Faith without Belief

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

…Faith, therefore, is hope put into action. I will say something here that will, I’m sure, indicate that I am a total heretic…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?

No, I don’t think you can have faith without belief because I see real faith as basically being belief plus more: enough confidence to go ahead and act as if something true trusting that you can live with the results of the decision to accept a particular belief. Faith already implies some personal reasons to doubt or else people would just say they know it for sure and even so it is not uncommon for people to claim they know things that are clearly false so just because they have no doubts about it that doesn’t mean there aren’t any legitimate reasons to doubt. It looks like some of the most common reasons why many people readily accept faith-based beliefs are simply because they feel relatively comfortable taking someone else’s word for it, it makes sense to them, and/or they want to believe it (hope). Maybe these are not sufficient reasons for die-hard skeptics to accept but that’s because they already start out with the attitude of “why should I believe this?” whereas the faithful believer is more likely to already have an attitude of “why not?”

The way I see it, pure faith is mostly for people that already want to believe or are at least fairly comfortable believing something without expecting overwhelming evidence or undeniable reasons to support it. If you don’t want to believe something then don’t; faith is something personal, it is not mandatory. I could see redefining God in a way that makes more sense to you than the traditional LDS notion of an exalted man with a physical body but I don’t know if it makes nearly as much sense to try to redefine a fairly well defined and understood concept like faith in a way that is not even in the same ballpark as what most people think it means. I guess if considering yourself a faithful person with a strong testimony (conviction) has become part of your identity then it can be hard to let go of that when the labels don’t really fit very well but in my case I eventually had to admit that at this point I have almost no faith in the LDS Church and very limited faith in fallible men in general. To me a better and more interesting question than how exactly faith should be defined is what things are worth having some faith in or not and why?

[Anonymous]

Wayfarer, I don’t have a lot of time but let me respond quickly, maybe one element at a time to build agreement as we go.

I still maintain that some knowledge, even at a basic level starts the process.

If I know what rain is, you are absolutely right that I don’t really KNOW it with a perfect knowledge or all the chemical properties. But when a 4 year old says rain, that is a knowledge of what rain is, even at some rudimentary level, and then through the faith process, that knowledge expans until it becomes a perfect knowledge, at which point faith is dormant.

King Limhi had to have Ammon teach what a Great Spirit is before he could exercise faith to follow Christ.

Missionaries first teach discussions to investigators before they exercise faith to pray or get baptized. Now, is their knowledge deep and perfect? No…but there is some knowledge of Christ and what He teaches and what the covenants are, prior to believing, having hope, and putting the hope into action which is faith.

We cannot have faith in smertz. If i am calling the definition of the word “Christ” as some knowledge, Do you agree that some knowledge in the thing must proceed belief or faith?

The investigator says:” Ok, now I know what the Book of Mormon is” (some level of knowledge), ” now I want to find out if it is true”.

[Anonymous]

@Heber,

How do you reconcile alma’s explicit definition that faith is not to have knowledge and that the two are mutually exclusive?

I think a point is being completely missed here in what I’m trying to say. I’m not pointing out you alone — I have not been able to make my point clear to anyone, and I’m giving up on trying.

If we think of ‘faith’ not on the path of knowledge but on the path of trust and action without knowledge or belief, then we can separate beliefs (an emotion) and pre-emptory knowledge from our acceptance and trust of matters of faith.

I’m not trying to argue or split hairs on terms. Really. That is not the point.

If a person ‘has faith’, and allows this ‘faith’ to be convoluted with ‘knowledge’, then once the decision to believe has been made, the person is really no longer open to ‘truth’, should the ‘truth’ not justify the knowledge. I see person after person, who has built up a schema of ‘knowledge’ based upon belief and faith in things they don’t know but now think they believe in and know, upon finding out that some historical aspect of the ‘knowledge’ is ‘not true’, has the entire faith structure collapse. Right now, there is a thread on NOM talking about how people came to their unbelief, and for the majority, the collapse is evident.

I am dividing my understanding of things LDS into three categories:

1. Knowledge of things that are true, provable, and proven.

2. Matters of faith about things which I don’t know, and for which I have suspended belief.

3. Rejection of things that are proven to be false.

My purpose of speaking of ‘faith without belief’ is to address the middle category with neutrality, yet the ability to act, in faith, on things that may be hopeful, but for which I do not know and therefore suspend belief. If you say that I must know something in order to have faith, or that i need to believe in something in order to have faith, then my middle category is dead. I do not know or believe in an afterlife or personal god (as in the standard definition). Having no knowledge of an afterlife, but a willingness to accept it neutrally as a possibility, I can perform ordinances for the dead and in faith live my life as if there were an afterlife.

What I know about temple ordinances is that I feel good doing them. I do not know or believe that the people for which I represent as proxy are getting any benefit thereby.

[Anonymous]

Ya, I’m not trying to argue with you either, I’m trying to understand by expressing what I think and having it help me clarify what I think. Let me try to respond a bit to this point:

wayfarer wrote:

How do you reconcile alma’s explicit definition that faith is not to have knowledge and that the two are mutually exclusive?

…simply, because Alma says:

Quote:

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

So, I’m just making the point there is some knowledge (they are not mutually exclusive but interdependent…faith is based on knowledge and faith can increase knowledge) of what the thing is, but it is not a perfect knowledge, but enough to get moving in a direction (faith)…feeding the cycle of knowledge until one day it is perfect in that thing and faith is then dormant in that thing. Perhaps faith is mutually exclusive of perfect knowledge, but not all knowledge. I think that is what pushes people in the church to the “I know” testimonies, when maybe more introspection and experience shows it isn’t really perfect knowledge, it is faith with a high probability, to which they just think it is perfect knowledge when it isn’t. In doing so, they’ve stopped their progress towards the perfect knowledge and settled for less than perfect knowledge, which can lead to faith crisis (which is what the NOM thread seems to be discussing).

My crisis was painful enough for me, I realize I used to say “I knew” all the time…but I had to be humbled to learn I didn’t have the perfect knowledge of God, but that doesn’t mean I had no knowledge of God. That does not mean knowledge is not a part of it, just that I was too prideful to keep having faith to learn things in new ways. I wanted certainty. I claimed it…even if I only had limited knowledge, which by natural laws, set me up for a failure/crisis. My experiences gave me a new knowledge of things as they really are, and that new knowledge gave me a choice…

1) Forget it and throw the whole thing out, frustrated and hesitant to get back into the trust game again;

2) Use my new knowledge of the world and uncertainty, and imperfect knowledge to rebuild my faith and try to increase it and my knowledge towards a better knowledge, maybe one day, a perfect knowledge (which is not likely in this lifetime).

In fact, the deeper your knowledge…the deeper the faith you can have. Your explanations may be going over my head or others causing your frustration because others lack the knowledge you have in explaining the words and ideas you are explaining.

How can you answer my question that we cannot have faith in ‘schmertz’ because we don’t know what that is? Are definitions of words some level of knowledge? Don’t we have some knowledge of God and his characteristics in order to start having faith to prove it or test it or learn from it?

The Lectures on Faith from Joseph Smith explain it this way:

Quote:

1. In the second lecture it was shown how it was that the knowledge of the existence of God came into the world, and by what means the first thoughts were suggested to the minds of men that such a Being did actually exist; and that it was by reason of the knowledge of his existence that there was a foundation laid for the exercise of faith in him, as the only Being in whom faith could center for life and salvation; for faith could not center in a Being of whose existence we have no idea, because the idea of his existence in the first instance is essential to the exercise of faith in him. Romans 10:14: “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher (or one sent to tell them)? So, then, faith comes by hearing the word of God.” (New Translation)[Inspired Version Romans 10.14, 16].

2. Let us here observe, that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

3. First, the idea that he actually exists.

4. Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes.

5. Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to his will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness, unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. [emphasis added]

Where we are splitting hairs perhaps is in what I call “perfect knowledge” and you call knowledge, and yet, I’m claiming that less than perfect knowledge (awareness) is still some level of knowledge and we should not gloss over that because that is an important part of the process.

wayfarer wrote:

2. Matters of faith about things which I don’t know, and for which I have suspended belief.

So, I would try to reconcile what we are both saying by saying “Matters of faith about things I don’t have a perfect knowledge of, and for which I may choose to suspend belief.”

Afterlife: “another life that some people believe begins after you die”

Missionaries teach me the concept. I have knowledge of the idea and teaching. I do not have perfect knowledge in it, but I can have faith in it, and that motivates me to action to live this life in a way that I can make some choices that won’t even benefit me in this life as far as I can tell, are still worth the sacrifice. One day, if I find myself living in the afterlife, then my faith in it is dormant in that thing.

Schmertz: No definition. No knowledge of it. No possible belief, hope, or faith in it. I’m not motivated to act or do anything about it.

We do not need to confuse being wrong with our knowledge with having no knowledge.

Was that overdone? Where is the part I am wrong, or that we agree on? I’m trying to get more knowledge because I was wrong before and it was painful for me. I have new knowledge of church history and things I didn’t know before. I can’t repeat my mistake and jump to new conclusions that now I have “perfect knowledge” and the church isn’t true. That would be Stage 3 still, just a new view to be stage 3…when neither view is perfect knowledge.

Where I think we can agree on is that we can have faith and do things for reasons other than they are literally true. I can do temple work and see the value in the symbolism. That doesn’t mean I don’t have any knowledge, but my knowledge goes deeper than literalism. In order to do that, I need more knowledge on symbolism.

I believe I can stay LDS. I hope I can be honest with myself and have knowledge of things that happened with Joseph Smith, and have faith to read the book of mormon and apply principles in my life, and not believe it was literally translated from plates. But faith rests on some level of knowledge, IMO.

I find this discussion beneficial to challenge my thoughts. Thanks for yours.

[Anonymous]

I think there are different base definitions being used for specific words – and that happens all the time, since our dictionary has multiple meanings for the same words.

I happen to phrase things for myself the way wayfarer is laying it out – but I would tend to phrase things for most members more like how Heber is laying it out.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for this Wayfarer, I have gained a lot from your thoughts! :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

…I think a point is being completely missed here in what I’m trying to say. I’m not pointing out you alone — I have not been able to make my point clear to anyone, and I’m giving up on trying…If we think of ‘faith’ not on the path of knowledge but on the path of trust and action without knowledge or belief, then we can separate beliefs (an emotion) and pre-emptory knowledge from our acceptance and trust of matters of faith.

…I see person after person, who has built up a schema of ‘knowledge’ based upon belief and faith in things they don’t know but now think they believe in and know, upon finding out that some historical aspect of the ‘knowledge’ is ‘not true’, has the entire faith structure collapse. Right now, there is a thread on NOM talking about how people came to their unbelief, and for the majority, the collapse is evident…If you say that I must know something in order to have faith, or that i need to believe in something in order to have faith, then my middle category is dead.

I think I understand your point I’m just not sure I agree with it. It sounds similar to Ray’s explanation of the difference between being Orthoprax and Orthodox because in the LDS culture what you do is currently more important than what you believe. So if you really want to and don’t make too much of an issue out of any real differences in belief then it is possible for some to go through the motions and blend in fairly smoothly and comfortably. That idea certainly makes sense but I’m not so sure that redefining faith differently from what most TBMs already understand it to be is a very realistic solution to try to prevent the complete loss of faith we see with the majority of NOMs and many bitter ex-Mormons. Even if you separate belief from faith I think eliminating the central beliefs seriously undermines the primary reason why many members are willing to go along with some of this as long as they believe they should.

To me the bigger problem than any significant misunderstanding of faith is simply that the Church is asking members to believe so many very specific things some of which appear to be clearly wrong or at least very unlikely unless you ignore or deny significant evidence and apparent contradictions that exist to easily discredit them. On top of that members are encouraged to suppress doubts and go ahead and jump way past simple faith to an exaggerated level of conviction and absolute certainty about certain points and there is not much tolerance or flexibility to allow for different interpretations or opinions. What’s worse is that there are also heavy costs attached to Church activity in terms of time, money, effort, strict rules, constant guilt-trips, etc. Basically, I think the real problem is that many of the core LDS doctrines have been given a level of importance and automatic trust that is way out of proportion compared to the level of confidence the average person can realistically be expected to have that these doctrines really deserve to be taken half as seriously and be treated as nearly as much of a priority as they currently are in the Church culture.

This general problem of treating things (ideas, traditions, etc.) like they are more important than people is clearly evident not only in the increasing number of NOMs and Ex-Mormons that have lost faith completely and generally dislike the Church but in even more (by far) inactive members whose primary issue never was about lack of testimony as much as the fact that they quite literally did want to “sin” by TBM standards whether the “sin” was laziness (not wanting to do callings or attend meetings), not wanting to pay tithing, not obeying the WoW, pre-marital sex, etc. and once they start down this path of disobedience many of them will never come back. To me the majority of the blame for all these “lost” members is not so much on the inactive members for not being able or willing to live up to these strict standards as much as on the Church itself for acting like things like the WoW, full-time missions, callings, and temple marriage are much more important than they really are and giving members the impression that this is what being Mormon is all about to the point that many feel like they don’t belong or that there is no reason why they should really want to stick around.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

To me the bigger problem than any significant misunderstanding of faith is simply that the Church is asking members to believe so many very specific things some of which appear to be clearly wrong or at least very unlikely unless you ignore or deny significant evidence and apparent contradictions that exist to easily discredit them.

DA, I like all your comments. There seems to be a social element of it, and as I said, I think people get confident with that and don’t realize they have stopped progressing towards perfect knowledge.

I wonder, DA, if the church replaced all pictures in chapels of Joseph looking at plates to translate with pictures of him with his head in a hat, if that would have the opportunity increase most people’s faith?

[Anonymous]

Heber, we’re so not communicating. I’m sorry, for some reason, this isn’t working.

you’re using the term ‘knowledge’ to refer “to know about something”, “to know what is taught about it”. To have even a perfect knowledge of all aspects of the teachings of the church means absolutely nothing to me. One could have ‘perfect knowledge’ of every teaching ever made about the afterlife, the 3 kingdoms, everything. It’s not relevant to faith, not relevant to belief.

That’s not the knowledge of which I speak.

As well, the term ‘perfect knowledge’ versus ‘knowledge’ is not terribly useful, is it? having all the information about Jesus Christ, all the ‘knowledge’ about his life and everything taught is one thing. To know Jesus Christ, personally, to have a ‘knowledge’ that he is real, is entirely another, and in fact one can know jesus without knowing anything about him.

To say “I know Jesus Christ rose from the dead” is a statement not of information, not of knowledge about the teaching. But it is to say that I have sufficient, irrefutable evidence that Jesus Christ actually did rise from the dead. to know the teaching is completely irrelevant to this. It doesn’t matter what is taught. do you know this of yourself and of a fact?

That’s knowledge. it isn’t ‘perfect knowledge’, it isn’t knowledge about something. It’s simply, purely, knowledge.

When LDS say “I know Jesus Christ rose from the dead”, they really don’t know, but they use the term “I know” as equivalent to “I have faith that”, because they really have no proof, no justification, and in fact, whether Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead is a debatable and unlikely occurrence. From a ‘knowledge’ point of view, I would submit not only do they not know, but they have no evidence whatsoever that it is the case. They simply believe and/or they have faith.

Now i used the term ‘believe’ there. ‘believe’ is an emotional attachment where the individual has a degree of emotional certainty that something is true. ‘I believe that jesus christ rose from the dead’ is a statement requiring no proof. But belief, as an emotional state is like falling in love with something, it defies logic, and indeed can be deceiving. As well, belief is static, it doesn’t motivate to action.

The terms “I have faith that…” is quite different than having belief. Faith is trust, not belief. Sure, belief could be part of it, and could be the motivation for trusting, but not necessarily. If I accept something to be relevant, I don’t have to believe it. I could accept, agree, accommodate, any number of possible ways of generating ‘faith’, but belief does not have to be one of them. You use the term “Schmertz” as if something is not known. In this sense, this confuses “knowledge of” something with ‘know something is true’. please don’t do that. It’s not relevant. You can have complete knowledge of god and not know god exists. The more you learn about god from the writings does not increase your faith an depth of trust in god.

That’s why ‘belief’ is the relevant word here. Belief isn’t about what you know, belief is the feeling of certainty that something is. And belief, because of its emotional attachment, does not facilitate knowledge, but quite the other way around.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

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).

I can see the wisdom of Ray’s response back on page 1. :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

To me the bigger problem than any significant misunderstanding of faith is simply that the Church is asking members to believe so many very specific things some of which appear to be clearly wrong or at least very unlikely unless you ignore or deny significant evidence and apparent contradictions that exist to easily discredit them.

DA, I like all your comments. There seems to be a social element of it, and as I said, I think people get confident with that and don’t realize they have stopped progressing towards perfect knowledge…I wonder, DA, if the church replaced all pictures in chapels of Joseph looking at plates to translate with pictures of him with his head in a hat, if that would have the opportunity increase most people’s faith?

No, I don’t think changing these pictures would increase members’ faith, hope, or level of belief because too many of them are already used to the idea that the restoration happened a specific way. I guess some careful inoculation could lessen the shock of some of the inconsistencies and make it easier to shrug some of them off but personally I think the Church should move away from trying to address so many questions with dogmatic and oversimplified answers and create more of a positive environment for the majority of Church members where it wouldn’t matter as much what Joseph Smith did right or wrong anymore because it would be more about the way the Church is now. At this point is it really something very many people can feel good about being a part of or not and why? The main reason I don’t feel very good about it is mostly because I think the overbearing demands and expectations of other Church members are unreasonable. That has almost nothing to do with Joseph Smith. The only connection is that when I believed God was directly behind it all then it was much easier to soldier on and do what I already felt uncomfortable with.

[Anonymous]

In thinking about this this morning, I really think there is something to be gained by separating faith from belief.

– belief is willingness to assert that I know something, when I really don’t know it.

– faith is the willingness to accept and act, acknowledging that I don’t know (perfectly) about something

– belief says, “Hey, I hope this is true, I feel good about it, so it must be true.”

– faith says, “Hey, I hope this is true, but don’t know for sure, so let me try it out and see” (alma 32)

– belief accepts ideas as truth without testing.

– faith tests ideas to verify truth

– belief asserts knowledge that goes well beyond the given thing being tested.

– faith, having tested a given thing, observing results, can testify of the truth of that thing.

– belief in a thing not true is stubborn, it lives on even if the thing is proven to be not true.

– faith in a thing not true validates through testing the lack of truth of a thing, and therefore rejects it.

– when belief is the basis of faith, it often leads to confirmation bias and false conclusions of fact

– when faith is based upon suspended belief, it is objective in its method and conclusions of fact.

– belief without faith does nothing, because belief only involves assertion that something is true.

– faith without belief leads to increased light/intelligence and verified knowledge.

– belief by itself tends to be lazy.

– faith must involve action.

– faith based upon belief is naive, and often, blind faith.

– faith based upon not-knowing and thus suspended belief is mature faith.

– belief-based testimonies, asserting ‘I know” when I really don’t know, and haven’t tested my knowledge, is self-delusion.

– faith acted upon leads to fact- and experienced-based testimonies.

Lao-tzu said, “not knowing is true knowledge, but to assert you know when you don’t know is delusion (sickness)”.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

In thinking about this this morning, I really think there is something to be gained by separating faith from belief.

– belief asserts knowledge that goes well beyond the given thing being tested.

– faith, having tested a given thing, observing results, can testify of the truth of that thing.

– belief-based testimonies, asserting ‘I know” when I really don’t know, and haven’t tested my knowledge, is self-delusion.

– faith acted upon leads to fact- and experienced-based testimonies.

I guess I don’t really agree with your definition of belief mostly because I don’t think there is that much of a relationship between beliefs and assumed knowledge. It looks to me like personal beliefs (opinions) should be and quite often are treated as if they are clearly on a lower level of confidence than assumed knowledge. The difference between them is more about the relative lack of doubt the individual has about something than the actual probability that it is true or false. Belief basically involves thinking one answer or explanation makes more sense to you than any other alternative explanations you know about to the point that you are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt in your own mind. Calling this delusion (ridicule) is not necessarily helpful or accurate and personally I don’t believe there is any real imperative or pressing need to expect people to defer judgment about what is more accurately described as unknown in most cases where they will often just go ahead and try to guess what the actual answer is.

I’m not saying there is no value whatsoever in the idea of faith (action) without belief. In fact, the following scriptures are some of my favorite ones that I have found so far:

John 7:16-17 wrote:

“My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me…If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself”

1 Thess. 5:21 wrote:

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”

So rather than saying do all this simply because I (or some authority figure) said so it sounds like Jesus and Paul were suggesting to go ahead and try some of these ideas out and see for yourself how well they work or not. For example, if I am not so sure about the idea that I should forgive people when I don’t feel like they really deserve to be forgiven but then I go ahead and try to let it go a few times and find that I actually feel better in that case than when I continue to hold a grudge then it is easier to conclude that forgiveness is good enough for me in most cases. In other words, what started out as a questionable theory has turned out to be useful in practice. However, if my bishop says I should have the same kind of faith (blind obedience based mostly on hope) without belief in the case of tithing then I’m going to have a much harder time buying into it because as far as I’m concerned I have already tested this doctrine long enough to conclude that it is not good or “of God” from my perspective.

That’s why I prefer to focus on the costs of being wrong more than the truthfulness of specific beliefs. If one thing I see as wrong is that the Church acts like many Mormon traditions are much more important than they really are then I can already lower their impact and importance to me by paying less attention to them and not being as afraid as I used to be about saying no when I don’t feel comfortable about something they ask me to believe or do. This is a solution that I suspect will actually work more often than not even if some members feel compelled to become inactive or resign in order to find peace but in my opinion only the most patient of Church members will be able to apply faith (action) without belief to the full level of obedience (orthopraxy) the Church currently asks for and expects for very long without it eating them up inside plus I worry that that this approach will basically encourage more of the same treatment from the top down.

[Anonymous]

da, very helpful…i will cogitate further…

[Anonymous]

Way, As I read through your last post of beliefs vs faith, what I hear you saying is faith is active, belief is passive, and the danger with belief is being more confident in something we don’t try and gain experience of but simply wish for it to be true, which can be very dangerous to our souls.

Am I hearing you right?

[Author]

Posts