How does one know anything via faith?

[Chris B]

Nevertheless, from a Christian standpoint, faith is extremely valid ...

And what does that look like from, say, an Islamic standpoint? Would not those with faith, of that faith, also see the validity and validation of the faith and of their faith?

Unless something very specific is being meant (but it is rarely overtly specified) faith is remarkably "faith neutral". Faith can be had in almost anything, and faith can then do little but reinforce and confirm the the truth and validity of the object or content of belief that has been embraced by faith.

Chris

 

[Anguspure]

Some have posited faith as an epistemology here; that you can know something through faith in it.

Faith is certainly an epistemology and in this respect it is also evidence of the desire to come to the knowledge of, because how can one come to the knowledge of anything at all without faith? It should be clear that if we lack all faith in something then we will never even bother to investigate the matter further in order to bring our perception to the point at which it might be called knowledge.

In learning to ride a bike, for example, one must have faith that the thing will eventually stay upright while moving along the ground with someone aboard before I even make an attempt to get the thing going. My faith might be bolstered by parental instruction and urging or peer observation but nevertheless if I lack all faith in these or the contraption before me I'm not even going to give it a go.
So we can see that faith is the evidence that we may eventually ride the bike in front of us and, notwithstanding some precluding disability, our hope is not unfounded. The knowledge of things cycling related comes after and as a result of the faith.

If you hold on faith that a particular god exists, and I hold on faith that your particular god does not exist, how do we determine which one of us is right? We cannot both be right; one of us must be wrong. But how, using faith, can we determine which of the two of us is in the wrong?

The question each of us might have for the other is what is your evidence, and is your evidence sufficient to overcome my faith in whatever it is that I beleive?
If in the process of learning to riding a bike you came to me and said: "Look you've fallen off every time you tried this today, you've broken the bike and injured yourself, it would be apparent on the basis of the evidence that you cannot ride the bike. Don't be so silly and give up!"
The sensible thing for me might be to give up at that point and go with the evidence. Or it might be that your evidence is not sufficient to shake the faith that I have already placed in my parents, friends and in my own previously held belief that I will eventually overcome the difficulties before me. Perhaps I can see that the reason you are telling me this is because you can't ride a bike either, perhaps you don't want others to ride a bike because it would make you look bad. For whatever reason the choice of whether I follow the apparent evidence will be made first on the basis of my faith (or lack of) in either what I have previously trusted, or in You.
We can see this sort of thing happening in Scientism where people hold unwavering faith in the ability of science to eventually show proof of spontaneous materialistic bio-genesis and biological development in the face of the evidence that this cannot happen. The experts working in the field would urge us to not give up faith in the development and work being carried out and to not give up faith in Science to provide supporting evidence. But for those of us who lack faith and are sceptical of perpetual biology and the "science" that tells us to believe in it, the evidence points in another direction, the direction of a creative Mind.
In this way we can see that faith may also be held (and perhaps more properly should be held) on the basis of the evidence.

In conclusion faith is both evidence of things not seen and it is also, in turn, held on the basis of an examination of evidence.

 

[outsidethecamp]

And what does that look like from, say, an Islamic standpoint? Would not those with faith, of that faith, also see the validity and validation of the faith and of their faith?

Unless something very specific is being meant (but it is rarely overtly specified) faith is remarkably "faith neutral". Faith can be had in almost anything, and faith can then do little but reinforce and confirm the the truth and validity of the object or content of belief that has been embraced by faith.

Chris

I don't know what the object of their faith is. Mine is a person. Theirs may well be a person, too. Maybe it would be best to ask someone who is Muslim or better still, ask a former Muslim who is now a Christian. They should be able to tell us about faith from both of their experiences.

 

[outsidethecamp]

"But in faith, BOTH COULD BE RIGHT"
but in faith could both still be wrong?

I can't treat faith as law or science because both of those admit the possibility of error.
(though this principle is, as might be expected, not practised to perfection.)
There may be exceptions but "faith encompassing the possibility of error" seems rare.

This is principally what worries me about faith (and varied faiths).
When it delivers an inability to think "Yes,of course I don't think I am, but I just could be wrong."
When in that hard form I maintain that it is a conviction which has the potential to drive out a person's humanity. In the name of pure and absolute truth.

What is a person's humanity?

 

[quatona]

Some have posited faith as an epistemology here; that you can know something through faith in it.

For those making that claim, I have a simple question.

If you hold on faith that a particular god exists, and I hold on faith that your particular god does not exist, how do we determine which one of us is right? We cannot both be right; one of us must be wrong. But how, using faith, can we determine which of the two of us is in the wrong?

Not that I am a fan of "faith" as a tool of epistemology, but I am a little confused how your introduction and your thread title relate to your final question.
It seems like you use the term "know" in a way that depends on intersubjective demonstrability. Is that so?
To answer your question: When using faith, each person determines the answer by, well, their faith.

 

[The Cadet]

Yeah, sorry guys, I think I'm out of my depth here. :/ Gonna bow out of this one. Sorry for not defining my terms very well; the problem being, of course, that I can't really do that.

 

[Chris B]

What is a person's humanity?

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg"

A person's humanity, and their relationship with fellow human beings, is damaged when they they hold their beliefs (whatever they are) so unquestionably true they distance themselves from their fellow humans, to the point that they can with a clear and untroubled conscience degrade, harm, ignore, discount, declare evil.. others if their beliefs tell them that it if good to do so.
It is not only found in religion, but it is definitely found there.

For one example, nine out of ten individuals witnessing or evangelising in my direction start off by insulting me.
Their beliefs and their understanding of them have prevented them from regarding or treating me as an equal.
(There have been rare and honourable exceptions.)

Chris

 

[Chris B]

I don't know what the object of their faith is.

Really? That might be worth understanding, or all that can be believed about Islam will be a caricature, or a picture painted by its enemies.

Maybe it would be best to ask someone who is Muslim or better still, ask a former Muslim who is now a Christian.

Or the other way round of course.
Considering reciprocity is often a good way to start to understand other perspectives, and particularly here why confident unshakeable faith, of itself, says little or nothing about objective truth.

There is a key and vital difference between "(X) is at the fundamental core of meaning, value and existence of life in this universe."
And
"I believe and trust (have faith that) (X) is at the fundamental core of meaning, value and existence of life in this universe."

The first is an absolute universal dogmatic assertion.
The second introduces that remarkable thing, a fallible human being. An "I".
But all too often the belief and faith position slips into being the one formulated as a settled absolute: both to others and also to the individual themselves.
This may even be deliberate, as can be found in some, but not all, usages of the concept "leap of faith."

Chris

 

[hiphopopotomus]

You misunderstand. Christian faith is not an intelligence test but a test of our will, which is reflected in divinely-inspired wisdom (there is no other), the seat of which has always been understood to be the heart, although clearly it is not co-terminous with that organ of flesh and blood.

Were it not so, we might, indeed we almost certainly would, find the likes of Dr Mengele as a companion of ours in heaven - assuming we, ourselves, leave room for God's mercy. It must be borne in mind ,therefore, that what the secular version of intelligence defines potentially encompasses the deepest idiocy and darkest malice. In fact, in order for it to have positive value, the analytical, essentially worldly, intelligence must be founded and suffused with the light of the Holy Spirit. In other words, we know what we want to know - the philosophical school of voluntarism. This is made clear throughout the Bible. And indeed there are reasons to believe that we all know God exists, and even existed before we were born in this world.

It's not at all uncommon for otherwise quite sophisticated atheists to say, 'Well if I were God, I wouldn't allow such horrible things to happen!' What I call their 'argument from petulance'. In fact, it has been found that atheists are more bitter about God than believers. Of course, if they didn't believe God exists, they wouldn't get so emotional about it. Atheism is a fundamentalist religion; agnosticism, evidently not fundamentalist.

However, secular knowledge-faith forms a continuum corresponding with space-time. An example of secular knowledge-faith would be: When I come into a room, I cannot be certain that when I switch on the wall-switch, the light will come on, but I know it is highly likely and act accordingly. The conduct of our lives is founded on such faith-knowledge (I prefer this order), itself based on our everyday experience. Much of the time, we don't even need to to have such personal experience. I don't need to go to the US to know it exists and where it is situated on the globe. Indeed, without accepting the authority of a certain common knowledge, I could delude myself that having crossed the Atlantic and landed in New York, it was all an elaborate con. Without accepting a modicum of authority regarding much of our knowledge would then lead to such a potentially infinite regress.

A Christian faith-knowledge continuum corresponds with our secular one; they co-inhere, informing each other. However, when we, Christians, are 'under the blackjack', so to speak, being sorely tried, the temptation to discard our faith-knowledge concerning Christ and his teachings will manifest in our sorry wee hearts!

But since this life is not a (secular) intelligence test, but a spiritual one, the bottom line is that faith, as credence, hardly comes into it. As James says in his epistle, the devils believe and tremble. So, faith in the Christian sense implies a considerable element of commitment, the nature of which has changed in different epochs. In Jesus' own day, he would have been regarded by the religious authorities as no better than a trouble-making, indigent, itinerant preacher, and hence not 'respectable' in their eyes, 'not one of us duly-accredited, official custodians of the Law, but a rogue and a vagabond.' Worse, he seemed to be a sworn enemy of theirs, and the people, 'the riff-raff' in their eyes, were threatened with banishment form the Synagogue, which would have been no small blow to them in such a small, theocratic society, irrespective of their personal piety.

So, God's Judgment concerns primarily our heart, not our head, our wisdom, not our worldly, analytical intelligence, but our unitive spiritual wisdom. In the next life, no-one will lack for any analytical intelligence, a severely mentally-retarded person in this life being in no wise less intelligent than an Einstein.

Yes but how does that version of faith differ from self delusion?Other than being a shared self delusion.
As children we often have imaginary friends.They are products of a combination of will and imagination.Much like your explanation of faith.A conscious faith rather than an intuitive one.
Intuitive faith is far less specific and allows for a far more liberal understanding of God and certainly not one confined to just a biblical or exclusively Christian perspective.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Just imagine somewhere back in the mists of time, the first consciousness arises. It is, by its own testament, evident knowing. This didnt require faith, it required mircle and magic. Well, perhaps not quite a miraculous suspension of the laws of nature, but a form of limited supercedence of the laws of nature. Does this "scientific" conception require faith? I am not sure...

Perhaps if coheres as an overall picture, but with the help if a *little* fidistic glue...

Science without religion is lame, or so Einstein said (IIRC).

Even a 'pantheist' has his presuppositions, even if his God is merely material nature...

But he also has has his space age technology, so thats alright.

 

[Chris B]

Christian faith is not an intelligence test but a test of our will, which is reflected in divinely-inspired wisdom (there is no other),...

But if you assume (by faith, for example) the Christian position is correct, you will end up demonstrating that the Christian position is, well, correct. No other outcome is possible. This doesn't help.

It must be borne in mind ,therefore, that what the secular version of intelligence defines potentially encompasses the deepest idiocy and darkest malice. In fact, in order for it to have positive value, the analytical, essentially worldly, intelligence must be founded and suffused with the light of the Holy Spirit.

I'd like to see that conclusion demonstrated without an initial leap...
I don't find it intuitively obvious or logically necessary when given more time and thought.

This is made clear throughout the Bible. And indeed there are reasons to believe that we all know God exists, and even existed before we were born in this world.

"This is the bible's position", is fine. including the idea that "we all know God exists,"
That transfers the ground for certainty elsewhere.
Personally I disagree with Paul in Romans 1, and can look at nature and the night sky and see at the very least the clear possibility of a cold, indifferent uncaring universe.
One might start with the impact craters on the moon, perhaps.

It's not at all uncommon for otherwise quite sophisticated atheists to say, 'Well if I were God, I wouldn't allow such horrible things to happen!' What I call their 'argument from petulance'. In fact, it has been found that atheists are more bitter about God than believers. Of course, if they didn't believe God exists, they wouldn't get so emotional about it. Atheism is a fundamentalist religion; agnosticism, evidently not fundamentalist.

Atheists may indeed raise variants of the problem of evil, though rarely in such a caricature manner.
It's legitimate in the course of a hypothetical argument centred on "does the world and nature, as we see it, correspond to the proposed concept of an omnipotent and benevolent deity?"
On that basis I think I can make a better case for a capricious or malicious deity than for a benevolent loving one.
I don't then use that as a basis for ranting at an "evil god" because I'm an atheist. I use it as an argument against the existence of a loving god.

There may indeed be some "atheists" who genuinely rage at "an unfair God", but it is plain here that they are actually rebellious or hurt theists.

However, secular knowledge-faith forms a continuum corresponding with space-time. An example of secular knowledge-faith would be: When I come into a room, I cannot be certain that when I switch on the wall-switch, the light will come on, but I know it is highly likely and act accordingly... ....Without accepting a modicum of authority regarding much of our knowledge would then lead to such a potentially infinite regress.

Agreed without cavil. The problem tends to arise (in secular and faith beliefs, I would say) when the "certain enough for day-to-day purposes, though there is tiny bit of unavoidable epistemological doubt" hardens through familiar use of the practical approximation and short-cut to "absolutely certain."

A Christian faith-knowledge continuum corresponds with our secular one; they co-inhere, informing each other. However, when we, Christians, are 'under the blackjack', so to speak, being sorely tried, the temptation to discard our faith-knowledge concerning Christ and his teachings will manifest in our sorry wee hearts!

And why not? I do not grasp how this faith-knowledge acquires immunity from either questioning or legitimate doubt.
But I have had all too many conversations where that has been held, and it's a stopper to any further discussion, except perhaps for an attempt to show the individual that they would most likely regard the position as unreasonable, or to be dismissed, should anyone adopt the same stance in respect of some other faith-belief-commitment.

But since this life is not a (secular) intelligence test, but a spiritual one...

here I disagree, so I'll take that as coming from the Christian world-view...

So, faith in the Christian sense implies a considerable element of commitment, the nature of which has changed in different epochs.

Absolutely agreed, though I'd suggest it's something that has to be regularly reminded of and renewed wherever Christianity has become a large majority or a state religion in a country. For there it can shade over time into cultural background and habit and "what normal, conforming, people do".

Commitment, however, does not settle truth. Or all single-minded dedicated believers would be in one accord, which is manifestly not the case. The content of these unshakable beliefs can vary disastrously (secular and religious instances abound.)
There's no added reliability or truth-testing that I can see that comes with faith.
The appearance and sense of such from the inside, from within the faith position, that is clear.
But that emerges, once again, independent of the content of that faith-belief.

Chris

 

[outsidethecamp]

"...the one automatic faculty with which the creation is endowed, as well as being the most elementary and utterly simple the faculty of reception. ...the Creator-creature relationship is in the nature of things of one kind only, that of giving and receiving. The Creator gives all by giving Himself, the creature receives all; and the faculty ofreceiving is so simple, obvious, natural, automatic, that it can hardly be called an action at all. It is the first activity of a newborn babe. It is the continued activity which sustains all life. And that is faith. ...it is humanity's sole basic capacity. (Norman P. Grubb. The Deep Things of God. Christian Literature Crusade. 1958. Pgs 22,23)

 

[Chris B]

Please define "faith".

It can't be done, except for a particular intended usage in a particular context.
Several different meanings, plus their connotation values, are attempting to share the same single term.
This has happened for a range of "big words."
"Do you believe in God?" getting a positive return has narrowed things down very little, while the two individuals may think they have far more in common than is actually the case.

Chris

 

[Chris B]

"...the one automatic faculty with which the creation is endowed, as well as being the most elementary and utterly simple the faculty of reception. ...the Creator-creature relationship is in the nature of things of one kind only, that of giving and receiving. The Creator gives all by giving Himself, the creature receives all; and the faculty ofreceiving is so simple, obvious, natural, automatic, that it can hardly be called an action at all. It is the first activity of a newborn babe. It is the continued activity which sustains all life. And that is faith. ...it is humanity's sole basic capacity. (Norman P. Grubb. The Deep Things of God. Christian Literature Crusade. 1958. Pgs 22,23)

That is Norman P. Grub's view. It might carry some conviction read in the flow, but it carries an awful lot less taken slowly and examined.
"It is the first activity of a newborn babe." A newborn-baby is not developed enough to have faith, by most usages.
"It[faith] is the continued activity which sustains all life." Faith fails a lot in the food chain, then.
Or are we just saying the dinosaurs didn't have enough faith?

Chris

 

[outsidethecamp]

And that is your view because you seem to have a preconceived bias. You are not very open to truth because of your bias. Some "teaching" has captured your heart and has become a precious idol to you so that you are not open to anything that opposes it.

 

[zippy2006]

Very true, but it is itself behaving as an epistemological grounding.
It is holding that "true knowledge" is something that can be known (as a divine gift) through faith (in the reality of the message that God is there and can impart such knowledge.)

This to a person of faith provides a modality of knowing...
I was using sight so I saw it.
I was using touch so I felt it.
I was using faith so ... I know it without seeing or touching it.

Yes, that's right.

The point of my distinction was that the assumptions implicit in his use of the word "epistemology" were naturalistic, i.e. demonstrable, deriving from a method susceptible to scrutiny, and ultimately able to be infallibly adjudicated naturalistically given enough time and energy. These assumptions do not hold in the case of divine faith (and perhaps even natural faith).

Why is faith allowed the exception from error?
Is that bound up in the nature of faith itself, which at least in some forms positively rules out faith self-doubting and self-examining?

Because it comes from God. Supposing God really did reveal something, it is not subject to error.

But this has to sit within Aquinas' framework of thought, not taken in isolation, because close to this we find:
"... since nothing false can be the object of faith, as was proved above,..." something I would profoundly disagree about unless, once more, the content of the word "faith" has varied without outward show.

Although my point went a bit further than you imply, I can take this up. Thomas' point is, in part, that when the object of faith deviates from the first truth we are no longer dealing with faith. So faith never errs but "faith" can and does. That is, what some folks think is faith is not necessarily faith. He takes this up in greater detail elsewhere.

 

[Chris B]

And that is your view because you seem to have a preconceived bias. You are not very open to truth because of your bias..

Was that to me? You have not the slightest idea of what I have considered, studied as possibilities, been open to. Nor what i used to believe, which would indicate some degree of openness to such perspectives, even if I later came to consider them flawed, inadequate or mistaken. I did not rule them out a priori as simply impossible or unthinkable.

Some "teaching" has captured your heart and has become a precious idol to you so that you are not open to anything that opposes it.

You might want to try that one in the mirror and see how it looks.
Whatever "teaching" has captured a person, if it has, will look and feel like the only true thing. And your conviction that your belief is an exception from that is down to what?
(That is somehow exempt for the "captured" accusation, obviously.)

I'd say I don't have any precious idols... I have too much iconoclasm in my makeup.
I've had to junk at least two guiding world views so far in my life, as new information (tested for soundness) made then untenable.
"When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
(John Maynard Keynes.)


Chris

 

[JustHisKid]

Some have posited faith as an epistemology here; that you can know something through faith in it.

For those making that claim, I have a simple question.

If you hold on faith that a particular god exists, and I hold on faith that your particular god does not exist, how do we determine which one of us is right? We cannot both be right; one of us must be wrong. But how, using faith, can we determine which of the two of us is in the wrong?

Faith is a gift from God. It doesn't require faith to not believe something.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Although my point went a bit further than you imply, I can take this up. Thomas' point is, in part, that when the object of faith deviates from the first truth we are no longer dealing with faith. So faith never errs but "faith" can and does. That is, what some folks think is faith is not necessarily faith. He takes this up in greater detail elsewhere.

Faith never errs and, if it does, it's not faith? What a self-serving definition.

 

[Chris B]

Faith is a gift from God.

If only you'd put "I believe and trust that Faith is a gift from God", then I'd have had nothing to comment on: A personal belief and commitment of faith is just that.

But given as a universal absolute? That's fair game.

"Faith is a gift from God". How does that work, then, for those who have absolute doubt-free faith in something other than Christianity? A Muslim of a Hindu, say?
Their faith is a gift from God? Or are you now going to say that the Christian version alone is different, is "True Faith?
That may be how it looks and feels from within Christianity, but a moment's application of theory of mind (here, seeing things from another person's perspective) will show that the same "this is the genuine one" will appear to someone trusting in... *whatever* they are trusting in. It comes bundled with the trust, the commitment of faith.

Chris.