A Better Faith.

[elguanteloko]

It is rather all too common to hear believers say to non-believers that they, too, have faith in many things and that they can't help do otherwise. I will propose that this is a ludicrous view and I will also propose a definition of faith (which I've proposed before here) that I think has several advantages and is clearer.

The definition of faith I propose is the following:

Faith is a trust or confidence that a given fact, explanation, or belief is the correct one while one also realizes said explanation, fact, or belief is NOT the most likely fact, explanation, or belief to be the case.

This proposed definition of faith has several advantages:

1. It differentiates between mere reckless belief or so-called "blind faith" and actual faith. To have faith requires having correct beliefs and realize what has good evidence going for it and what does not have good evidence going for it. If I use as reliable evidence for God's existence the fact that my grandmother's cancer was cured after I prayed fervently, and I base my belief in God in such events, then I do NOT have faith (though I have a reckless belief) since I'm using very bad evidence to justify God's existence.

2. This definition of faith makes it a necessary condition for having faith that the individual realizes the choice they are trusting on is NOT the most likely thing to be the case and this, in turn, means one HAS to be informed to a degree of what they are doing in order for it to be said to be faith. To have faith would require a realist view of the situation and of the options available. One would have to realize that asking for a miracle is NOT the most likely thing to be the case (not that many people spontaneously recover, for example) but one still chooses to go with trusting God.

3. This also distinguishes between having true beliefs, false beliefs, and simply picking a choice among the options (to say it in a way) from actual faith. If the car is behind either door A or door B and door A has about a 66% change of being the correct one while B has about 33%, then to choose A because we realize it has a better chance does NOT mean one has faith that the car is behind A at all. In other words, picking what we see as having the best chances of being correct is NOT faith but just either a belief or just playing with the chances.

I can explain this definition using the analogy presented in the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. in that movie Indiana has to step into what seems an endless pit. He realizes that the most likely thing to be the case is that his eyesight is not mistaking him and that he is going to fall and die. He recognizes this fact but still chooses to "throw himself" and give that leap of faith. Indiana is informed that his eyes are very likely telling him the truth and that "something is going to support him" is NOT the most likely thing to happen. He, however, decides to have faith in this case and walk through it.

Imagine now a blind person who doesn't even realize there is (what looks like) an endless pit there but just walks through it because he is told to (or simply because he doesn't see any risk in that)... he can't possibly have faith since he doesn't even see "that walking through that place and not falling into certain death" is NOT the most likely explanation, something he would realize if he, like Indiana, was able to see. He just doesn't think about that risk since he can't see. This is an analogy to what I've been calling "reckless belief" or "blind faith": those beliefs that ignore evidence and just keep on walking because they don't see anything risky about it.

...in other words, we need to be informed in the sense Indiana was informed of the likelihood of his options had of being correct, IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE CALLED FAITH and not mere reckless belief or so-called "blind faith". Blind faith is not faith but reckless belief.

[CV75]

Faith is a trust or confidence that a given fact, explanation, or belief is the correct one while one also realizes said explanation, fact, or belief is NOT the most likely fact, explanation, or belief to be the case.

This is why the following definition of faith is most serviceable: “…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.” (Alma 32:21). An emphasis on assessing the likelihood is actually an alternative to exercising faith in handling one's lack of perfect knowledge, and so it can detract from taking action on the correct principle and enjoying the results.

[elguanteloko]

This is why the following definition of faith is most serviceable: “…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.” (Alma 32:21). An emphasis on assessing the likelihood is actually an alternative to exercising faith in handling one's lack of perfect knowledge, and so it can detract from taking action on the correct principle and enjoying the results.

This is one of the common uses of faith but what I'm saying is totally different.

To have faith requires that you see the risk and that you see that the object of your faith is NOT the most likely thing to be true or the case or the best option among the other options or possible things to be true.If you see the object of your faith as the most likely thing to be true, although you do not have "a perfect knowledge" (whatever that means), then you can't have faith (as I think is convenient to use the word). If faith was "not to have a perfect knowledge of things" then every belief would be faith, which is what I'm saying is kind of silly.

Edited June 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Deborah]

I'll take God's definition as given by CV75. It totally contradicts the statement "the object of your faith is NOT the most likely thing to be true or the case or the best option." True faith has to actually be based on something that is true even if you don't have all the facts at this time. It is not having all the facts that makes it faith, not that you are believing in something that is in fact likely just in your mind.

[Doctor Ninja]

This is not the doctrine of the Lord in regards to faith. Philosophies (law of parsimony) mingled with scripture (faith) is the doctrine of satan, or in the least what he wants us to believe.

[bluebell]

I'll take God's definition as given by CV75. It totally contradicts the statement "the object of your faith is NOT the most likely thing to be true or the case or the best option." True faith has to actually be based on something that is true even if you don't have all the facts at this time. It is not having all the facts that makes it faith, not that you are believing in something that is in fact likely just in your mind.

I'm with Deborah and CV75, I don't agree with the second part of your definition of faith. It's not what faith is to Christians so it's not at all a useful definition for any kind of discussion.

[CV75]

This is one of the common uses of faith but what I'm saying is totally different.

To have faith requires that you see the risk and that you see that the object of your faith is NOT the most likely thing to be true or the case or the best option among the other options or possible things to be true.If you see the object of your faith as the most likely thing to be true, although you do not have "a perfect knowledge" (whatever that means), then you can't have faith (as I think is convenient to use the word). If faith was "not to have a perfect knowledge of things" then every belief would be faith, which is what I'm saying is kind of silly.

I’m not sure what kind of truth promotes itself as risky or unlikely to be a good option, but some people do prefer the sensation of risk and uncertainty over tolerating some risk and uncertainty in their lives.

I’m not sure what risk there is in having faith in the truth—that is the whole purpose of it (salvation). Holding the object of faith as unlikely to be true or unlikely to be the best option for salvation is not possible.

From the outside looking in, faith may be deemed risky or unlikely to be the best option for the person exercising it. For example, stepping into the darkness before receiving the next ray of light around the corner might appear to be taking a risk, but to the one having the faith to move forward (and from the perspective of the one calling him forward and knowing that there is no threat in the darkness), this is very different than taking a chance. It is building upon prior experiences with faith (this is why “Moroni’s Promise” exhorts us to remember). It may be challenging, but it is not risky, for faith is invariably rewarded.

Trying out something true or experimenting upon the word, etc. only feels risky when it is done without faith, or approached with doubt or uncertainty. But like you say, it's your definition.

[Hamba Tuhan]

You are welcome, of course, to define faith any way you choose, Mr Crazy Glove; at the same time, please know that your personal defintion is completely alien to me and to my experience.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[Ahab]

It is rather all too common to hear believers say to non-believers that they, too, have faith in many things and that they can't help do otherwise. I will propose that this is a ludicrous view and I will also propose a definition of faith (which I've proposed before here) that I think has several advantages and is clearer.

The definition of faith I propose is the following:

Faith is a trust or confidence that a given fact, explanation, or belief is the correct one while one also realizes said explanation, fact, or belief is NOT the most likely fact, explanation, or belief to be the case.

This proposed definition of faith has several advantages:

...

The true meaning of faith is better than your version by far. Try using a Thesaurus, as well as a Dictionary.

Another word for "faith" is "assurance" and in simple terms that means that when you have "faith" you have an "assurance" or "feel sure" that something is true.

The key questions then become: Who gave you that faith (or assurance)? Did you just start feeling that way, or did someone else give that faith to you?

I prefer to get my faith from God, directly.

[blueadept]

Weurd. I'm actually agreeing with Ahab that the virtue of faith is definitely a gift from God.

Even though I am one who prefers to pray for the needs of others, the one prayer I do use that is personal is for help with my unbelief in regards to some things

[Nofear]

My working definition of (spiritual) faith is "A confidence and trust in divine communication to one's person."

We all have access to the Light of Christ and we also have the privilege to receive the more direct communication from the Holy Spirit. When we choose to acknowledge, trust, and follow through* on these sensory experiences** -- this is faith.

* the substance of things hoped for

** the evidence of things not seen

[elguanteloko]

I'll take God's definition as given by CV75. It totally contradicts the statement "the object of your faith is NOT the most likely thing to be true or the case or the best option." True faith has to actually be based on something that is true even if you don't have all the facts at this time. It is not having all the facts that makes it faith, not that you are believing in something that is in fact likely just in your mind.

But I'm NOT saying you need to have all the facts in order for it to be called faith! However, you do need to see a risk in what you are doing in the sense that you see the option you are talking as not the most likely thing to be correct. The blind mind that crosses what to everyone else looks like an endless pit (in the Indiana Jones movie, for example) without realizing the risks can't have faith.

[elguanteloko]

This is not the doctrine of the Lord in regards to faith. Philosophies (law of parsimony) mingled with scripture (faith) is the doctrine of satan, or in the least what he wants us to believe.

LOL That's a good one.

[elguanteloko]

You are welcome, of course, to define faith any way you choose, Mr Crazy Glove; at the same time, please know that your personal defintion is completely alien to me and to my experience.

It isn't but you guys are not even getting it, which I'm surprised by. Why doesn't it click?

[Jeff K.]

Maybe we have more faith in God's definition than in yours? Perhaps the definition given to us by God clicks, and yours does not. Or maybe you aren't getting it.

[elguanteloko]

I’m not sure what kind of truth promotes itself as risky or unlikely to be a good option,

It's not that it "promotes itself" as unlikely but it just happens to appear risky and unlikely. The truth is that the bridge was there in the Indiana movie but it seemed to him that it wasn't. If it looked kinda like it was there but one wasn't really sure it would still count like faith if it seems like the most likely thing is to fall into the pit.

but some people do prefer the sensation of risk and uncertainty over tolerating some risk and uncertainty in their lives.

I'm not sure this part makes any sense.

I’m not sure what risk there is in having faith in the truth—that is the whole purpose of it (salvation).

The risk of not being right. You trust it is right but it seems by all best accounts that it isn't. Indiana SAW no bridge there but it was there and he risked and threw himself into it. That is the kind of faith I'm talking about.

Holding the object of faith as unlikely to be true or unlikely to be the best option for salvation is not possible.

Oh, you are wrong there! Any believer can admit that chances are grandma's cancer was NOT cured by a miracle but still believe that THIS time it was cured by a miracle. Any believer can admit that chances are, because of what we experience normally, that a super-powerful corporeal being named "God" does not exist but still feels like He exists and trust that He does. That's the beauty of the definition. You HAVE to be informed in this sense in order for it to be called faith. If God and miracles seem like the most likely thing to be the case, then your faith is no greater than the blind man's in the analogy of the OP because you don't see any risk in it.

From the outside looking in, faith may be deemed risky or unlikely to be the best option for the person exercising it.

Well, not faith but the object of faith. This may or may not be, it doesn't matter.

For example, stepping into the darkness before receiving the next ray of light around the corner might appear to be taking a risk, but to the one having the faith to move forward (and from the perspective of the one calling him forward and knowing that there is no threat in the darkness), this is very different than taking a chance.

We say he is having faith not only because he trusts he won't bump into anything (because he trusts in the person "calling him forward") but because chances are that he will bump into something. Walk through the dark and chances are very very high that you'll bump into something (unless you are in an open field or something). This IS taking a chance in the sense of "taking a risk". You can trust in the person telling you everything is fine but you trust because you don't see. Otherwise there would be no need for that trust. If indiana had seen a strong bridge in front of him then there would have been no need for faith.

It is building upon prior experiences with faith (this is why “Moroni’s Promise” exhorts us to remember). It may be challenging, but it is not risky, for faith is invariably rewarded.

Trying out something true or experimenting upon the word, etc. only feels risky when it is done without faith, or approached with doubt or uncertainty. But like you say, it's your definition.

It is my definition indeed but I think it is much better than the one you guys are offering. The problem is you guys are not getting it.

[Jeff K.]

How many facts did Noah have before the flood?

or Abraham with his son?

[elguanteloko]

Maybe we have more faith in God's definition than in yours? Perhaps the definition given to us by God clicks, and yours does not. Or maybe you aren't getting it.

"Perhaps" and "Maybes" are statements of possibility and, since an infinite amount of things are possible, the meaning of your statements is reduced to zero.

Edited June 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

How many facts did Noah have before the flood?

or Abraham with his son?

very little, and those were faiths in the sense I'm using it for that reason. The use of "faith" you guys use and the definition of faith I've provided are more alike than you guys realize.

as long as they realized the thing they were about to do wasn't the most likely thing to be morally correct or beneficial (in Abraham's case) or likely to happen (a global flood), then they had faith. If you see it as the inevitable thing to happen then you won't have faith in it since there's no need to "trust" anything; it just is.

Edited June 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

"Perhaps" and "Maybes" are statements of possibility and, since an infinite amount of things are possible, the meaning of your statements is reduced to zero.

No, not really. They are possibilities which apparently you haven't considered. It has no bearing on their accuracy or factual representation. You apparently didn't get it.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 June 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

How many facts did Noah have before the flood?

or Abraham with his son?

very little, and those were faiths in the sense I'm using it for that reason. The use of "faith" you guys use and the definition of faith I've provided are more alike than you guys realize.

as long as they realized the thing they were about to do wasn't the most likely thing to be morally correct or beneficial (in Abraham's case) or likely to happen (a global flood), then they had faith. If you see it as the inevitable thing to happen then you won't have faith in it since there's no need to "trust" anything; it just is.

If the terms are alike, then you merely being redundant.

The terms for faith we use is what the Lord gave us to help us understand. The term we use for faith encompass's what Christ did, what Noah did, what Abraham did, and Nephi, and Lehi, and so many others. I suppose if one wants to get wordy and try to complicate the meaning of faith, and of course in the end simply repeat for the sake of flourish with the verbosity of Edward Everett, one can be duly impressed.

A quote for you that you can take to heart when trying to improve on God's definition of faith...

"I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes."

Edited June 28, 2011 by Jeff K.

[elguanteloko]

The true meaning of faith is better than your version by far. Try using a Thesaurus, as well as a Dictionary.

done. this is like saying to a philosopher that the dictionary definition for "cause" overrides all his arguments and ideas for saying cause is not seen in the proper light nor is it justified; or saying to a scientist that the definition of "species" is what the dictionary says without considering all the evidence he has pointing to saying "species" is not clear enough.

Another word for "faith" is "assurance" and in simple terms that means that when you have "faith" you have an "assurance" or "feel sure" that something is true.

I already explained why it is absurd to say such a thing in the OP. This is too broad a brush since ALL kinds of beliefs you are "sure" about would qualify as faith, which is silly. If I believe that tossing a coin and getting tails has a chance of 50% then, supposedly, I would be having faith in that 50% is the chance a coin toss result has of being tails. Or, if I believe that 2+2=4, then I have faith that 2+2=4, not knowledge. Even "things seen" would qualify as faith, although in the scriptures you read it is about things "not seen".

The key questions then become: Who gave you that faith (or assurance)? Did you just start feeling that way, or did someone else give that faith to you?

That question has very little to do with the issue at hand so I'll ask you to please refrain from discussing this here. If you want to discuss "Who gave you that faith (or assurance)?" then open another thread.

I prefer to get my faith from God, directly.

good for you.

[elguanteloko]

If the terms are alike, then you merely being redundant.

A Lamborghini Murciélago and a 1992 Toyota Accord are alike, too, in some senses and not in others but to say it is redundant to consider them different is not very smart, is it? Your use of faith and mine are alike in some things and not in others but enough for me to say the word "alike". Read what I've written and try to figure out the differences.

Edited June 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Deborah]

You can trust in the person telling you everything is fine but you trust because you don't see. Otherwise there would be no need for that trust.

No, you trust because that person has gained your trust through prior experience. It has nothing to do with what you can or can't see. A person has faith in God because he has had previous experience with God or knows someone he trusts who has. And you keep saying that what you have faith in is the most likely thing not to be true and is the greatest risk. I totally disagree. Trusting in God is not risky and will bring you to what is true.

[Jeff K.]

A Lamborghini Murciélago and a 1992 Toyota Accord are alike, too, in some senses and not in others but to say it is redundant to consider them different is not very smart, is it? Your use of faith and mine are alike in some things and not in others but enough for me to say the word "alike". Read what I've written and try to figure out the differences.

So why would I drive your Toyota when God gave us a Lamborghini. Just because you put a few extra switches and flashy lights does not make your definition better. Frankly its kind of clunky and doesn't quite do the job. But you want us to run to it and exclaim its greatness? We are mortal, but we weren't born yesterday.

I would suggest the following.

First off, find out where the Lord is lacking in knowledge and communication of what faith is.

Second, learn to articulate the difference and why your version is better than the one God gave us.

Third, always remember that saying "you don't get it" is more a reflection of your ability to understand and communicate than it is someone who may get it reject what they view as an inferior product.