Faith.
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Pineal,
No there isn't, it is belief and hope.
What you regard as ''evidence'' is the reason for faith.
It depends on the individual, but belief is not necessarily attatched to faith, neither hope.
I don't see why not.
Predominent ideas?
I said ones faith is based on ones knowledge (and experience), and things we are reasonably sure of.
Why?
That just happens to be the predominent idea. Connection?
However, the word actually means something, and can be reasoned, plus
it something that everybody uses .
jan.
No there isn't, it is belief and hope.
What you regard as ''evidence'' is the reason for faith.
It depends on the individual, but belief is not necessarily attatched to faith, neither hope.
I don't see why not.
Predominent ideas?
I said ones faith is based on ones knowledge (and experience), and things we are reasonably sure of.
Why?
That just happens to be the predominent idea. Connection?
However, the word actually means something, and can be reasoned, plus
it something that everybody uses .
jan.
No, I'm the one being reasonable. Faith is the opposite of reason.
To me, trust and faith are generally synonymous.
Only in general language, not as it applies to religion.
I, generally, speak only general language, not religion.
I don't forgive your ignorance.
I would have said it was reason for belief, or the sense of probability or at least possibility, depending on the evidence. Your schema seems to allow for a degree of evidence leading to faith. Not too much, but not none. I don't think this is how faith is conceived in most religions - though there is a muddled picture there.
I agree on both counts, though this is part of the reason I find it odd, regarding faith, that there should be some evidence.
So you are in full control of your actions and perceptions? You never find yourself doing something you wish you were not finding yourself doing?
Now, I can see saying that everything you do and perceive is you or yours. But once the verb control is brought in we have that which is controlled and that which controls. It raises the issue of there not being control from one part to the other, and once that is raised, pretty much everyone is not in control.
I can see saying the perceptions are mine, the actions are mine. Then there is no implicit split.
If you feel there is no split in you, then you have either achieved a final state in whatever your religious path is, or you are most likely not an adherent of most of the world's religions, which all indicate what needs to be controlled and assume that this takes time and effort even if this control can finally be dissolved in some enlightened state.
Couldn't understand this question.
This does not seem to address the issues I raised....
Because, well, as I said, before you said faith was based in part on knowledge of something. Here faith in God is based on knowledge of yourself. I pointed out how this works for some conceptions of God, where self and God are one or the former is at least a part of the latter. But there are other conceptions of God.
What just happens to be the predominant idea? And predominant in relation to what?
I don't understand the question.
The word means a lot of things and I don't think there is agreement over what it means. To put this in Wittgensteinians 'terms' - the word gets used in a lot of different ways.
Anything can be reasoned.
I don't use it, except when responding to others who use it. I think it is generally a damaging concept in religious contexts, though I am not sure you use the term in the way a lot of people do, so I am not sure your version is damaging.
There are a good number of words I know that I do not use.
I would be more likely to use trust in relation to interpersonal relationships. Faith has seemed to be a kind of epistemological stance - relating to belief. Or in the family of belief, disbelief, acting as if.....
Which, by the way, does not mean I think you are wrong. i am also reacting to 'faith' given the context of a thread in the Religion forum. The words get closer to me in other contexts, though again, now thinking of my response above to Jan, I don't really use faith in those contexts either. Even, faithful dog, doesn't work for me.
Pineal,
Belief is part of the equation, to have faith in something. obviously invorporates belief, and hope. The evidence gives reason to have faith.
The evidence is not directly evidence of the outcome, as the outcome is definately unknown. So in my example, the evidence that gives rise to the faith is based on the persons knowledge of his own ability. This faith is not only positive, and normal, it is very subtle, kicking in as and when necessary.
That doesn't mean I'm not in full control of my actions. It means my actions are regretable.
I thnk you're eqating not being in control of our environment, with not being in control of our actions.
If anything I would have acheived a begining stage.
I'm interested in ''religion'' period.
I look for the oneness in religion, the one thing upon which they all agree. By religion, I mean scripture, as that to me, is the materially accessable source of ''religion''. I question those who interpret the scriptures differently to what is actually says.
I see it more like this, because you are expressing a oneness.
They all indicate this need to control, and they express that the control has to be administered by you the individual. The control marks the begining of transformation, not the end.
...
Has ''predominent ideas'' been a factor in your decision, or have you got a reason which show that ''faith'' itself is religiously damaging?
And can you show that ''faith'' is a ''concept'', rather than a natural default?
Let's take the Matix movie as an example.
Morpeus represents God, Keanu reprisents the everyday person.
Keaunu while conditioned knows something isn't right, but he can't put his finger on it, everything seems real, but there are some things which spark his curiosity. That's all the evidence he needs to wake up.
Morpheus sees the potential in Keanu and decides that Keanu is ready to go to the next stage. So he offers Keanu the oppotunity, which Keanu either accepts or declines. At this point Keanu is still skeptical, but regards Morpheaus' offer has more evidence that something is not quite right with reality.
He accepts Morpheus' offer purely on faith as he has no idea of the outcome.
His faith consisted of belief in his evidence, and the corellation of Morpheus'
explanation (that which related to his evidence), and the hope of being free of what was becoming (for him) a prison.
He didn't decide to have faith, he decided to act upon what he knew, based on his observation (evidence). It was enough to spark the transformation.
His faith became strengthened with each new step he took, until he realised the truth, and there was no more need of faith.
To me, that is what faith is.
jan.
jan.
Belief is part of the equation, to have faith in something. obviously invorporates belief, and hope. The evidence gives reason to have faith.
The evidence is not directly evidence of the outcome, as the outcome is definately unknown. So in my example, the evidence that gives rise to the faith is based on the persons knowledge of his own ability. This faith is not only positive, and normal, it is very subtle, kicking in as and when necessary.
That doesn't mean I'm not in full control of my actions. It means my actions are regretable.
I thnk you're eqating not being in control of our environment, with not being in control of our actions.
If anything I would have acheived a begining stage.
I'm interested in ''religion'' period.
I look for the oneness in religion, the one thing upon which they all agree. By religion, I mean scripture, as that to me, is the materially accessable source of ''religion''. I question those who interpret the scriptures differently to what is actually says.
I see it more like this, because you are expressing a oneness.
They all indicate this need to control, and they express that the control has to be administered by you the individual. The control marks the begining of transformation, not the end.
...
Has ''predominent ideas'' been a factor in your decision, or have you got a reason which show that ''faith'' itself is religiously damaging?
And can you show that ''faith'' is a ''concept'', rather than a natural default?
Let's take the Matix movie as an example.
Morpeus represents God, Keanu reprisents the everyday person.
Keaunu while conditioned knows something isn't right, but he can't put his finger on it, everything seems real, but there are some things which spark his curiosity. That's all the evidence he needs to wake up.
Morpheus sees the potential in Keanu and decides that Keanu is ready to go to the next stage. So he offers Keanu the oppotunity, which Keanu either accepts or declines. At this point Keanu is still skeptical, but regards Morpheaus' offer has more evidence that something is not quite right with reality.
He accepts Morpheus' offer purely on faith as he has no idea of the outcome.
His faith consisted of belief in his evidence, and the corellation of Morpheus'
explanation (that which related to his evidence), and the hope of being free of what was becoming (for him) a prison.
He didn't decide to have faith, he decided to act upon what he knew, based on his observation (evidence). It was enough to spark the transformation.
His faith became strengthened with each new step he took, until he realised the truth, and there was no more need of faith.
To me, that is what faith is.
jan.
jan.
Your definition of faith is incomplete, and therefore misleading.
And you are knowingly satisfied with it. So how is it that you're being reasonable.
jan.
How so? I think you are making it out to be more than it really is.
Why do I what?
Think that way.
jan.
jan.