...

Good day Bushmaster. :wave: Indeed your statement above inspired me to start this topic.

I'm curious. Are the participants in this topic successfully addressing what you were expressing in your comment above? Does anyone here seem to be grokking what you were getting at?

Now that I look at your comment again, it seems that you are seeing faith as something that we can manipulate and make use of (channel) rather than something that emerges out of an encounter with an object. What does faith that has no object look like (so to speak)? What are its defining properties? From what does it arise (or is it simply existent in its own right)?
 
Upvote 0
I

InkBlott

Guest
Leaving aside that in the absence of a proper definition of theos/God labeling oneself "atheist" is highly problematic (I don´t even know what I am supposed to not believe in) - how can there be a defining characteristic for the lack of a belief?

Now that you've said this, I realize you don't have a faith icon displayed. I do find myself asking exactly what you are asking in your usertitle.

Right now I have been thinking about the following problem of the theistic belief in finding the god-given meaning (as opposed to actively lending meaning).
The whole thing seems to work from the premise that there´s
1. the human meaning (if something means something to me or someone else)
2. the external beyond-meaning that god sees in things, and which is completely independent and possibly even contrary to and or irreconcilable with the human meaning ("god´s mysterious ways, beyond human comprehension, bigger picture, who are we to question....?" - we all know the countless phrases pointing towards this assumption).

Yet, theists often and naturally assume that once an occurance (that previously didn´t have intelligible meaning to them) starts becoming positively meaningful this meaning therefore must be meaning(2) - the divine beyond-meaning. An assumption for which there is actually no basis, since the premise is that meaning(2) and meaning(1) are independent and possibly contrary/irreconcilable.

Thus, my actual question seems to be: How do I determine that if something is meaningful(1) to me I have finally found meaning(2)?

Good question. Interestingly, it wasn't that the mother who lost her son needed to know God's actual meaning, which would be theologically impossible, but that she needed to come up with something that could...I don't know...convincingly stand in for his meaning. She managed something both transcendent (it has to do with the Great Tribulation--a doctrine that emphasizes the sovereignty of God to do as God pleases with mankind) and has a comforting human-centered element (her son will be spared suffering and others will examine their own lives). IOW, what she came up with would do for now.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Good question. Interestingly, it wasn't that the mother who lost her son needed to know God's actual meaning, which would be theologically impossible, but that she needed to come up with something that could...I don't know...convincingly stand in for his meaning. She managed something both transcendent (it has to do with the Great Tribulation--a doctrine that emphasizes the sovereignty of God to do as God pleases with mankind) and has a comforting human-centered element (her son will be spared suffering and others will examine their own lives). IOW, what she came up with would do for now.
Well, being the pragmatist that I am I can honestly and without any sarcasm or condescendence say "Whatever works for her is fine with me."
Ironically, the idea that her approach is pragmatic would be inacceptable for her and destroy the whole thing.
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
United States
✟12,575.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Now that I look at your comment again, it seems that you are seeing faith as something that we can manipulate and make use of (channel) rather than something that emerges out of an encounter with an object. What does faith that has no object look like (so to speak)? What are its defining properties? From what does it arise (or is it simply existent in its own right)?

Well, clearly faith is the product of hope. We have hope towards many different things and as a result we make use of that faith. I do not know, my faith doesn't come from an encounter but I do believe those who encountered this "object" in my religious view. You could consider "hope" an object. I can't think of faith without hope, or an object in particular.
 
Upvote 0
I

InkBlott

Guest
Well, clearly faith is the product of hope. We have hope towards many different things and as a result we make use of that faith. I do not know, my faith doesn't come from an encounter but I do believe those who encountered this "object" in my religious view. You could consider "hope" an object. I can't think of faith without hope, or an object in particular.

I'm trying to remember my Hebrews...

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb.11:1).

(Had to look it up. I couldn't quite quote it from memory.)

If I am understanding you correctly, then faith is a more or less deliberate response to certain hopes. I say more or less deliberate, as brinny describes her faith as something which originated with God and broke through to her consciousness, yet I see others describing it more as a willful act. So, faith is a state of mind that stands in as evidence for things otherwise not evidenced (or as Hebrews puts it 'not seen'). We treat that which we hope for as if we had evidence, as we normally would treat only objects, things of substance, evidenced things. Faith ultimately endues hope itself with substance-likeness.

Correct?

But what is hope? Can we have a hope in regard to ________? Fill the blank with utter unknowing. 'Cause that's basically where I stand. Without a working definition to attach to the word 'God', some sort of meaningful symbol, how can I even hope? All I have is a three letter word. Ink on a page. Pixels on a screen. A few neurons firing in my brain. For what will my faith stand in as evidence?

It all seems to give the impression of an inward perpetual motion machine that must be surreptitiously fed lest the whole thing collapse in on itself. What happens when I lift the curtain and see the person secretly shoveling in the coal and recognize that it is I myself?

Do I simply wait for an experience like what brinny has had? OK.

And why would I even desire undertaking or experiencing this process? What is the advantage? Why am I not just as well off if I simply acknowledge my unknowing and go on with life dealing with as much integrity as possible with that for which evidence presents itself? Of the three, faith, hope and love, it is said that love is the greatest.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
United States
✟12,575.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I point out the obvious and you respond with more childishness.

You point out the obvious bias of yours, right? That is correct. Not happy with the response you got? Try your own "invective". No one forced you butt in.

Religious belief is wish-thinking based on egotism.

Yep, because you said so. I believe you now. Your experience of life must have really hurt you, it seems you still suffer. I hope that you feel better now that you got it off your chest.
 
Upvote 0

Penumbra

Traveler
Dec 3, 2008
2,658
135
United States
✟11,036.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
I think there are different types of faith.

One can have faith in a person, an idea, a nation, a religion, and so forth. This type of faith is based on an object. For instance, I have faith in my best friends. If one of them says they will do something, I trust them, because they have been trustworthy in the past. I also have faith that when I ride in an elevator, it will not fall. This is based on regulations and licenses that elevator designers must adhere to, and the fact that they are professional licensed engineers. I don't bother to inspect the elevator before I ride it, because I have faith that the building is adhering to regulation, and because the chances of being involved in a major elevator catastrophe are quite slim, meaning that most buildings seem to follow the rules. Every single person has this type of faith in some ways, because without it, we couldn't function. We couldn't trust any products, trust our cars or planes or bridges, trust other people, or expect anything to work, ever.

One can also have faith that things in their life will work out, which is not linked to any object. I suppose one could say that the object they have faith in is the universe, but that seems to be synonymous with just having faith as a mindset. A person of this type of faith expects the universe to be gentle to them, or at least that if it is not gentle, it will still be a rewarding journey overall.

The last type of faith I can think of is blind faith. This is faith that exists in spite of reason. One could have unwavering faith in their nation or their religion or their political party without ever questioning it. One could look at all of the things that point to their viewpoint being wrong as tests, as traps, and so just avoid them. This type of faith seems to usually not be helpful for growth.

-Lyn
 
Upvote 0

JGL53

Senior Veteran
Dec 25, 2005
5,013
296
Mississippi
✟14,276.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
...The last type of faith I can think of is blind faith. This is faith that exists in spite of reason. One could have unwavering faith in their nation or their religion or their political party without ever questioning it. One could look at all of the things that point to their viewpoint being wrong as tests, as traps, and so just avoid them. This type of faith seems to usually not be helpful for growth.

-Lyn

Yep, that's the bad type of faith. There seems to be more than a few of that type on this board - fanatical ideologues - victims of their own wish-thinking.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums