Faith in false concepts.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Personally, I think many Muslims are just as faithful as any Christian but at the same time I assume that much of this is actually faith in false concepts.

Yeah I agree. Think about this — many in my own family would say that I DON’T have faith because I don’t interpret the gospel like they do. So, in essence, they would agree with Mr. Cadence because they assume that I’m “delusional” in my beliefs. I would disagree and say I have a lot of faith. I don’t necessarily agree with all their interpretation of “truth” either, yet I wouldn’t say they don’t have faith.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Yet how can I determine what is truth (concerning unseen things) without faith. This is the paradox.

Yeah. That has me thinking overtime tonight. 😯

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Quote:

Yet how can I determine what is truth (concerning unseen things) without faith. This is the paradox.

Yeah. That has me thinking overtime tonight. 😯

If you don’t watch out, you’ll end up in a philosophy department somewhere. (Joke!) We are getting a bit into that territory.

I certainly think that plenty of people have faith in false concepts. It doesn’t make them bad, but it does make them misguided.

As for the “I know” phrase, I do have trouble with that. Partly because there are different definitions of that, and I think it also muddies the issue.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I have faith the sun will rise in the morning. This is truly faith because it is an absolutely true concept or event.

I have faith moon will disappear. This is not faith because it is a false concept. No amount of faith or belief will make it happen. It is delusion.

So in my mind the trick to having true faith is to determine what is true first. Yet how can I determine what is truth (concerning unseen things) without faith. This is the paradox.

Sure it’s delusional to believe in something when there are fairly obvious and convincing reasons to believe that it is false (e.g. the earth is flat) but personally I don’t think faith really has all that much to do with truth. The problem is that whether or not an idea many people believe in is true is often largely unknown for practical purposes. The way I see it, faith is typically more of a factor when there is really no way to know for sure what the real truth is such as in the question of whether or not God exists. If you want to depend on direct indisputable evidence for all your religious beliefs then the most reasonable position I see is that of the militant agnostic, basically the idea that, “I don’t know and neither do you.”

However, when it comes to religion I don’t really care that much about undeniable proof because I am perfectly content to simply have faith that the people who wrote the New Testament were not completely lying and that there is some truth in what they say. Also, I feel a lot more confident about the idea that life and especially humans were created by some higher power than the idea that these are the result of pure random chance combined with evolution. Atheists can easily draw the opposite conclusions but as far as I’m concerned this is mostly based on different assumptions they prefer to make which lead to drastically different opinions that I will never agree with.

[Anonymous]

Oh man, we’re approaching philosophy here. Here we go :: plugs nose ::

Heber13 wrote:

Based on those conditions in this life…we must have faith there is an absolute Truth, but accept that our capacities in this life will never allow us to clearly see them, and so our test in life is to continue to move forward testing things until we have confidence we are pretty close to the truth (Pareto’s 80/20 rule)…even if we won’t know for sure until the next life how accurate we are. In the mean time, being pretty close is good enough to move us towards our goals of happiness, peace, love, and enlightenment, and perhaps even getting closer than Pareto’s rule to increase our assurance of things we cannot see.

But look at the basis for your statement “we must have faith there is an absolute Truth.” Your basis for the claim was speculation that there could be Truth beyond this world. Are we sure that’s a good foundation on which to build? What if the only Truth is what exists in this world/universe, that is empirically (though not yet possibly) shown? Does there have to be something “beyond this world”? If so, why? Is it to provide an explanation for some mental/physical phenomenon, or some other unexplained event? Is it because we “feel” it to be so?(note, I’m not trying to say this is the case, I’m just pointing it out)

Heber13 wrote:

Faith in false concepts would mean we see through the glass darkly…and so we just guess and end up being further from the capital “T” truth…which will not help us achieve our goals. Even with good intentions (take teachings of Blacks and the Priesthood)…it is still the wrong things to have faith in and may eventually come to light.

Okay, that’s fair, but again, how would you know? If Joseph just “guessed” about polygamy, what would that say about his reliability as a prophet? Do you really think that Joseph just “guessed”? The thing is, is faith is a concept that we use in the present to indicate our beliefs as motivation to action. It is useful as a concept in the present, and therefore, I must decide what to have faith in now. IOW, we can always look back and see what were the wrong things in which to place our faith. But that doesn’t help us much right now (unless of course it helps us better refine what we have faith in).

Heber13 wrote:

But, to liken it to the Matrix movie…even if we can’t tell if the reality we are living in is right or not until we get “unplugged”, I think we can be told of what the truth is, and even though we can’t see it, we can choose to believe it and live our life with that belief, and find rewards for choosing what is closest to the truth, even if we can’t prove it while we’re still “plugged in”. That is faith in correct principles, to me.

I like this Heber13. But realize that without knowing what the “reality” is, our truth will be relative, and this is exactly the topic you and I have batted around for about a year now. Additionally, I will add that last Sunday, our leaders actually warned against this type of moral relativity. I thought that was interesting.

SamBee wrote:

It is something which has no material evidence for it. Now I know that I’m probably playing into skeptics hands by saying this but there are actually plenty of things in life which people have faith in, including the skeptics themselves.

I’m probably on the skeptic side, but this still doesn’t work for me. If faith is believing something which has no material evidence for it, then I would have to conclude that Joseph had no faith in God’s existence, or in the angel who gave him the plates. And I would have to also conclude that everything is faith, since even “material evidence” could be fabricated.

I think faith, and knowledge are nothing more than levels of probabilistic confidence. Once some arbitrary threshold is reached, we say we “know” something. If we haven’t reached that threshold, but still have some confidence in it we claim “belief.” If that belief moves us to action, we call it “faith.” But at the end of the day, like you said, we can’t prove, disprove anything deductively and conclusively. But to me this means nothing about whether or not scientists have “faith” in the sense that religious people do. It is fair to say “I know the sun will come up tomorrow.” This doesn’t mean I can prove it, but it means I have such high confidence it requires little of me to actually live my life in a such a way that I expect (with near 100% certainty) it to be so.

For me, I would rather cast discussions of faith, knowledge, and belief, in more absolute ways using probabilities of confidence. Otherwise we’re just batting around definitions.

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus wrote:

But look at the basis for your statement “we must have faith there is an absolute Truth.” Your basis for the claim was speculation that there could be Truth beyond this world. Are we sure that’s a good foundation on which to build?

Eu, I hope I’m not unduly repeating myself through this…but I enjoy “batting it around”. To make a Smith’s song reference: “Stop me if you think that you’ve heard this one before…”

I think we are in the realm of speculation to a degree, though faith goes beyond speculation because it includes action and a basis on some method of believing what cannot be proven in this world, not just random belief or speculation (which could be limitless).

I think DevilsAdvocate said it well:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

The way I see it, faith is typically more of a factor when there is really no way to know for sure what the real truth is such as in the question of whether or not God exists.

It moves out of the realm of knowledge and empirical evidence, and into a spiritual realm of finding a new way to at least have enough confidence or assurance to act, even without 100% knowledge or certainty.

Euhemerus wrote:

If Joseph just “guessed” about polygamy, what would that say about his reliability as a prophet? Do you really think that Joseph just “guessed”?

Exactly. Those are questions of faith to ponder, because I can’t see how we will ever know the answer in this life. So this is a struggle for me to figure out how to have faith today, despite not knowing.

D&C 46:13-14:

Quote:

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful

Reliability is absolutely in question, because I think that is the pattern or method used. God tells the prophet, and we have to discern if the prophet is “guessing” or really has it correct from God.

I think at some point you make the conscious decision to jump in with faith in Christ as the foundation, and assume that to be “True” as far as one can know in this world, then make daily decisions that confirm or deny that lifestyle works for you. From that builds faith in prophets, scriptures, church restoration, Holy Ghost, tithing, Word of Wisdom, temples, and eternal salvation (in no particular order nor are all necessary at the same time). Underneath all that faith is daily actions of loving God and loving your neighbor that make all those other faith topics meaningful.

Yes, I think that is all based on an “assumption” of capital T truth out there. I’ve tried to let myself deny and discard that…but have decided to return to accept it because I feel better with that foundation than without it, even if I don’t know for sure if I’m right. However, the confirmations to my spirit help me feel hopeful that I’m on to something.

[Anonymous]

Ok, for the super-skeptic here, my take is that we tend to over-complicate the discussion about faith. A lot of it makes us “feel good,” but for most of us, what we have “faith” in is what we either have seen work before, or believe the person/group is credible enough that we will believe them.

I’m an eye doctor, and I had Lasik years ago. I had “faith” (hopefully with a bit of education, it was an ‘informed decision’) that the laser would do this fascinating sculpting job on my corneas to allow me to see well after. I staked my vision on the process…and it worked. We have faith that our technological advances will do many things for us, including keeping us alive in many cases. We learn patterns in people and companies that give us enough confidence to allow us to trust them and/or their services. It’s all part of the learning process we go through in life. With experience and time, we learn what and whom to trust. Or not.

Now I’m going to say something here that many might cringe at. I was involved in a research project here in Utah about 10 years ago to determine appropriate end of life care. (There was a reason it was commisioned through the medical licensing board…that I won’t bore you all with). To the amazement of many, there was a significant problem with the LDS families letting their dying spouses/parents “go.” IOW, they (we) have a tough time pulling the plug even when there is no quality of life remaining. Some might call this a lack of faith…ironic for many who consider them “faithful.”

I have analyzed the meaning of this, and have my own opinion as to why it is. In a nutshell, I think “we” often say we have faith, but we really don’t. It is something that starts in our youth…to say “we know the church is true,” etc…when we don’t even know what it means. But we are rewarded for the statement — parents bathe us with praise and love, so we learn what to say — even as we get older — to get the attention and acceptance we want. When it comes down to it, we never have to challenge our own words…and live life as others have trained us to live.

Mormons are not alone…in fact there are examples like this in all religious philosophies I’ve studied. We are a tribe. We have our own system of survival — including emotional — that we have learned to live within. Uniformly, we are accepted by most (in our tribe) when we say the right things, so we conclude those “right things” are correct for everybody. Sometimes we also interpret that acceptance as a spiritual experience…

That’s my ramblings for now…

[Anonymous]

Whoa! What have I got myself into here? 😯

Nah, it’s all good. Nice to be able to discuss these issues without offending and threatening others faith and beliefs – burning bridges. Very refreshing.

Quote:

…what we have “faith” in is what we either have seen work before, or believe the person/group is credible enough that we will believe them.

Yeah, I just don’t believe you have to have truth in order to have faith. It is all about how you define the word “faith”.

Quote:

Now I’m going to say something here that many might cringe at. I was involved in a research project here in Utah about 10 years ago to determine appropriate end of life care. (There was a reason it was commisioned through the medical licensing board…that I won’t bore you all with). To the amazement of many, there was a significant problem with the LDS families letting their dying spouses/parents “go.” IOW, they (we) have a tough time pulling the plug even when there is no quality of life remaining. Some might call this a lack of faith…ironic for many who consider them “faithful.”

This has never made sense to me why this is such a huge issue within the church with the widely accepted belief system we have on “eternity” and the “eternal family”. In Oregon, the voters approved a “Death with Dignity” law a couple years back, and I thought it was a pretty easy vote to cast…even though I heard differently over the podium. Perhaps you are correct…”some might call this a lack of faith”.

Quote:

I have analyzed the meaning of this, and have my own opinion as to why it is. In a nutshell, I think “we” often say we have faith, but we really don’t. It is something that starts in our youth…to say “we know the church is true,” etc…when we don’t even know what it means. But we are rewarded for the statement — parents bathe us with praise and love, so we learn what to say — even as we get older — to get the attention and acceptance we want. When it comes down to it, we never have to challenge our own words…and live life as others have trained us to live.

Mormons are not alone…in fact there are examples like this in all religious philosophies I’ve studied. We are a tribe. We have our own system of survival — including emotional — that we have learned to live within. Uniformly, we are accepted by most (in our tribe) when we say the right things, so we conclude those “right things” are correct for everybody. Sometimes we also interpret that acceptance as a spiritual experience…

That is VERY, VERY well said. I love the philosophy faith chatter, but to me, and in my current situation within the church, this quote hits the nail on head. thank you.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

This has never made sense to me why this is such a huge issue within the church with the widely accepted belief system we have on “eternity” and the “eternal family”. In Oregon, the voters approved a “Death with Dignity” law a couple years back, and I thought it was a pretty easy vote to cast…even though I heard differently over the podium. Perhaps you are correct…”some might call this a lack of faith”.

Well, since you commented on it, I’ll go a little deeper. The study was done because the local healthcare monopoly (a little jab here), IHC, determined that the costs of end-of-life care were going up. Astronomically! As a matter of practicality, and with pressure to lower healthcare costs, they wanted some guidelines for physicians to go by (and advise their patients) as to when to “pull the plug.” There had been some rogue docs that were tweaking the morphine delivery a bit higher than was the standard to make things comfortable…and of course this ended things earlier than previously.

Anyway, in the interviews, there was more sadness, more grieving, more holding on, in faithful LDS families than non-LDS. It was significant. When asked why the difficulty in “releasing,” the common responses were “I love him/her so much,” “I can’t live without her,” etc.

So it may not have been an issue so much with “faith,” or lack thereof, but instead more of a codependency, or attachment to the person dying. Understand that the dying person was indeed dying, with no real quality of life remaining.

One could also conclude that there might have been MORE faith; ie, they might have believed that a mracle was possible. The problem is that while waiting for the miracle, keeping them alive costs us all millions of dollars!

More ramblings….

[Anonymous]

Interesting. I really haven’t heard that particular medical opinion, but it certainly makes sense and is logical. I voted for it just because it makes sense from humanitarian standpoint.

Quote:

One could also conclude that there might have been MORE faith; ie, they might have believed that a mracle was possible.

Yeah, okay, I guess that makes sense in a fanatical kind of way. When I discuss this issue using logic, I may be tearing and chipping away at the orthodox mormon’s faith?

[Anonymous]

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It’s as simple as that. — Joseph Campbell

Oh man, Rix, this quote in your siggy is perfection!

/threadjack

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

I have analyzed the meaning of this, and have my own opinion as to why it is. In a nutshell, I think “we” often say we have faith, but we really don’t. It is something that starts in our youth…to say “we know the church is true,” etc…when we don’t even know what it means. But we are rewarded for the statement — parents bathe us with praise and love, so we learn what to say — even as we get older — to get the attention and acceptance we want. When it comes down to it, we never have to challenge our own words…and live life as others have trained us to live.

Mormons are not alone…in fact there are examples like this in all religious philosophies I’ve studied. We are a tribe. We have our own system of survival — including emotional — that we have learned to live within. Uniformly, we are accepted by most (in our tribe) when we say the right things, so we conclude those “right things” are correct for everybody. Sometimes we also interpret that acceptance as a spiritual experience…

Good ramblins, Rix

For me, this discussion is helpful to review what I think the definitions of these words are. Is there only one definition of “faith” in the English language? I don’t think so. There are several depending on what dictionary or church or person you may refer to. That doesn’t mean there is no definition…just that our language makes it hard to nail it down satisfactory for everyone in every situation. However, even with a degree of difference, we tend to define it a certain way (belief in something unknowable that leads to actions…or fill in the blank on what your definition is), and accept that while we continue to discuss different meanings of those words, we can still apply it in our lives and have it benefit our spirituality.

That is the same to me as faith itself…we don’t have 1 definition, 1 clear truth of what it means to everyone in all situations, but I still find enough value in having faith because it allows me to continue my daily life of love to a higher power and love for my fellow human beings while I continue to study and learn more.

I don’t agree (respectfully) with this part of your statement:

Quote:

I think “we” often say we have faith, but we really don’t.

I would rephrase it, “we often say we ‘know’ but we really don’t”. I believe we do really have “faith”, we just don’t know if it is right or not, and we can’t know in this life…but when we accept it as if it was truth or right for us…we live our lives according to that even when we aren’t sure. And because God is not of this world…there would be no way to know or try to pursue spiritual things unless we were able to take that leap of faith and just act as if it were true and learn as we go. I tend to think my faith, however, is not “correct” for anyone else…its personal. And I want to relish my personal faith and hold on to it.

But this goes back to the original post…and although I’m free to have faith in whatever I call truth…if they are false concepts, they will not produce the consequences I hoped for me, I can assume it would generally be the same for others, but that is outside my realm of faith and should allow others to believe “how, where, and what they may.”

[Anonymous]

There have been some good thoughts here.

Heber13 wrote:

I think we are in the realm of speculation to a degree, though faith goes beyond speculation because it includes action and a basis on some method of believing what cannot be proven in this world, not just random belief or speculation (which could be limitless).

That’s not quite what I’m saying. I’m saying that the basis for you statement

Heber13 wrote:

Based on those conditions in this life…we must have faith there is an absolute Truth

is speculation. That is, you’re saying that we must have faith there is absolute Truth based on the idea that there could be absolute Truth. I’m not sure that’s a good reason. Sounds like Pascal’s wager to me. If applied to other things in life we would all become basketcases! What if the germs on the doorknob are H1N1 and I’m gonna get sick and die?

Heber13 wrote:

It moves out of the realm of knowledge and empirical evidence, and into a spiritual realm of finding a new way to at least have enough confidence or assurance to act, even without 100% knowledge or certainty.

Okay, that’s fine. But then we should accept that everything is faith. After all, what is knowledge, and/or empirical evidence? Again, this is why I think the discussion doesn’t move anywhere. We continue to talk about definitions and give examples that do not add up and don’t properly capture what’s going on. After all, as you’ve said before, if you have experimented with spiritual manifestations, and find them to be (at some level) reliable, is this not empirical evidence? So then your spiritual witnesses actually destroy faith? Doesn’t make sense.

Again, personally, I think the only fair way to talk about faith is in terms of probabilities and/or confidence. It has little to do with empirical evidence except the level at which you decide you “know” something or have “faith” in something. Saying that faith is belief based action for which there is no empirical evidence belies the entire Mormon methodology (and every other spiritual methodology) for learning whether or not something is true (if you ask, and get an answer (or warm fuzzies or whatever), that is empirical evidence. It just is a different form that may be rejected by others). No one ever said that empirical evidence had to be verified by everyone, or easily quantified. That is nothing more than a standard of empirical evidence.

This is why I don’t like discussions couched in terms of faith. It’s an easy recipe for calling people unfaithful if they don’t see things the same way. It’s easy for me to appear to be skeptical, just because I question the standards of evidence (either spiritual or physical) that convinces others. It’s a recipe for shutting down discussion when the faith of someone is challenged (don’t want to destroy their faith). And, at its very worst, it’s an easy recipe for commanding control based on authority.

But I digress, perhaps I am over-complicating it as Rix suggests.

[Anonymous]

Maybe having faith is a dedication (by thought, feeling & action) to discovering truth…

Rix wrote:

…In a nutshell, I think “we” often say we have faith, but we really don’t….

So, if faith is this intent & dedication to discovering truth, then maybe we don’t really have faith, if we’re not honestly seeking truth. For anyone to say they know the whole truth about anything is rarely true …because I think truth is all perspectives.

Rix wrote:

…Mormons are not alone…in fact there are examples like this in all religious philosophies I’ve studied. We are a tribe. We have our own system of survival — including emotional — that we have learned to live within. Uniformly, we are accepted by most (in our tribe) when we say the right things, so we conclude those “right things” are correct for everybody. Sometimes we also interpret that acceptance as a spiritual experience…

I agree. We each see things uniquely…but that doesn’t take away the truth of our own experience. I’m freezing right now, as I typet this, but you may be sweating…it’s truth for each of us. It’s not the WHOLE truth – but it’s part.

Is faith logical? Does God work with our logic? They say that God used 10 dimensions to create this world, but we opperate mostly in 4. So, I think that’s where feeling (hope/trust) & experimenting comes in…LIVE & LEARN (by thought & feeling)!

[Author]

Posts