malookiemaloo

I just wondered how philosophy views faith. Is the concept totally at odds with philosophy?

By faith I mean a trust God to direct someone's life.


m

King's Indian

Hello, M.

Firstly, I don't think your definition quite gibes with the one in the dictionary: "confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Given its etymology, I think the emphasis is on trust, rather than a particular idea of what is to be privileged in trustworthiness. You don't particularly need a god as a necessary precondition for religion, so I don't see one as the sine qua non for faith, either.
Along those lines, La Midgley (philosopher, moral) makes the point that we all need stories that help explain what we see in our surrounding world, and thus define our place in it. Such faith as may be employed by the materialist, the atheist or the sceptic will always guide their reflections on reality. Faith such as this may be attached to the scientific method, perfectability, art, or what have you. We employ what seems to have the most applicability, and like all tools, we should never forget that it is we who use them to shape our environment
As implied, faith has a fluid quality*: it seems more like an activity, a process, than an answer. Our faiths may be refined, improved, as we learn more and more about where we find ourselves. The problem, for dogmatics of all kinds, whether secular or religious, is when our faith curdles, and hardens to an extent that we may use it as a bludgeon, to pound those ideas we disagree with into an acceptable shape. We might as well try to chop wood with a hammer, on the prejudice that it if it's good enough for nails, it'll be good enough for everything.
I'm keen to hear your expansions on the subject.

Take care,

KI

*Or so I've thought, for the past fifteen years or so...

Clara Listensprechen

Oh, this looks like a good languishing thread to liven up a bit...

"how does philosophy view..." what philosophy, whose philosophy...well, then, Claraphilosophy's view on faith.

Faith, like philosophy, is a many-umbrella'ed thing. The Magi had faith in magic, early Western Christians were accused of having faith in icons/statues, Disney has faith in wishing on a star, you're supposed to have faith in yourself, and when you have no faith in yourself, then you pray, as Congress does, for somebody in the sky to cover your @$$ when your incompetencies come to light.

Tani

if we put faith in a broad sense as meaning believe without justification, then it's not at all at odds with philosophy. the problem with justification has always been a big topic in epistemology, and it is the root reason why there are skeptics.

ps. i'm talking about skeptics in the classical sense - meaning people who believes that knowledge is impossible.

scumble

Merriam-Webster:

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

I don't think there's much to the concept of faith. You can have faith in any statement, like "my dog speaks German", or "the World is flat". If you have faith, you can maintain belief in such statements. They don't have to be obviously false, but it demonstrates the phenomenon.

malookiemaloo

Is faith, according to the philosopher, rational?


m

Keith Russell

I try to avoid the word 'faith'. It has too many contraictory and incompatible meanings for its meaning to be understood in most situations.

I prefer to use the phrases 'belief without evidence' or 'the desire to believe', rather than the word 'faith'.

These phrases convey the specific meaning of 'faith' with which I most disagree.

Is 'faith' (even as defined above) incompatible with philosophy?

no.

Is 'faith' (as defined above) incompatible with reason?

absolutely.

Keith.

ex-xian

I think problem is that there are too many meanings of the words "philosopher" and "faith." From your first post you mean faith to be trusting God to take direct ones life. Well, that one is done.

When you ask about philosophers, do you mean western philosophers? If so, which era? Ancient Greek? Medieval? Modern, or post-modern? All of the different periods have still have followers and all would answer the question differently. If you could, perhaps, explain which philosophical tradition you are curious about, then someone may be able to fully answer your question.

beastmaster

malookiemaloo, you might wanna check out luvluv's recent threads on William James's justification of precursive faith.

TiConTiki

I think philosophy at its core takes into consideration past events and uses them to base a 'thought pattern' that may consist of things seen and unseen and their causes - but philosophy has a 'root' - faith does not necesarily have to.

Faith is the belife in something 'unseen' - something that may not have events or evidence supporting it.

Philosopy says : "I believe this because of this"

Faith says: "I believe this because I just do"

Philosoply is subject to change - faith is not.

Take a philosophy that says the earth is flat - when the philosopher discovers it is not - he adapts his philosophy.

Now take a 'faith' that the earth is flat - when the believer discovers it is not - he discards that and still believes the earth is flat.

IMHO