- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Consider the following: Alma 32:21 wrote:And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.
In the great discourse in Alma, faith is distinct from knowledge, and in fact, having knowledge makes faith dormant. Having a hope for things is not belief, but rather, a desire that something is true. For faith to be true, that desire for something to be true must be matched with the fact that something is indeed true. But the hope must not be idle, because it needs to be coupled with action.Faith, therefore, is hope put into action. I will say something here that will, I’m sure, indicate that I am a total heretic. I do not believe in a personal god, a premortal existence, the idea that Jesus resurrected, or that we will live after this life. I do, however, have very deep and personal faith in god, a hope and faith in the plan of salvation, including the premortal existence, the resurrection and life after this life. I have faith in what we teach as Mormons about the plan of salvation — I relish it, I enjoy it, I hope it’s true. I don’t believe it — meaning, precisely, that I do not have any justification for such a belief.
More importantly, my faith in LDS doctrines like the Plan of Salvation, the Atonement including the Resurrection, and the idea that we live beyond this life and are somehow connected to our ancestors through temple service is conveyed into my daily, weekly, and monthly actions — or at least my paltry attempts to be ‘faithful’. I love partaking of the sacrament and contemplating the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I enjoy daily scripture reading and prayer with my family and individually. I love serving in the temple each month. I have tangibly felt the presence of my deceased mother in a sealing ceremony shortly after she passed away.
So, I have faith in an afterlife, because I hope for it, and I act as if there is one in my religious practice. I have a testimony of an afterlife, having felt things about it — feelings I cannot deny. But I do not believe it or know it. I have no justification or intellectual argument that proves an afterlife in my mind, and there is substantial evidence to the contrary. being faithful, to me, implies hope, trust, loyalty, and action. Belief seems to be something quite distinct from faith.
So my question: can a person have faith without belief?
I think it all depends on how you define each term. I agree with everything you said, wayfarer, in principle – although I would word it a bit differently if I was talking with most members of the Church (and others, as well).
To say “faith without belief” is obviously provocative, and easy to get confused, but i believeit to be technically correct, using standard definitions of terms. I would argue that faith without belief is far more epistemologically correct than the statement “i know x”. Since most people of faith say “i know that x is true” when they mean “i have faith that x is true”, I recognize that when we bear testimony, we use the term “know”. But it is not faith if we know. we need to know that we don’t know in order for something to be faith, and that’s why i think that faith should be decoupled from belief.
belief is a thought process, coupled with an emotion: a feeling of knowing something. the problem with things of faith being construed with belief is twofold:
1. belief does not save but faith does
2. belief in the unproven can too easily become attachment to untruth, even when massive evidence shows it to be untrue. faith in something untrue immediately becomes null when a thing is proven to be untrue.
take for example this extraordinarily important verse:
Moses 5:6-8 wrote:And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.
And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.
Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.
Adam did not believe in sacrifice — he had nothing to believe in! He had absolute faith, because he trusted and acted on the commandment.Adam had faith without belief. He did not make up a story about sacrifice to justify to his mind a distinctly illogical act. were he to say “i believe in physical sacrifice”, and in so doing believe that physical sacrifice is the point, the glorious principle of the sacrifice of Jesus would be entirely lost. Abraham, attached to the physical sacrifice principle, was easily tempted into offering Isaac, and in the narrative is frequently “justifying” his act to Isaac as they progress through the story. Abraham is rewarded because he is
faithful , but his belief was wrongly placed. Faith is trust and willingness to act on something true, explicitly without knowledge. the “not knowing” is the essential element. it’s what makes faith so powerful. Faith in that which we don’t know is a conscious choice to trust in something we do not believe, yet, to be true.
Belief, on the other hand, is tentative knowledge. because so many principles in the gospel are “unbelievable” and “unknowable”, the extent to which one couples faith to belief leads either to self-deception or tentative faith: neither of which is desirable. Belief is a condition of the mind, not a choice. To believe something when our mind tells us we don’t know is a type of unhealthy self-delusion.
Whereas faith is a principle of power, unjustified belief weakens us, because it contaminates our ability to discern truth.
As I said, I agree. Belief occurs as evidence begins to be gained in a movement toward knowledge. That’s exactly how I see it, as well. That’s what is taught in Alma 32 in the description of seed planting and the resulting growth – except that it would be complete faith only if the person doing the planting had never seen the process of a seed turning into a plant. It’s a great analogy conceptually – but it’s like the common example of turning on a light switch or the sun coming up in the morning. Those aren’t examples of faith; they are examples of knowledge born of continual experience.
A better example of faith, belief and knowledge, imo, is the concept of a physical resurrection. It can’t be proven either way, so it has to be taken strictly on faith for anyone who has never seen a resurrected being. For them (and me), it is based on nothing but hope. I don’t “believe in” that type of resurrection; I “have faith” in it. Any degree of belief I have in it is based on the reported experiences of others, not my own experiences. I could say I believe those reports of others, if I have other reason(s) to trust their statements, but that belief is more in them than it is in the resurrection itself. I can say I believe those people, but when it comes to the resurrection itself, I’m still operating on faith.
Fwiw, I personally believe it’s critical we have this type of discussion in church – since I see SO much misuse of terms that leads to SO much misunderstanding and unnecessary crisis of faith. We want so badly to know that we end up devaluing faith – and that’s a really dangerous path and a shame, imo.
Old-Timer wrote:Fwiw, I personally believe it’s critical we have this type of discussion in church – since I see SO much misuse of terms that leads to SO much misunderstanding and unnecessary crisis of faith. We want so badly to know that we end up devaluing faith – and that’s a really dangerous path and a shame, imo.
Thank you ray for that assessment. I really hope we can switch to a a foundation of declared unknown knowledge. Away from the idea that somehow strongly believing something is true makes it doctrine. That we just reassert our faith that we don’t know but that’s ok, we have hope for it. I understand that some people want solid answers. But if we had all the answers, or all the important answers. We wouldn’t have a drive to seek them. The seeking for truth rather then answers is what drives us forward.
Forgotten_Charity wrote:I really hope we can switch to a a foundation of declared unknown knowledge. Away from the idea that somehow strongly believing something is true makes it doctrine. That we just reassert our faith that we don’t know but that’s ok, we have hope for it. I understand that some people want solid answers. But if we had all the answers, or all the important answers. We wouldn’t have a drive to seek them. The seeking for truth rather then answers is what drives us forward.
i wonder if you could expand a bit on this… i am not sure i understand. what is a foundation of declared unknown knowledge? that sounds like dogma to me. i could be wrong…I read it as being comfortable declaring that we don’t know, but that might be totally off. FC, I’d also like to know more about what you meant.
I’m sorry for my lack of expertise with the written word. I often can’t convey what I speak through the mouth because so much is expressed in tone and expression that I can’t articulate through words. Yes Ray, I do mean to intend to be comfortable around saying as a church or doctrine that we in fact don’t know. But we do have guesses(not doctrine). Among many brethren giving testimonials declaring their personal belief as doctrine to assure people who also believe the same but want reassurance that it isn’t just a belief but doctrine and a sured knowledge.
I couldn’t tell you how many times I was taught growing up every little detail of the celestial kingdom as it as doctrine and assured knowledge. From warping around to the location you wanted on a mere thought to how people visited each other in a hierarchy from top to bottom(that any higher tier in the kingdom could visit any lower but not the other way around), that we would have a sort of crystal ball to watch any part of the u inverse at the higher tier of the celestial kingdom. Those were just examples taught as doctrine to me from all the higher brethren. You can conclude the literal interpretation of the creation of the earth and man etc taught as doctrine, or that all or most native Americans are descendants of lamanites. Rather then asserting that because we believe strongly these things that we just don’t know. And others that we do know that didn’t happen the way it was written but we feel the need to assert that believing strongly makes it doctrine.
I’m fine with what ever makes people feel most comfortable in their lives as the literalness of things or belief of things that helps them live or have faith, I’m just don’t feel we should assert all the belief as doctrine from the pulpit.
It encourages unhealthy thinking and equally important it encourages members to stop looking for truth(seeking)because they feel we have all the important answers and there is nothing important to seek leftwe should always seek truth, no matter how much we think we have or how correctly we think our truth is all encompassing. Forgotten_Charity. I understand completely what you say: Quote:I’m sorry for my lack of expertise with the written word. I often can’t convey what I speak through the mouth because so much is expressed in tone and expression that I can’t articulate through words.
I don’t reply as much as others in our group because I miss alot through facial expressions, etc.
Plus, in a medium like this, you don’t always know who’s “for real” or not.
I do believe that most who post here as doing it honestly.
You have nothing to apologize for.
Mike from Milton.
Thank you, F_C, for that additional explanation. I also want to add my voice about your lack of ability to express yourself perfectly here. All of us stumble with saying what we mean sometimes, which is why we try to ask for clarification when we don’t understand and why we try hard not to let emotional reactions cloud our judgment and make us assume things that aren’t in the words themselves. You did great explaining what you meant, and I appreciate it.
Let’s see, I tink these terms are connected, but differentiating the meanings can be insightful. I believe it is knowledge that starts the cycle, and moves along this path…
Knowledge in something. –> belief –> hope –> faith –> increased knowledge, wisdom and intelligence.
I cannot believe or hope for or have faith without some knowledge to know what I’m hoping for.
Quote:I know what rain is.
Belief is the thoughts I have about something, good or bad or indifferent.
Quote:I believe the weather report gives a chance of rain today.
Hope is a desire for something, still in my thoughts.
Quote:I hope I can stay dry getting to work even though i believe it might rain.
Faith is the actions I take to test my beliefs and pursue my hopes.
Quote:I bring my umbrella and walk outside to get to my work office dry. My faith is in the thing that can help me get what I hope for.
When faith proves something, the faith is dormant and it is now knowledge.
Quote:It is raining, and my umbrella is keeping me dry. I have knowledge I can stay dry on my way to work even if it rains.
I do not think we can have faith without knowledge and belief and hope. Because these things are the elements that faith, or action, is predicated on.
I cannot have faith in shmertz. I don’t know what shmertz is, or what to believe or hope about it. Therefore, my faith must start with knowledge and beliefs, and faith helps me to progress to more knowledge through my actions.
I do not see how I can have faith without first having belief to exercise my faith in.
Heber, that’s why I always try to make sure I know what people mean by the words they use before I tell them I think they are right or wrong. Far too many arguments and misunderstandings occur because people say the same things but use different words to say it. The words trigger different meanings in the minds of the different people, so people who agree assume they disagree. There’s a lesson in there even for members of the same church – for example, in talks or testimonies that might bother without an understanding of what the speaker really means.
Heber13 wrote:Let’s see, I tink these terms are connected, but differentiating the meanings can be insightful.
I believe it is knowledge that starts the cycle, and moves along this path…
Knowledge in something. –> belief –> hope –> faith –> increased knowledge, wisdom and intelligence.
I cannot believe or hope for or have faith without some knowledge to know what I’m hoping for.
Quote:I know what rain is.
Great points, but permit me to refine this a bit. While we say we know rain, we don’t really kow what rain is. We only have some experience with rain, and there is what you have observed in that experience: it’s wet. I walk out in the rain, I get wet. But you do not know the source of rain, it’s chemical properties, what governs it, and a host of properties about rain. We may know it exists and is wet, but we don’t know what rain is, in the fullest sense.We don’t believe rain exists, because we know it exists. The problem comes from your diagram — our knowledge impells us to believe something about rain. In ancient times, people knew rain exists, and believed that it came and was governed by god or a god over the elements. Therefore they prayed for rain, and in faith danced around in support of that belief. And this is where coupling beliefs with either prior knowledge or faith is misguided.
Adam was given a simple commandment: Sacrifice the firstlings of the flock. No explanation, not why or wherefore. He knew the commandment, and importantly he
trustedgod in keeping it. Because his trustwas put into action, he met the definition of having faith ‘faith’. He did not believe or know anything about the commandment, save the lord commanded him. By suspending belief, he was able to open his heart and mind to the inspiration and knowledge coming from the lord as to why. Once we believe something, we are onto the road of guessed or propositional knowledge, and we violate the principle given in the plan for creation: “That they may know through their own experience…”. Belief is not to know a thing, nor is belief like faith in terms of impelling to action. Belief is an emotion, a comfort with or feeling of certainty not based upon evidence or fact. Because of the emotion, beliefs are often more powerful and strongly held in the mind than actual knowledge or facts.
Faith does not require belief, and specifically excludes knowledge. Faith may begin with an hypothesis, or even a declaration, but to put a test onto an hypothesis or on a declaration, one should
suspend belief, in order to be unbiased as to the outcomes. In order to have faith, other terms come to mind:
: I can accept the premise or moral of a fictional or mythical story, but I do not have to believe in it. I typically accept a scientific hypothesis without believing in it. And when I accept without the emotional baggage of belief, I am able to fairly and in an unbiased way evaluate the truthfulness of the premise. Agreement: I may agree to the rules of the church without believing in any of them, just like I can agree to the rules of golf or baseball, and am willing to agree to play by the rules — belief is not part of this equation. Trust: Adam’s obedience in faith to God was an example of trust. The Lord commanded something, and he trusted it enough to act on it. Action: Based upon my acceptance, trust, or agreement, I am willing to take action on the premise. This is where faith becomes operative. Heber13 wrote:Belief is the thoughts I have about something, good or bad or indifferent.
Quote:I believe the weather report gives a chance of rain today.
Are you guessing at the weather report, or did you hear it? If you heard the weather report, and accurately remember it, then your statement is not accurate: you don’t believe the weather report says something, you heard it or you know that the weather report gives a chance of rain today. Belief is not associated with the weather report. On the other hand, you may have trust in the weather report. Given that there is a chance for rain in the weather report, you are going to take action on that trust. What does the emotion of belief have to do with this?Heber13 wrote:Hope is a desire for something, still in my thoughts.
Quote:I hope I can stay dry getting to work even though i believe it might rain.
First you asserted here a different premise from your previous statement. “You believe it might rain” versus “I believe the weather report gives a chance of rain today.” You have now made an epistemological conclusion based upon earlier facts. I grant that you believe it might rain in this case, but your belief is more than just belief here: you are justified in the belief by your faith in the weatherman. Since ‘might’ is probablisitic, and therefore by definition true for most cases of rain, you have ‘justified true belief’ in the premise “it might rain today”. JTB is no longer belief, it’s knowledge, in a way, provided that yourfaithin the weatherman is justified. And yes, your action on that faith, becomes a justification for knowledge as you note.
My issue isn’t that faith can lead to knowledge, but rather, that to presume knowledge is necessary to act in faith, and even more to the point, to use belief prior to the experiment on faith as a pre-requisite, invariably leads to either biased conclusions of truth where there is none, or self-incrimination with our “belief” is not sufficient to overcome the lack of factuality of our beliefs.
Heber13 wrote:I do not think we can have faith without knowledge and belief and hope. Because these things are the elements that faith, or action, is predicated on.
I cannot have faith in shmertz. I don’t know what shmertz is, or what to believe or hope about it. Therefore, my faith must start with knowledge and beliefs, and faith helps me to progress to more knowledge through my actions.
I do not see how I can have faith without first having belief to exercise my faith in.
First, faith, according to scripture, is explicitly to recognize that we don’t have knowledge. Second, as “faith” means trust leading to action rather than mere belief, I’ve pointed out several ways that trust can be implemented without belief, either through acceptance or agreement.Why is this important? I have faith in the book of mormon. I have faith that Joseph Smith was a prophet. My faith is not dependent upon any beliefs about the book of mormon or joseph smith. If I believed that the book of mormon is an accurate representation of the history of native americans, as I was clearly taught prior to and during my mission in south america, then when that belief proved to be false, as it certainly has been, then where is my faith in the book of mormon? Likewise if I believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet and base that belief on attributes of prophets: that they never lead people astray, that they don’t blatently commit sinful acts using their prophetic calling to justify them, then where is my ‘faith’ when it becomes apparent that Joseph Smith did abuse his prophetic authority to force young or married women to become his spiritual wives?
From whence is my faith? I accept and agree with the church that the book of mormon has divine and relevant content for my life. Because I agree and accept that, trusting that it will come about if I act, then I read the book of mormon, with a goal to liken the scriptures to myself and find that content. If I find the content, then the premise is true. If I don’t, then at some point, I’m willing to say that my trust was misplaced. However, In acting on my faith of the book of mormon, I have found numerous valuable principles. I therefore have justified my faith into knowledge of specifically the value of the book of mormon to me.
And, because I haven’t coupled my faith in the book of mormon with beliefs about its origins, then as the truth claims about its origin fail, my faith in the book is secure. This, to me, is a key to survival.
If I held beliefs of the book of mormon, then my positive experience would justify my beliefs as well — after all, this is the ‘moroni promise’ (although it really isn’t). In other words, my good feelings about the book would tell me that my belief is true, that Joseph Smith literally translated an ancient record of all the native peoples of north and south america. As evidence is presented to the contrary, I am then faced with either cognitive dissonance, or simply a rejection of the evidence through some sort of twisted thinking entitled ‘apologetics’.
What I’m saying is that faith without belief — or more precisely, faith with suspended beliefs — is an effective strategy to help understand the value of a religious system without swallowing (believing without justification) the things that aren’t true about it.
I think I understand what you are saying wayfarer. But after my faith crises I began to see a whole new meaning to– “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth.
Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail”.Yes indeed I began to read it as even hope and faith will fail sometimes regardless. I read into that that they would fail becuase I placed to much faith in man and books written by men. I still maintained hope though, and put the foundation on charity to god and my neighbor (fellow man,women). Rather then any belief I didn’t have hope for. It’s hard to have hope and faith in so many arbitrary things. I just keep it basic now. Put all my egg(belief) in one basket then my faith will fail. No matter what I belief or have faith in much of it will fail at some point. But with a foundation of love, including love to serve others and god I will be pleased with my life no matter what belief and faith I put into it failed. I have no problem putting my faith or belief into things I hope are true but probably not. No matter what I choose to believe some of it will fail in the end. I’v learned to be fine with that as long as it produceess happiness to myself and those around me. That’s just the inescapable part of being human. Perfection even in faith or belief simply doesn’t exist, that’s part of being human as well. I’m fine
f_c, I think you make a great point. very significant point. faith fails at some point as well, then what — charity/agape really is all we really need to have at the core. One of the earliest teachings is called the Didache – the Two Ways. Here is the second verse of this amazing document: Didache 1:2 wrote:The way of life is this: first, you should love God, who made you; secondly, love your neighbor as yourself; and whatever things you do not desire to be done to you, do not do them to someone else.
The most essential teaching of the Torah and the Gospel of Jesus Christ can be reduced to the above three statements: Love God, Love Neighbor, Golden Rule. It is the same core teaching in all the great faith systems of the world — it is the single most important message we can live by. All else is commentary.This thread isn’t quite getting where I was thinking it would. The idea seemed better than the reality, i’m afraid. In the discussion of ‘afterlife’, I have to say that I really don’t believe in an afterlife in what is defined by the church. In fact, I really don’t believe it at all, yet I’m willing to accept that it’s there, and willing to live my life in accordance with the gospel which says something about it. I really hope the plan of salvation has truth to it, but I don’t believe it.
Now what does this mean? It means that I have no intellectual justification, no evidence whatsoever, that the LDS plan of salvation is what it says it is. I have been taught it, I know all the principles, but I do not have any justification. Therefore, I accept, I agree to it, I hope for it, and in taking the sacrament and performing ordinances vicariously for the dead, I have trust that these have value. All these terms: acceptance, agreement, hope, and trust are part of a ‘faith’ model that does not require belief. Therefore, to say that I have faith in the plan of salvation is completely accurate, but perhaps misleading. I’m pretty sure that this faith will endure to the end of my life, because I have no reason to reject the plan of salvation.
When LDS or any christian for that matter say that they know or believe something, they impute a truthfulness to something that cannot be proven. Belief is something I accept or agree with, coupled with an emotion – a feeling of certainty about the item. It’s that feeling of certainty that gets us into trouble, because the feeling part of belief is purely an emotion based in the limbic brain, meaning it is a primitive, non-logical construct. We believe it because we feel good about it. And while that is very useful for a number of things, imputing truthfulness in a logical sense based upon an emotion at a base level is dangerous thinking.
Let’s say I read the book of mormon. I find in the book a number of things that really uplift me as I read it. I feel good about it. Having read the book of mormon over and over again, I feel that same feeling over and over. What I’m doing is programming my limbic brain to be more and more comfortable with the book.
Now moroni gives a promise, that if you read the book, and pray about it, you’ll get a feeling that it’s true. This feeling could come from two sources: 1) the holy ghost actually revealing that the book is ‘true’, or 2) your limbic brain telling you that it makes you feel good and comfortable reading the book. The reality for me is that these are not two different mechanisms: the holy ghost works through your feelings. When we have a feeling of certainty about something having studied and prayed, then it’s supposed to be true by the manifestation of the holy ghost. Thus, the holy ghost works along side the same limbic structures as your sense of familiarity and comfort with something. So, going with the gut, alone, is dangerous, because it’s hard to tell the difference.
Now let’s assume that the holy ghost does in fact reveal to you something about the book: that you feel good about the book. What have you learned is ‘true’? you’ve learned that the book uplifts. it teaches. it edifies. That’s it. You now ‘know’ that the book has that ‘truth’ to it. But here’s where beliefs go wrong. Missionaries ask, “could any man have written that book”, and because in the emotions of the moment, now we spread our belief out from the simply fact that it uplifts to…the book is the word of god…the origins of that book are true…and joseph smith is everything he said he was. These latter ‘truths’ are not facts, but rather, unfounded assertions based upon the emotion of belief in one fact about the book: that it uplifts.
This, to me, is the problem with belief — when we spread out from an initial fact to a whole raft of dogma, we’re in dangerous territory. It will fail.
In contrast to this, I’m suggesting ‘faith’ be defined in terms outside of ‘belief’. I can have faith in the book of mormon, because I have had an experience that gives me hope that it will uplift when i read it. I accept that it has truth, I agree with the teachings of the book, I have hope that it will help me, and I act in faith by reading it and applying the principles. I do not need to believe in any unproven assertion about the book: it’s origins? immaterial. It’s historicity? irrelevant. by detaching faith from beliefs, I have saved the book of mormon for me from categorical rejection based upon bogus truth claims about its origin — it still lives in my faith even if some of my prior-held beliefs about it have failed.
Maybe my words are wrong. But I feel strongly about this principle: as I have plumbed the depths of the origin stories of all scripture, I have come to realize that they are all artifacts (things made by men). The god presented in scripture is largely arbitrary and capricious, and in rejecting the authority of scripture, I could easily end up an atheist. And maybe to some, here, I am, given my lack of ‘belief’ in a personal god. But to lack belief in unbelievable concepts, while having faith, proven by experience, that my trust in a higher power I do not understand or know much about is effective, then I can say that I have faith in god — deep, abiding, proven trust in god without a single bit of belief or knowledge of his attributes or nature. I have come realize that I know absolutely nothing about god, but I know god personally through an active, real, personal relationship with _____ (god knows what) ____.
Now, though, coming back into an LDS church setting, because I have faith in god, I can accept and agree to any words used in a church setting to describe god. If we want to use “heavenly father” as meaningful language, I can accept and agree to that language. I can act on it. it may well be true — I simply don’t know that it is, and I have suspended belief on that because I do not have evidence.
I think f_c, that this process of expanding belief from a simple fact that the BoM edifies to ‘the whole schmear is true’ is the ‘eggs in one basket you refer to.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.