O ye of little faith?

O ye of little faith?

It is a fallacy of non-believers to repudiate belief and faith in general, where they have only ever repudiated particular beliefs and faiths. “I have no faith in such and such a doctrine, therefor I have no faith at all”. Yet, given that the future cannot be told before it is present, and no evidence for the purposes of prediction is ever complete, a certain species of faith is required for even the most innocuous of beliefs, such as where, when and even whether the sun will rise the next day. The problem of induction illustrates the notion that faith, at least insofar as one trusts in his methods, the results and the evidence, is nonetheless still required for even the most empirical of inquiries.

In certain circles of thought, “faith” has almost become a bad word, conjuring imagery of the lobotomizing effect found in extirpating one’s affiliation and relationship with the sensual and earthly experience in exchange for belief in fable and myth. Being a “person of faith” is apparently reserved for acolytes and followers of the various religious texts. Of course, as is the tradition, it isn’t by any empirical demonstration or reason that faith be reserved for the religious, nor belief for the credulous. Such is the standard only because it has been repeated so many times and over so many centuries, becoming customary and habitual, but hardly true.

G.K. Chesterton famously wrote that “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything”. Chesterton’s mistake was that he asserted people can choose not to believe in God, when in reality, they have only ever chosen not to believe in what they were told to. In other words, it was rather Chesterton who believed in anything all along. Following this, until there is a God to have faith in, there is no faith in God.

Religion and spirituality does not, nor has ever had, a monopoly on faith. On the contrary, the faith of the average religious person is so insubstantial in comparison to the otherwise non-religious requirements of it, that if we were to weigh the concrete realities of the faith on our scales, one side would fall at terminal velocity while the other remained in the heavens. If we were to agree that faith is faith in something rather than faith in nothing, surely this “something” can be known, at least for the sake of knowing there is indeed something rather than nothing to have faith in. Even a seemingly forgettable faith, such as faith in the skills of the other drivers in a morning commute, is infinitely greater in size, proportion, and importance than any faith in any doctrine. A faith in the design and engineering of the vehicle, the city-planning, and the rules of the road, the competence of the drivers and oneself, cannot be confined to any one particular book or prayer, and involves a myriad of real beings, objects and environments, each of which we trust to various extents. In contrast, the faiths and beliefs of the religious person could be constrained to a few words and sentences on a single page, revealing itself to be the only “something” the religious man has ever had faith in. They could never point to any one thing besides a series of passages, books and stories. Yet, if a man was to have faith in a single tree, that its branches will support his weight, that it will provide fruit, that it will continue to grow, he has proven a faith in something the passages, books and stories could never amount to—something real.

It is trendy to mock, belittle and dismiss the faithful, but we wonder who has the last laugh knowing the positive effects of faith in health and well-being are in themselves substantial. Faith seems to offset some of the debilitating stress and worry regarding forces outside of our control, such as death, addiction or health, that the faithful even have better chances of surviving illness or injury. Though the religious would like to reserve this benefit for themselves, perhaps under the impression that such results are a sign of the supernatural, one with a more substantial and greater faith could prove otherwise, while at the same time directing his faith towards things that are deserved of it. One could find comfort in trusting his doctor, his medical institution and the tradition of medicine he finds himself being cared by if he was so inclined. One can have faith in his friends and family, that they might provide him with support, that he doesn’t have to fight alone. Most importantly, no sacrificium intellectus is necessary.

Maybe it's time to revisit our mistrust of faith as non-believers, and instead become faithful again. It would be gloriously ironic to remove faith from the clutches of the cold and aged doctrines that have up until now claimed monopoly on it, and return it to the earth and earthly where it has always belonged. It’s time to show that every so-called loss of faith is in fact not much of a loss at all, and any subsequent “dark night of the soul” is the very same placebo-effect as before—a misapplication of faith—but in reverse. It’s time to show Mr. Chesterton that yes, one can believe in anything, but that no matter what it is, it will be substantially greater in size, reality, and worth, than whatever it was he had faith in.

Thank you for reading,

LesMis

just right off the bat, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. there's a difference between faith and belief.

you can believe in anything to some degree but expect to be asked for evidence if you want to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

before modern science, the religious anchored their arguments in faith. a personal revelation or "feeling". they can't really get away from that anymore, now they argue human ignorance to create a "reasonable" doubt.

a reply to: vjr1113

before modern science, the religious anchored their arguments in faith. a personal revelation or "feeling". they can't really get away from that anymore, now they argue human ignorance to create a "reasonable" doubt.

Not necessarily. They employed scholasticism to bolster their faith. And the scientific revolution was started by believers.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

i doubt they were citing religious text in their science arguments

not saying scientists are non religious, but good science doesn't rely on scriptures. lots of scientists use to believe in alchemy for example. doesn't mean they didnt contribute anything of value

a reply to: vjr1113

i doubt they were citing religious text in their science arguments

Which would contradict your earlier statement that the religious anchored their arguments in faith.

Faith is a word most people commonly associate with religion. Its not a bad word in any sense, but rather a strong word that carries heavy connotations. This is where the aversion develops and if enough emphasis is placed on avoiding having to say it, it will eventually become strange and taboo when hearing someone else use it. I think most people will readily admit that they have or exercise faith, but will often describe it in their own way using any of these fine synonyms...

acceptance
belief
confidence
conviction
hope
loyalty
truth
allegiance
assent
assurance
certainty
certitude
constancy
credence
credit
credulity
dependence
faithfulness
fealty
fidelity
reliance
stock
store
sureness
surety
troth
truthfulness

You're a man of words, surely you can understand the choice of using some without having to be expected to use them all just because you can. I think vocabulary and expression of self are often intertwined in a way that doesn't always make the most sense. Vocabulary defines both the religious and nonreligious alike in a way that allows us to express the same meaning by using a different number of words and expressions.

The heavier one relies on vocabulary as a trait, the more afraid they'll be to break character and honor all words of their spoken language. A person's persona plays a big part in comprehension and expression and I believe the bigger problem lies in a person's tolerance to usage of specific vocabulary that is incongruent to their own. Why attempt to give one word multiple meanings in order for it to be accepted by a multitude of conflicting mindsets?

I understand that the word faith is technically not associated with religion or spirituality in a sense, but society is too far gone to make it mean anything less than how it is mainly perceived. It is better to let opposites speak in a way that they are comfortable, while letting the law of attraction handle who gravitates towards each other. I certainly enjoyed reading and dissecting each paragraph, but feel less than qualified to convince myself that I've hit any one point that well.

a reply to: eisegesis

A very well-considered post — and, I suspect, a thread closer.

I think vocabulary and expression of self are often intertwined in a way that doesn't always make the most sense.

Some people think this is 'style'.

Vocabulary defines both the religious and nonreligious alike in a way that allows us to express the same meaning by using a different number of words and expressions.

Or shades of meaning. Yet facility with words — I speak from first-hand experience here — does not necessarily equate to intelligence.

a reply to: eisegesis

My argument is that those who claim to have faith don't, while those who claim to have no faith do. A commitment of faith towards a doctrine is far less substantial, less risky, and less honourable, than a commitment of faith towards a person or a thing.

a reply to: Astyanax

I'm sure you have a well thought out standard of intelligence.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

My argument is that those who claim to have faith don't, while those who claim to have no faith do.

A hairsplitting argument based on the fact that the word faith has more than one meaning, which everyone knows anyway.

a reply to: Astyanax

Admittedly I had a little faith that others would know what the word means. Point taken.

Spirit manifested out of origin light and once lived in natural harmony and communion with Nature....for the spirit of creation (androgyny of light) communicates its presence to all living form....and living form informed of the spirit that supports its own manifestation.

We once lived naturally without the need to communicate verbally, and our origin verbalization belonged to a hand gesture, and we communed naturally.

This spiritual life was changed by the condition of wanting to use occultism...science and conversion and the occultist review demonstrates that the powers of creation were sought spiritually and we became evil, for the application of science changed our brain chemistry.

Our morality declined and so too did the life condition, for we "nuked ourselves" as archaeology attests.

We then began to regain our spiritual awareness, as the mutations of our self presence healed.

We became self aware of our journey, and our spiritual awareness and personal experience gave us witness to the condition that supported the faith of spirit as a real evidence of purpose.

Faith does not simply involve indoctrination, it always involved experience of spirit.

Life experience, and the 2 conditions of spiritual manifestation.....our deceased spirits of relatives/animals and higher light beings taught us faith and the other condition...occultism taught us about being unfaithful and evil minded.

Therefore faith belongs to 2 life experiences that our historical spiritual journey witnessed.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Is this a sort of Socratic Paradox? The paraphrased and attributed " I know that I know nothing". Sort of how a person of "faith" is no longer beholden to faith as it is a matter of fact or certainty to them. Where as a person who is certain of something that they don't have much knowledge of ( the sun rise, other drivers etc) is really only functioning on a degree of faith.

Sorry I am experiencing insomnia so I may be off the mark.

I have faith in religion cause I know the other choice is much worse

When the cold mountain, Cuts hearts open. Just keep on walking, Faithfully without hoping.

Repesents a faith in Life.

Faith is an essential part of life for me, not a blind faith, but one that is founded in a way of life. A way of life that is worthy of living. A faith that is put to the test, not verbally as such but more so as a living and working phylosophie. On the other hand there is a faith in universe we form part of, in the natural balance of the elements.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Is this a sort of Socratic Paradox? The paraphrased and attributed " I know that I know nothing". Sort of how a person of "faith" is no longer beholden to faith as it is a matter of fact or certainty to them. Where as a person who is certain of something that they don't have much knowledge of ( the sun rise, other drivers etc) is really only functioning on a degree of faith.

Sorry I am experiencing insomnia so I may be off the mark.

That's a good way of looking at it though I never thought of it that way.

It's more of an irony. The essential theme is that it takes very little to have faith in a religion, but it takes a great deal to have faith in anything else. Having faith in a religion is of little consequence—no more than a hobby—while faith applied to the earth, no matter to which degree, has far greater repercussions. We can determine what and what not to have faith in without having to sacrifice the intellect in the spirit of Pascal or Kierkegaard.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
A commitment of faith towards a doctrine is far less substantial, less risky, and less honourable, than a commitment of faith towards a person or a thing.

This is the same distinction found in the language of John's gospel;
PISTUEIN HOTI - Believing THAT
PISTUEIN EIS - Believing IN
New Testament faith is actually founded on the latter, God and his Christ being personal.
The trusting "in" is the ultimate basis for all the believing "that".

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
G.K. Chesterton famously wrote that “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything”.

Do you believe that the quote is what he actually wrote?

I like this adaptation.

You hard-shelled materialists were all balanced on the very edge of belief — of belief in almost anything.

www.chesterton.org...

"When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship nothing but worships everything."
In this version it seems as if God is nothing. Why not just write 'When man ceases to worship God, he then worships everything"? Why bother putting - 'he does not worship nothing' - in the middle?

There is that other sentence that comes to mind - "In the beginning there was nothing and God said..................."

Is God nothing?

faith requires the surrender of belief. i always liked douglas adams' interpretation in 'the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy'