What is faith?

[Smalcald]

Well I would agree they are not comparable and not in competition with each other for truth.

The scientific method is sound, and it provides our best view right now, until a different theory which has more explanatory power comes about, or until the current theory is falsified. But it does not provide ultimate truth or morality; it does not attempt to do so.

The bible on the other hand does not provide information about our natural world, except in the cases where it is used to advance a spiritual concept.

The basis and core of the Christian faith is that the eternal creator God came to the earth as a weak human being, was crucified in the flesh as a human and died as as human, but His dead corpse rose again from the grave, He gave some final instructions and left again. This will never be accepted by the scientific method, yet it is the core of our faith. On the other hand, this is only remarkable and interesting because of the scientific method, because we know that humanly it is impossible for rotting corpses to rise from the dead and yet we fully believe this anyway.

[Pax]

Simple question:

What do you need to see or hear to believe or consider believing in God?

God gives each one of us the ability to have faith, but we have to be open to this. This first thing I would tell a person seeking faith is to have an open mind.

[Artemus Prime]

Here again, faith is not irrational, it is supra-rational. It is above and beyond, so to speak.

[followerofjesus]

Im Anfang war das Wort

[Kabowd]

Wow...I forgot about this topic. Sorry! Geeze, alot to read through now. I sort of skimmed it, and got a little side-tracked on the comments between Lepaca and Copper Scroll. If I could just ask real quick, because I got kind of confused....Lepaca, are you denying our existence? The existence of anything? Can you clarify what you meant by those statements?

I'll read through the other posts too as soon as I can get to them and respond when I can. Thanks!

[Artemus Prime]

"If the book of Job teaches one lesson, especially in God's speech at the end, it is that human beings have no business, let alone competence, in trying to figure out all the intricacies of why things happen. Instead, God challenged Job to do any better. God restrains from continual interference with what takes place on earth, declining to humble every proud man and crush the wicked where they stand, for reasons that continue to perplex their victims. We, like Job, assume that God has somehow arranged all events, then draw conclusions that are patently false: "God doesn't love me." "God is not fair." Faith offers the option of continuing to trust God even while accepting the limits of our humanity, which means accepting that we cannot answer the "Why!?" questions."

--Philip Yancey, from his book Reaching for the Invisible God, p. 56.

Blessings, A.P.

[followerofjesus]

cryptica scriptura

[Artemus Prime]

It is precisely because the idea of objective truth has been set aside that there is such an intellectual, emotional, and spiritual malaise plaguing our culture. With no objective standard of measurement, true intellectualism gives way to both subjectivism and moral relativism.

[Copper Scroll]

How do you tell you're typing on the keyboard? How do you know you're thinking?

Typing on the keyboard is not a function of the senses. It's a goal-oriented motor process. Knowing that I am typing on the keyboard does involve the senses

Indeed That was the point.

that's a slightly different story. I know that I'm thinking because I'm thinking--not because I see, hear, feel, smell, or taste myself thinking.

Awareness of self is obviously a perception. You feel that you're thinking in the same way you feel your butt is on the chair, it's your brain working. But let's forget about feeling for a moment; how do you know that you are thinking at all? Just try to answer this one question, if you will.

If you classify all forms of self-awareness as "perceptions", then you are working with a different definition of "perception" than me. My definition: Perception is awareness via the senses. The argument can be made that part of our self-awareness comes through the senses, but clearly not all. Thoughts and emotions and decisions don't come from the senses, for example, but they all play a part in self-awareness.

I don't feel that I am thinking the same way I feel my butt on the chair. Feeling my butt on the chair comes from a cutaneous sense and a sense of physical pressure. "Feeling" that I am thinking comes from thinking--thinking necessarily involves awareness/consciousness--it's part of what "thinking" means. So asking how I know that I am thinking is like asking how I became aware that I am aware.

So, there is more to knowing that I exist than what my senses tell me. All my senses give me is information about the external, natural world. They tell me that an external, natural world exists. Trusting them in this requires faith. So faith is more fundamental than science.

One of the points I've been trying to make for a while now is that even if faith was required to trust into the outside world rather then just your existence, that doesn't make it logical in every situation.

The questions asked here, though, were What is faith and is it rational? The questions don't specify objects or content for said faith. They ask about faith in general. My answer is that some faith is required before reason and logic can happen, so what is reasonable or logical largely depends on faith--the basic unproven assumptions one starts with.

If one person starts with one set accepted on faith and another starts with another set--the one person might say that the other's faith is irrational or illogical. If neither set of basic assumptions has "proof", who is to say who is being rational and who is not?

Trusting mythology without any proof is indeed pointless and totally illogical because you're lowering the standards to let yourself believe in a particular piece of folklore but raising them immediately as soon as some other piece of folklore (say, Buddhism) is presented to you.

We've discussed this before (I think), and I don't think this criticism applies to me. I don't doubt the empirical factuality or literal actuality of any folklore or myth. Mainly because empirical factuality and literal actuality do not apply to folklore or myth. Folklore and myth does not seek to present historical data. Their purpose is to present truths about our place in the world and our condition and our relationship with the divine in a way that transcends the situation portrayed in them. Imposing the requirements of the scientific method on them is what is really "pointless and totally illogical."

[Artemus Prime]

Agree Copper, and well-put. That was rather refreshing to read! Blessings, A.P.