True/False Quiz About Faith

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Oh, be careful here. Conditionals don't necessarily indicate cause/effect relationships. Consider this:

If Barack Obama appoints a federal judge, then he is the President of the United States.

So, if it dream that I appoint a federal judge, does this mean that I am President of the U.S. in reality?

Again, Bob's belief in P does NOT and IS NOT the cause of P being true. IOW, If P IS indeed true, it's truth was not caused by Bob's belief.

In any event, I'm interested in why you believe that (1) is true and (2) is false. It seems that (2) follows from (1). That is, if, as (1) says, truth is a condition of faith, then if somebody has faith that something is the case, then that something is the case.

I don't think so.

If you have faith that the moon shines it's own light, that does not mean that the moon shines its own light. Your belief of such is vain, and cannot become actual faith. In order for your belief to become actual faith, the moon would have to shine it's own light (it would have to be founded on a correct principle or an actual truth).

Look at the relevant portion of (1) again:

How is this not saying that truth is a condition of faith (along with hope)? More specifically, how is this not saying that the truth of the things hoped for is not a condition of faith? From that statement we might list at least two conditions of faith:

Conditions of Faith

1. Hope for things which are not seen

2. Truth of that which is hoped for

Actually, the conditions of faith are:

1. Hope for things which are not seen

2. Those things must first be in and of themselves true and based upon truth.

And as conditions of faith, that just means that if we have a case of faith that something is the case (P), then we have a case of somebody hoping that P, and P is true. And, look at this. Let's list the conditions of something else.

Conditions of Functioning MacBooks:

1. Having a CPU

2. Having RAM

The list, of course, is not exhaustive, but isn't it the case that if we have a case of a functioning MacBook, then we have a case of a thing that has a CPU, and a case of a thing that has RAM? And, couldn't we justifiably form the conditional 'If that is a functioning Macbook, then that has a CPU'? Likewise, from Alma 32, it seems we should be able to form the conditional 'If somebody has faith that P, then P is true', and we should be able to do that for the simple reason that the truth of the object of faith is listed specifically as a condition of faith. Having said all that, it's unclear to me how it could possibly be the case that (1) is true, but (2) is false; and it seems to me that the only reason one would believe (1) true and (2) false would be by failing to see that (1) implies (2).

That makes no sense. If you want it to make sense, you need to understand that just believing in something is not the cause of that something being true. It has to be true BEFORE your belief can become faith, and therefore yield the desired fruit.

Only if the MacBook actually functions (based on actual truth), can we have faith that it will power up and do what we need it to do. But having a belief that a broken MacBook will power up cannot cause it to power up--because our belief is not based upon self-standing truth.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Thanks for the response. Just one nit-pick. You said:

But, in terms of the true, doctrinal sort of faith that we learn about through revelation, there just is no such thing as somebody having faith in something that is false. It's not merely that their faith isn't powerful, it's that they in fact don't have faith, because truth is a condition of faith. If you have faith that P is true, then P is true. The contrapositive is that if P is not true, then you do not have faith that P is true. According to "doctrinally defined" faith, it's not possible to have faith in something that is not true.

Saying that somebody who has faith in something that is false has no power in their faith because it's not actually faith is like saying that somebody who knows something that is false has weak knowledge because they don't actually have knowledge. It's a bit nonsensical.

People often confuse the definition of belief and faith.

Your analogies imply a cause/effect relationship between someone's belief and the truth of that thing. So I think you need to be certain that when you define faith, you are careful to distinguish it from belief.

As long as you distinguish between the two by also saying that a person can have a belief in something that is false, but cannot have actual "faith" in something that is false, then I will say "True" to both original questions.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[KevinG]

Please assess each statement as either true or false:

1. 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.

2. If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true.

1. True

2. False (unless Bob is indeed exercising faith in something true)

Faith does not make truth. Faith is a mechanism to access truth but only when it is coupled with obedience to that truth.

D&C 93:24And ^atruth is ^bknowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25And whatsoever is ^amore or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a ^bliar from the beginning.

26The Spirit of ^atruth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He ^breceived a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

27And no man receiveth a ^afulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

28He that ^akeepeth his commandments receiveth ^btruth and ^clight, until he is glorified in truth and ^dknoweth all things.

[Garden Girl]

Only faith in true doctrine has any power.

Therefore, if faith in something has no power, then, by default, it can't be faith.

I can understand that only faith in something that is true has power... but I still don't think you can say someone can't have faith in something not true.

Both Dirk and Frank approached their rope bridges believing they were sound... exercising faith in their beliefs they both started across their individual bridge... I forgot whose bridge failed, but I don't believe you can say that that person didn't have real faith that his bridge was sound... he fully believed, had faith that it was sound, and started across. He wouldn't have started across if he didn't exercise his faith in his belief in its strength. That his bridge failed didn't mean he didn't have faith in it... just that the bridge's strength was not true. And consequently he tumbled into the water, faithful to the end.

I'm too old for this... I've got a headache...

from the beach... GG

[Jeff K.]

Hold on, you've got a lot going on here. First, I don't think Alma's right about faith, but I don't think 'faith' is synonymous with 'hope'. I think faith means something like to hope that something is true and act on that hope. Mere hope is just wanting for something to be true. To hope that something is true doesn't entail that you act on that hope. Honestly, I don't see why Alma would think he needs to clarify that faith isn't hope, because, for one thing, I don't think anyone thinks that faith is merely hope.

Seems you find the definition of Alma as inconvenient to your conversation so you just wish to disregard it. As I stated earlier, you want faith to be the equivalent of hope and belief but as Latter-day Saints we accept Alma's definition of faith, and faith in something that is true, which results in a motivation or movement to do the right thing towards truth.

Belief and hope have elements of faith, both can motivate, but they are not necessarily true.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I can understand that only faith in something that is true has power... but I still don't think you can say someone can't have faith in something not true.

Both Dirk and Frank approached their rope bridges believing they were sound... exercising faith in their beliefs they both started across their individual bridge... I forgot whose bridge failed, but I don't believe you can say that that person didn't have real faith that his bridge was sound... he fully believed, had faith that it was sound, and started across. He wouldn't have started across if he didn't exercise his faith in his belief in its strength. That his bridge failed didn't mean he didn't have faith in it... just that the bridge's strength was not true. And consequently he tumbled into the water, faithful to the end.

I'm too old for this... I've got a headache...

from the beach... GG

If you draw a distinction between "belief" and "faith" it will make sense.

[CV75]

Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. I've said that the Catholic hopes that some such teaching is true and acts on that hope. You don't want to call that faith, so you've suggested that that's a case of belief. But, in do so you've just reduced belief to hoping (or hoping to belief), and that raises the question, why have the concept of belief if it's just hope. In fact, this can't be right for the simple reason that people can and often hope that some proposition is true, yet they don't believe that the proposition is true. Let's be careful here because it isn't necessarily the case that if somebody does not believe a proposition true, that they therefore believe it false. To take my own case, consider the proposition "God exists" - Let's call that proposition 'G'. I don't believe that G is not true, but I also don't believe that G is true. I'm just in the middle. I don't have a positive belief about G one way or another. But, I hope that G is true. If I can hope that G is true, while at the same time not believe that G is true, then belief, it seems, is not the same as hoping.

Furthermore, to say that somebody believes something we need not know anything about their behavior. But, to say that somebody has faith that something is true, is to say at least these two things: (1) that they hope that something is true, and (2) that they are acting on that hope. The point of all this is to suggest that the Catholic who hopes that some such exclusively Catholic doctrine is true, and acts on that hope, is doing something more (or, at least, something else) than believing. And, as a matter of fact, it may very well be the case that they have no positive belief about the object of their hope at all. In ordinary discourse, we'd call that faith - acting on a hope. But, the Mormon idiosyncratic use of 'faith' doesn't allow that (assuming here that what Alma says is true), because the object of their hope is false, and to have a case of faith, the object of hope must be true.

This is just one minor puzzle lurking in the weeds of lumping truth in as a condition of faith. There are others, which I hope to explore here. In any event, I'm pleased that you at least seem to see that (2) follows from (1), which means we can go further in the discussion. As you can see, some don't see the inference, which isn't totally surprising, but is a bit troubling. In the interest of full disclosure I think that both (1) and (2) are false.

I’m saying that “fraith” (belief) is to faith as wishing is to hoping, not that fraith or belief are the same as wishing. In the LDS perspective, the faith – hope - charity association requires the element of truth both in the subject and the observer. Fraith/belief – wishing – loving does not. Naturally people experience all of these in varying combinations according to how strong they are in any of these principles.

So the LDS doesn’t hope that something is true, but possesses hope in the true thing as an outgrowth of his faith in it. Hope in Christ for example is not keeping one’s fingers crossed that He is true. It is possessing a full expectation or anticipation that He will deliver the promised results of faith.

A person can believe in something that is true because they assume it is true, but not act on the true principle. But the same person has faith in it once he acts on it. As well can a person believe in something that is not true and act on it; the same person with faith in the true counterpart will neither believe in the false counterpart nor act on it. Sometimes the latter is tempted and displaces faith with belief and if he acts on it transgresses, sins or otherwise acts against his former faith.

If you do not believe that 1 or 2 are true, is it because you have faith instead?

[Jeff K.]

I have faith in Schrodingers cat.

[bluebell]

Hold on, you've got a lot going on here. First, I don't think Alma's right about faith, but I don't think 'faith' is synonymous with 'hope'.

Whether or not you agree with alma would be a completely different subject, wouldn't it?

You asked two quiz questions. Whether or not you agree with the answers seems to be besides the point of the OP.

I think faith means to hope that something is true and act on that hope. Mere hope is just wanting for something to be true. To hope that something is true doesn't entail that you act on that hope. Honestly, I don't see why Alma would think he needs to clarify that faith isn't hope, because, for one thing, I don't think anyone thinks that faith is merely hope.

Some people do see faith as being the same as hope or the same as belief. Haven't you noticed all the threads here in the past from non-LDS Christians on why faith alone saves and faith coupled with 'work' isn't faith and will get you sent you h***?

Second, but couldn't is just be that certain things happen to be true, and if you happen to have faith in those things then you can bring about certain other things (e.g. miracles, salvation, etc). If you don't have faith in the requisite things, but you have faith in other things which are not true, then you simply cannot bring about certain things (e.g. miracles, salvation, etc). Both, it seems to me, are faith. One instance of faith just might happen to be in things that are true, and another just might happen to be in things that are not true.

It all depends on how you define faith.

If faith is defined by it's results, then something which cannot produce results can't be faith. If you define faith as hoping for and working toward a goal, then whether or not the goal is true or good or possible has no bearing on whether or not you have faith in it.

However, Alma is defining faith in a very specific way and if you want to address his words, then you have to meet him where he is and work within the boundaries he has set up.

Additionally, presumably, on the Mormon position, lots of people have hope in false things and act on those hopes, and yet they do stuff, even good things, as a result.

They may do things that are good, or get a good result, but the power of faith isn't something that people accomplish, it's something that God accomplishes.

Faith is powerful because it produces results that are beyond the ability of the person having faith to produce. Simply achieving something good is not the same thing as raising someone from the dead, healing the sick through miraculous means, or being saved from spiritual death.

Again, if you define faith by the results (not just something 'good' coming of it but something that is beyond your ability to achieve), then simply producing something good doesn't mean make it faith, by that definition.

I call that just having faith where it just so happens that the object of their faith is false, or may be false. Perhaps, from the Mormon position they cannot bring about certain results, but I don't see why that should make it the case that they don't have faith. For my part, in Mormonism there seems to be an over-infatuation with predicating 'true' to as many things as possible even when such predications make little sense in ordinary discourse (e.g. 'true faith', 'true knowledge', 'true Church'). I understand that those expressions can have idiosyncratic meanings among Mormons, but, even among Mormons those meanings are often vague and ambiguous.

You can call it whatever you'd like.

According to alma's definition though, you'd be wrong.

I mean, there seems to be something very ad hoc about this notion of faith which allows a Mormon to say that nobody but they have faith because only they can bring about certain results by their hopes in specific propositions and behavior on those hopes. Look at this:

I'm sure it can appear that way.

If the Alma's definition is true though, then it's simply reality.

My first question is, no power to do what? Lots of non-Mormons hope for things, act on those hopes, and as a result have power to do certain things, often very good things. I fail to see why we shouldn't call that faith. But, the Mormon answer is going to have to do with exclusively Mormon things like Mormon notions of salvation and so on. And so, by and by, what's gotten smuggled into the conditions of faith, on Mormonism, are exclusively Mormon conditions such that non-Mormons cannot satisfy the conditions and, thus, cannot have faith.

First, you don't have to be a mormon to have faith.

You can have faith in Jesus Christ, for example, without being a mormon. The definition of faith that alma is using in no way makes faith exclusive to mormonism. As you should be aware, mormonism teaches that there is truth in all religions. That teaching alone should lead you to realize your assertions about mormon exclusivity in regards to faith can't be accurate.

Second, faith has the power to "command the elements and/or heal the sick, or influence any number of circumstances when occasion warrants (Jacob 4:4–7). Even more important, by faith one obtains a remission of sins and eventually can stand in the presence of God."

[KevinG]

I have faith in Schrodingers cat.

You just changed him. Do you still have faith in him?

[Brade]

So, if it dream that I appoint a federal judge, does this mean that I am President of the U.S. in reality?

No. And please show how what I said implies the contrary that you felt you had to respond to it. My example didn't say anything about what Barack Obama believes or does not believe. My example says that if he appoints a judge (not if he believes he does, or dreams he does, or whatever), then he is the President. Again, my example just doesn't say anything about beliefs, the antecedent of the condition contains a simple assertion that doesn't make any claims about propositional attitudes. You're reading something into what I'm saying that simply is not there.

Again, Bob's belief in P does NOT and IS NOT the cause of P being true. IOW, If P IS indeed true, it's truth was not caused by Bob's belief.

Yes, I agree. I never made any claims to the contrary. I said this:

2. If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true.

To which you responded:

This is false. Bob's belief is not the "cause" of the truth or falsity of P.

And now I'll point out what I pointed out before. The proposition "If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true" does not assert that Bob's faith in P is the cause of P's truth. So, we're not in disagreement over that, and I'm not sure why you think we are.

If you have faith that the moon shines it's own light, that does not mean that the moon shines its own light. Your belief of such is vain, and cannot become actual faith. In order for your belief to become actual faith, the moon would have to shine it's own light (it would have to be founded on a correct principle or an actual truth).

Fantastic! This means we're in agreement that (2) is false. But, (1) entails (2). Actually, (2) is just contained in (1), so it's curious to me that you think (1) is true, but (2) is false. If you think either of them are false, then you should think both of them are false, unless you fail to see the inference from one to the other.

Actually, the conditions of faith are:

1. Hope for things which are not seen

2. Those things must first be in and of themselves true and based upon truth.

I'm happy to accept your modified condition. Though, I didn't think there was any issue over whether there was a causal relation between faith and truth, so I didn't think it needed to be said. It seemed just obvious to me, and I thought it was obvious to everyone, that faith that P, does not cause P to be true, and, therefore, that the second condition of faith that I listed didn't to do include the extraneous information about P's truth being, in some sense, prior or independent to any agent's faith in P. I thought it was just obvious. Clearly, it was not.

That makes no sense. If you want it to make sense, you need to understand that just believing in something is not the cause of that something being true.

Again, please show where I've claimed or implied that just believing in some proposition causes that proposition to be true. I have not made that claim and nothing I've said implies my endorsement of that claim. I don't endorse it. With all due respect, I don't think you've read what I've written very carefully and it seems that you're confused about what one is asserting when one asserts a simple conditional.

[bluebell]

I can understand that only faith in something that is true has power... but I still don't think you can say someone can't have faith in something not true.

Both Dirk and Frank approached their rope bridges believing they were sound... exercising faith in their beliefs they both started across their individual bridge... I forgot whose bridge failed, but I don't believe you can say that that person didn't have real faith that his bridge was sound... he fully believed, had faith that it was sound, and started across. He wouldn't have started across if he didn't exercise his faith in his belief in its strength. That his bridge failed didn't mean he didn't have faith in it... just that the bridge's strength was not true. And consequently he tumbled into the water, faithful to the end.

I'm too old for this... I've got a headache...

from the beach... GG

You're defining faith here in a different way than alma has defined it. Alma defines faith by it's power to 'get you to the other side' while you are defining faith by its power to 'get you to believe in the bridge'.

[KevinG]

And yet another round of "stump the Mormons" begins with a misreading of our beliefs.

Granted some of us could avoid using the phrase "I know that this is true" when we really mean "I believe that this is true".

[Brade]

People often confuse the definition of belief and faith.

Your analogies imply a cause/effect relationship between someone's belief and the truth of that thing. So I think you need to be certain that when you define faith, you are careful to distinguish it from belief.

No, they don't. Please show how saying this

If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true

Implies that Bob's faith that P is true causes P's true. This is elementary logic stuff. I challenge you to demonstrate how that proposition implies a causal relation.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 23 July 2011 - 09:57 AM, said:

I have faith in Schrodingers cat.

You just changed him. Do you still have faith in him?

I had faith he would change.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

No. And please show how what I said implies the contrary that you felt you had to respond to it. My example didn't say anything about what Barack Obama believes or does not believe. My example says that if he appoints a judge (not if he believes he does, or dreams he does, or whatever), then he is the President. Again, my example just doesn't say anything about beliefs, the antecedent of the condition contains a simple assertion that doesn't make any claims about propositional attitudes. You're reading something into what I'm saying that simply is not there.

Yes, I agree. I never made any claims to the contrary. I said this:

To which you responded:

And now I'll point out what I pointed out before. The proposition "If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true" does not assert that Bob's faith in P is the cause of P's truth. So, we're not in disagreement over that, and I'm not sure why you think we are.

Fantastic! This means we're in agreement that (2) is false. But, (1) entails (2). Actually, (2) is just contained in (1), so it's curious to me that you think (1) is true, but (2) is false. If you think either of them are false, then you should think both of them are false, unless you fail to see the inference from one to the other.

I'm happy to accept your modified condition. Though, I didn't think there was any issue over whether there was a causal relation between faith and truth, so I didn't think it needed to be said. It seemed just obvious to me, and I thought it was obvious to everyone, that faith that P, does not cause P to be true, and, therefore, that the second condition of faith that I listed didn't to do include the extraneous information about P's truth being, in some sense, prior or independent to any agent's faith in P. I thought it was just obvious. Clearly, it was not.

Again, please show where I've claimed or implied that just believing in some proposition causes that proposition to be true. I have not made that claim and nothing I've said implies my endorsement of that claim. I don't endorse it. With all due respect, I don't think you've read what I've written very carefully and it seems that you're confused about what one is asserting when one asserts a simple conditional.

So, then if P is indeed true, then yes--Bob's can have actual faith in it.

But if P is actually false, then what Bob THINKS is faith, is not really faith after all--it is just another belief.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[Brade]

You're defining faith here in a different way than alma has defined it. Alma defines faith by it's power to 'get you to the other side' while you are defining faith by its power to 'get you to believe in the bridge'.

I'm not defining faith by its power to get anyone to believe anything. I'm defining it by at least that a person hopes for something and acts on that hope. Whether they believe that the object of their hope is true is a separate question, and I've explained that.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

No, they don't. Please show how saying this

Implies that Bob's faith that P is true causes P's true. This is elementary logic stuff. I challenge you to demonstrate how that proposition implies a causal relation.

It all depends on whether a person reading this thread confuses "belief" with actual "faith." And many people do.

[KevinG]

Brade please read Alma 5 in its context before trying to define one verse 21 in your own terms.

Alma was addressing a group of believers who felt they were unable to worship God in the manner they wished because they were expelled from their synagogues.

The faith they are talking about is faith in Christ. Alma's experiment pre-supposes that the thing they are exercising faith in is true according to the scriptures. Alma's test is specifically geared towards belief in Christ.

1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God ^aheareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby ^bknow we the ^cspirit of truth, and the spirit of ^derror.

He was also contrasting the fruits of faith in Christ with those who would ask for a sign.

He goes on to say if the faith results in a good seed it is true, if not it is to be cast out.

Truth is not dependent on faith, indeed truth exists in its own sphere, God is aligned with truth, faith in God plus obedience to the truth that is learned through God leads to a fullness of knolwedge. Faith and obedience give access to truth they do not create it.

Saying that the LDS believe that faith creates truth in any way is a horrible misreading of our beliefs.

[Jeff K.]

Well said.

[Brade]

Brade please read Alma 5 in its context before trying to define one verse 21 in your own terms.

Alma was addressing a group of believers who felt they were unable to worship God in the manner they wished because they were expelled from their synagogues.

The faith they are talking about is faith in Christ. Alma's experiment pre-supposes that the thing they are exercising faith in is true according to the scriptures. Alma's test is specifically geared towards belief in Christ.

1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God ^aheareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby ^bknow we the ^cspirit of truth, and the spirit of ^derror.

He was also contrasting the fruits of faith in Christ with those who would ask for a sign.

He goes on to say if the faith results in a good seed it is true, if not it is to be cast out.

Truth is not dependent on faith, indeed truth exists in its own sphere, God is aligned with truth, faith in God plus obedience to the truth that is learned through God leads to a fullness of knolwedge. Faith and obedience give access to truth they do not create it.

Saying that the LDS believe that faith creates truth in any way is a horrible misreading of our beliefs.

Ok, I'm beginning to think that this thread should have begun with an elementary course in logic on conditionals, some basic rules of inference, and some elementary information on causal relations. Neither I, nor Alma, and keep in mind I'm just saying what Alma said essentially without using old English, are saying that faith creates truth. To think that is suggestive of an unfortunate misunderstanding of conditionals and causal relations.

Alma said:

If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

That entails this:

If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true.

And neither of those statements entails that faith causes truth. What they say is that the truth of the object of faith is a condition of faith. That is quite a different thing than faith causing truth, which, again, is nowhere to be found in either of those, anything I've said, or implied by anything I've said.

Additionally, it's unfortunate that several people are unable to make the inference from one to the other, thus assessing one true and one false, which cannot be the case if the words in each have the same meaning.

My initial intention with this thread was to discuss Alma's claim about faith, but I began as I did because I was worried that the discussion would get sidetracked because I thought some people wouldn't be able to see that (2) follows from (1), so I decided to pose a little quiz to see if my fears were legitimate, and indeed they were. I'm afraid that for people who cannot see that (2) follows from (1) it will be fruitless to carry on the conversation because what I hoped to get into involves more formal logic, and if a person can't see how (2) follows from (1), then it's very unlikely they'll be able to intelligently contribute to and follow what I hoped would be the real discussion. The same worry holds for somebody who thinks that a simple conditional like "If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true" implies some sort of causal relation - again, such conditional do not necessarily imply causal relations, and no further information, about belief and faith need be provided to make that clear.

In any event, I guess my quiz performed its desired function. It confirmed my fears about a lot of people's inference making, such that to carry on onto more technical waters will probably just result in endless frustration for all of us.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Brade

[bluebell]

I'm not defining faith by its power to get anyone to believe anything. I'm defining it by at least that a person hopes for something and acts on that hope. Whether they believe that the object of their hope is true is a separate question, and I've explained that.

I didn't say you were defining faith that way, i said GG was defining faith that way. (that post was addressed to her, not to you).

In answer to your statement though, YOU may have explained how whether or not the object of their hope is true is a separate question, but that's your opinion, not mine.

I disagree with your opinion, so i have no reason to make my answers to your questions fit with your opinion. With respect (i'm not trying to be snarky), i came to this thread to discuss faith as Alma has defined it, not as you have defined it.

I thought that's what the OP was asking.

[elguanteloko]

Just to add a little more heat to the discussion:

If you take faith must be based on 'correct knowledge', and if faith is NOT knowledge, then you can't (by definition) know that you have faith at all (even if you do have faith after all).

If you know you have faith then you must know the object of your faith is true... but if you know the object of your faith is true, then you can't have faith but knowledge.

Edited July 23, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Ok, I'm beginning to think that this thread should have begun with an elementary course in logic on conditionals, some basic rules of inference, and some elementary information on causal relations. Neither I, nor Alma, and keep in mind I'm just saying what Alma said essentially without using old English, are saying that faith creates truth. To think that is suggestive of an unfortunate misunderstanding of conditionals and causal relations.

Alma said:

That entails this:

And neither of those statements entails that faith causes truth. What they say is that the truth of the object of faith is a condition of faith. That is quite a different thing than faith causing truth, which, again, is nowhere to be found in either of those, anything I've said, or implied by anything I've said.

Additionally, it's unfortunate that several people are unable to make the inference from one to the other, thus assessing one true and one false, which cannot be the case if the words in each have the same meaning.

My initial intention with this thread was to discuss Alma's claim about faith, but I began as I did because I was worried that the discussion would get sidetracked because I thought some people wouldn't be able to see that (2) follows from (1), so I decided to pose a little quiz to see if my fears were legitimate, and indeed they were. I'm afraid that for people who cannot see that (2) follows from (1) it will be fruitless to carry on the conversation because what I hoped to get into involves more formal logic, and if a person can't see how (2) follows from (1), then it's very unlikely they'll be able to intelligently contribute to and follow what I hoped would be the real discussion. The same worry holds for somebody who thinks that a simple conditional like "If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true" implies some sort of causal relation - again, such conditional do not necessarily imply causal relations, and no further information, about belief and faith need be provided to make that clear.

In any event, I guess my quiz performed its desired function. It confirmed my fears about a lot of people's inference making, such that to carry on onto more technical waters will probably just result in endless frustration for all of us.

Brade, do you draw a distinction between "belief" and "faith?" It's important to know what that distinction is as you see it.

[Brade]

DaddyG, in my mini-rant I failed to show proper appreciation for your post, which I think makes a good point and potentially offers a solution to the problem of Alma's seemingly odd notion of faith. The context of the other scripture you cited can, as you do, make the case that Alma wasn't defining faith in some novel way, but that he was just mentioning that what he's talking about (e.g. his religion) is true, and that if you have faith in the true things he's talking about, then you'll reap the rewards. I think that's a good explanation for the verse and it relieves the tension.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's the common view among Mormons. I think the common view, as is being demonstrated in this thread, is that faith really means that the object of faith is true, and that if one hopes for something, and acts on that hope, but the object of that hope isn't true, then one doesn't have faith. This just seems absurd, and I think you agree.