What is Faith?
Pondering the difference between the faithful and the foolish.
Dictionary.com will tell you that faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or evidence, that it is a certain persuasion of the mind to believe an idea is trustworthy. In other words, to have faith, a person must 1) not have evidence that their faith is true and 2) they must trust in the truthfulness of that faith without proof.
But what about when we are presented with evidence that our faith is not true? If faith is to believe without evidence that a belief is true, does having faith include believing when there is evidence to the contrary? Is that being faithful or foolish?
Dictionary.com will tell you that faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or evidence, that it is a certain persuasion of the mind to believe an idea is trustworthy. In other words, to have faith, a person must 1) not have evidence that their faith is true and 2) they must trust in the truthfulness of that faith without proof.
But what about when we are presented with evidence that our faith is not true? If faith is to believe without evidence that a belief is true, does having faith include believing when there is evidence to the contrary? Is that being faithful or foolish?
4 Comments:
At 11/01/2005 1:15 PM,
treppenwitz said…
First of all, I wouldn't rest my theological beliefs on the shoulders of some dictionary.com definition. :-)
As far as I'm concerned, faith is the belief in something without having ALL the evidence that that something exists. For example, when people like Abraham and Moses were tested by G-d, the test was one of obedience rather than faith. They had first hand knowledge of G-d's existence (and power), so when they were asked (commanded) to do something (or not do something), G-d was checking to make sure of their obedience, not whether they were faithful servants. We, by comparison, have only a small fragment of the 'proof' necessary to decide anything to do with G-d's existence, so our test is one of faith. It might feel foolish... but the essense of faith is not being sure.
At 11/01/2005 1:50 PM,
Cameron said…
Faith is also defined as "...not to have a perfect knowledge of things...[it is a] hope for things which are not seen, which are true."
Thruth is the subtle difference between a 'belief' and 'faith.' That can be a fuzzy subject, but usually, one begins to have faith because of evidence and it is strengthened due to more experiences and tests. If there is incontrovertable evidence against what you consider your faith, then it is probably a belief. Things can get a little fuzzy there because of peoples' differences on truth.
At 11/02/2005 10:04 AM,
Jan said…
David, I wasn't thinking specifically about religious faith. But that's certainly a part of it. I'm not sure that anything from scripture can be used as proof of religious certainty. After all, there's no archeological proof that most events in the scriptures happened - the figures of Moses and Abraham could have been no more than the product someone's fertile imagination.
Sure, the History Channel has a million or so specials detailing searches for Biblical evidence. And none of the ones I've seen have shown conclusive proof that the actions in the scriptures ever happened as they are portrayed. And if Moses and Abraham were no more than some imaginative author, then of course that author would have them be in the presence of God as proof of His existence.
Now, I'm not suggesting that the scriptures are works of fiction; I believe they are true and that the events therein did happen (more or less) as they are portrayed. But there's really no proof, is there? Sure, historians can verify (as one example) that an Exodus-type slave migration did happen in Egypt, but there's no proof that a single man led it. So without that proof, do you believe even if someone presents you with evidence to the contrary?
And why do you use G-d as opposed to God?
Cameron, you used one word that I forgot all about in my post, and probably shouldn't have: hope. To have faith, you have to have hope because faith is so uncertain, so tenuous. Without hope, you just feel foolish for believing.
Anyway, I was thinking more about faith in people when I wrote this post. Can you still have faith in a person when there's evidence you shouldn't? Is it foolish to hope that the person is trustworthy despite evidence to the contrary?
At 11/02/2005 11:36 AM,
Cameron said…
Jan,
I wouldn't call that faith. If someone has really let you down (or similar cause for distrust), you can still be a friend and work towards trusting them again. You can forgive, but it may be foolish to completely forget the past unless it has been reconciled.
Post a Comment
<< Home