Mageth

Perhaps the answer is in something you posted earlier:

We don't generally speak of having "faith" in simple, empirical, claims. Faith is in things unseen.

Trust, to me, is based on empirical evidence gained through experience. I don't think faith necessarily requires evidence; in particular, I don't think Biblical faith requires evidence. The Bible seems to indicate such evidence is not necessary (evidence gained through experience, that is), or possibly even detrimental to "pure faith". When you say "Faith is in things unseen", you seem to agree with that view.

In other words, faith asks you to believe without evidence; trust is based on evidence. You might even say that faith is at its strongest when there is no evidence; as evidence is gathered, faith decreases and trust increases.

seebs

Oooh, an interesting point.

...

I think I have two separate concepts which are both referred to as "faith". One is closer to "trust", the other is the more philosophical concept of "faith".

This is too tangled, and I will have to think about it a bit.

Eric H

Hello Amlodhi,

As you say Abraham laughed when God said his wife would bear him a son Isaac, which implies he had no faith in God at the time.

After Isaac is born, Abraham has the time to reflect that God can work miracles.

After Isaac is born, Abraham’s faith is tested again, through the sacrifice of his son. This time He has faith.

Maybe it is helpful to try and differentiate between belief and faith.

I can sit here writing this and say “I believe it is easy to make a parachute jump” believing is easy because it requires no action, beliefs can only have a meaning if I am prepared to act on them.
The only way I can have faith in parachuting is to put a parachute on go up in a plane and jump.
It involves total trust in some unknown factors, how can I know if the parachute is safe? How can I know if the person who tested it and packed it was not drunk and having a bad day? How can I know if the pilot will drop me of in a safe place? Making a parachute jump is taking a risk some people have suffered a serious injury a few people are killed? If I have any doubts I will not jump by choice.
Partial faith is not enough, how can I partially jump out of a plane? Maybe I have a small amount of faith, would that be just enough to jump off the kitchen table?
Partial faith or a little faith is the same as having no faith at all because we do not take the risk to let our life depend on the parachute. Only by stepping out of a plane and into the unknown will I put all my faith into these unproven factors about parachuting that I can only believe and hope would be sound for me.
If I make one jump I only need faith once, if I make several jumps I need a new faith for each time I jump. If I have a close experience with death while parachuting will I still have enough faith to make another jump?

Peace

Eric

Raydo97

Isn't this just an interpretation of the event? I'm paraphrasing here, but doesn't the scripture actually say that Abraham was about to kill his son when he saw a goat become entangled in a fence and took that as a sign from God to stop?

This is like the Jonah story where "God brought a great storm." Maybe. Maybe not. It's possible to have a storm at sea that's not caused by an invisible man in the sky. In fact, I'd say it's more than possible, it's likely. Again, stating as fact that God did something is common in the bible. It's just interpretation.


Why would a God who's both omniscient and omnipotent need to test a human that he created? God should know all about this guy without resorting to twisted mind games.

Biff the unclean

I really don't see how the story of Abraham can be presented as a story of "faith" in the 21st Century. Knowing what we now do about mental illness you can see the clear progression of psychotic episodes in Abraham's life story. They culminate in the attempted murder of his son. His son who is saved only because Abraham becomes distracted by a goat.

I see this as a cautionary tale of the dangers of religious belief. The poor people of Abraham's household and tribe have a dangerous madman for a leader. But they assume that this insanity is a sign from their God and not an illness. And because this fellow's delusions are centered only around religion everybody around him accepts them without question.

Today some people who behave exactly as Abraham did can be helped by medication. None of their episodes would be treated as a matter of faith. Killing the people you care about because God commanded you to-with a flint knife or poisoned Kool Ade-should be viewed with horror and not reverence.

seebs

No. God spoke to him, also. Or at least, that's what it says.

God knew what would happen. Abraham didn't. Abraham needed to know, perhaps?

wdog

seebs,

you posted this on another closed thread

you were talking about god i believe. I am simply fascinated by this (i admit also that i have had 3 glasses of wine, so a lava lamp might fascinate me right now).

I think this goes to the heart of the christian (or any religion) soul as my ex wife would always say something like that.

here's the rub: I can invent an infinite number of life-defining belief systems, need i prove them all false? and isn't that a 'proving the negative' type fallacy?

I am posting this here as i think it is relevent to faith.

Asha'man

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

seebs

Actually, it was intended solely as a response to a claim about accepting such claims without "proof".

I don't buy into either type of argument. I think that, obviously, you're going to have to make some decisions on such issues, and that you probably won't be able to find proof for them, so you'll have to use some other standard.

As to "proving the negative", any mathematician can tell you that it is frequently possible to prove the negative.

In practice, the question is not about some hypothetical abstract well-defined "burden of proof" which everyone agrees on, but about what it takes to convince a given person of a given thing. Different people will have different standards of evidence for different claims...

In the end, I don't try to use the scientific method on metaphysical claims, because they're not the sorts of claims it's good at. I use other methods as I see fit, and I don't worry about it too much; I'd rather have an answer which might be wrong than spend my life in existential angst, unable to make any decisions at all. I can always change my mind later.

wdog

sure, but they know the entire set they are dealing with.

Of course you are correct in that everyone will have their own burden of proof, or in other words what constitutes a justified belief.

I am not in angst over anything by the way, I was in much more angst as a christian as its illogical nature about drove me nuts.

here is my standard of proof: if there is a personal christian god up there who loves me, he would certainly honor my request to come for a visit so that I might understand. I have read his bible and listened to his apologists and it all is a heap of dung as far as I can tell. It is highly illogical for someone who has 'infinite love' to not come and correct these matters to me, therefore I can only conclude that such a god does not exist until such time he choses to make himself known.