A Better Faith.

[blackstrap]

Is faith not POWER? The scriptures give a list of things that were DONE by faith. Consider the event of Peter wanting to walk on the sea to meet Christ. We know the story and its outcome but,just for a moment consider what might have happened had Peter had the faith to continue walking to Christ. Would he have then gone for a daily walk on the water to "practise" his faith? Would he have come to the knowledge of just how that "miracle" was accomplished and then not needed any faith to do it?

Is it possible to move a mountain? Man has done that quite a few times given time money,machinery and the IDEA that it could be done eventually. But what about doing it by just telling the mountain to move,and it does? If one could harness the power to move objects with a mere vocal command would that not require faith?

I assume that elguantloko neither believes nor has faith that such is probable let alone possible.I think that we sell faith short when we restict it to believing something unseen which is true.We are told that it is the power through which the universe came into being and that life exists and whereby eternal life can be achieved.

[elguanteloko]

Is faith not POWER? The scriptures give a list of things that were DONE by faith. Consider the event of Peter wanting to walk on the sea to meet Christ. We know the story and its outcome but,just for a moment consider what might have happened had Peter had the faith to continue walking to Christ. Would he have then gone for a daily walk on the water to "practise" his faith? Would he have come to the knowledge of just how that "miracle" was accomplished and then not needed any faith to do it?

Is it possible to move a mountain? Man has done that quite a few times given time money,machinery and the IDEA that it could be done eventually. But what about doing it by just telling the mountain to move,and it does? If one could harness the power to move objects with a mere vocal command would that not require faith?

I assume that elguantloko neither believes nor has faith that such is probable let alone possible.I think that we sell faith short when we restict it to believing something unseen which is true.We are told that it is the power through which the universe came into being and that life exists and whereby eternal life can be achieved.

defining faith as power doesn't make you understand much, does it? That's why you have definitions in Hebrews and Alma instead of just "faith is power" and that's it.

[Jeff K.]

You just don't get it elguanteloco. But you think you do.

To you faith is a question of percentages. It isn't. You seem so caught up in attempting to define faith in a way that cannot include God, that you trip over your own words. It is clear to most of us here, but apparently, as you say "you don't get it".

I tire of telling the blind man what yellow is. Especially when he thinks he knows and is wrong.

[KevinG]

I find that if I'm the only one in the room who "gets it" my faith in my premise is likely misplaced.

But that is a different topic.

If we start with the premise that we see through a glass but darkly (which I agree is a condition of our mortal state - a limited view of both science and the spirit) the following passage is very meaningful to me as to why we require faith.

D&C 93:26 The 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.

29Man was also in the ^abeginning with God. ^bIntelligence, or the ^clight of ^dtruth, was not ^ecreated or made, neither indeed can be.

30All truth is independent in that ^asphere in which God has placed it, to ^bact for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31Behold, here is the ^aagency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is ^bplainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

The rest of the passage is instructive also. To me is says that the truth is independent and (larger than our earthly ability to access a fullness of it) and that God who knows all things and in fact is aligned with truth is our surest access to its fullness. We can access truth and true principles with logic, science and observation but we are still limited by our finite vision and capacity.

We can also access truth given by the God that knows all truth through faith, but one of the requirements of access is by keeping the commandments (or in laymens terms living according to the law and truth that has previously been given to us).

This particular scripture was profound to me the first time I read it. It gets beyond the debates about whose philosophy, science or faith is True (capital T) and places a fullness of knowledge and truth in its own sphere, accessible through God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. It has the effect of humbling my view of my own religion and helping me to understand that many people have access to Truth and we as Saints can learn more, but we learn according to our faith.

I don't expect to see all science and faith reconcilled in this life. There is too much limiting our ability - and assuming we have a fullness of truth (without the conduit of an all knowing God) is hubris for scientist or priest alike. However I do believe that faith built on a foundation of obedience to the knowledge that has been revealed will bring us more answers. Without God's help we are simply attempting to build a tower of Babel.

[elguanteloko]

You just don't get it elguanteloco. But you think you do.

To you faith is a question of percentages. It isn't.

Where's your reasoning? I gave mine and you have constantly failed to understand it competently and refute it making sense.

You seem so caught up in attempting to define faith in a way that cannot include God,

I don't know where you get that from. My definition of faith can perfectly well include God or spirits or powers, etc.

that you trip over your own words.

I demand reasons, Jeff. Confront what I've been saying WITH REASONS or else get out of the thread. Think I'm wrong all you want, that's fine with me, but when you come here I expect you to actually think through the issue with good reasoning.

It is clear to most of us here, but apparently, as you say "you don't get it".

I tire of telling the blind man what yellow is. Especially when he thinks he knows and is wrong.

...No reasons and bad reasons are not going to cut it here, Jeff. Again, confront the arguments. If all you want to do here is give one reason every 20 posts and keep repeating "You are wrong" and "You don't get it" the vast majority of the time, then I cordially invite you to get out of the thread and don't bother.

This is a good reminder to everyone to self-edit the personal judgements and comments when posting opinions and evidences. It will elevate the level of conversation. -Ares

[elguanteloko]

I find that if I'm the only one in the room who "gets it" my faith in my premise is likely misplaced.

But that is a different topic.

If we start with the premise that we see through a glass but darkly (which I agree is a condition of our mortal state - a limited view of both science and the spirit) the following passage is very meaningful to me as to why we require faith.

D&C 93:26 The 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.

29Man was also in the ^abeginning with God. ^bIntelligence, or the ^clight of ^dtruth, was not ^ecreated or made, neither indeed can be.

30All truth is independent in that ^asphere in which God has placed it, to ^bact for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31Behold, here is the ^aagency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is ^bplainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

The rest of the passage is instructive also. To me is says that the truth is independent and (larger than our earthly ability to access a fullness of it) and that God who knows all things and in fact is aligned with truth is our surest access to its fullness. We can access truth and true principles with logic, science and observation but we are still limited by our finite vision and capacity.

We can also access truth given by the God that knows all truth through faith, but one of the requirements of access is by keeping the commandments (or in laymens terms living according to the law and truth that has previously been given to us).

This particular scripture was profound to me the first time I read it. It gets beyond the debates about whose philosophy, science or faith is True (capital T) and places a fullness of knowledge and truth in its own sphere, accessible through God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. It has the effect of humbling my view of my own religion and helping me to understand that many people have access to Truth and we as Saints can learn more, but we learn according to our faith.

I don't expect to see all science and faith reconcilled in this life. There is too much limiting our ability - and assuming we have a fullness of truth (without the conduit of an all knowing God) is hubris for scientist or priest alike. However I do believe that faith built on a foundation of obedience to the knowledge that has been revealed will bring us more answers. Without God's help we are simply attempting to build a tower of Babel.

Thanks for that, DaddyG, but you are not addressing anything on the topic of the thread.

Edited June 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[KevinG]

Thanks for that, DaddyG, but you are not addressing anything on the topic of the thread.

Sorry if I was oblique... I was trying to set a context for my understanding of faith. Your definition of faith is dependent on what it is that we have faith in. For me it does not illuminate what faith is.

(I hope that helps explain my post without being obtuse).

[elguanteloko]

Your definition of faith is dependent on what it is that we have faith in.

If you mean by "dependent" that you can't have faith in everything, then yes. In other words, you can't have faith in the obvious, for example. You can't have faith in the most likely explanations, also. I gave a bunch of reasons throughout the thread and I hope you will address them with more than just saying "it doesn't illuminate on what faith is". I've written quite precisely what faith is, what do you mean it isn't illuminating?

[KevinG]

If you mean by "dependent" that you can't have faith in everything, then yes. In other words, you can't have faith in the obvious, for example. You can't have faith in the most likely explanations, also. I gave a bunch of reasons throughout the thread and I hope you will address them with more than just saying "it doesn't illuminate on what faith is". I've written quite precisely what faith is, what do you mean it isn't illuminating?

This is what I mean: I disagree with your second sentence here. I think you can have faith in the most obvious explanation. That faith can be well placed or completely wrong. Parsimony is not the ultimate arbitor of the need for faith. That leads down a dangerous road both presuming that the simplest explanation is correct (not always true) or that all variables to a problem of knowledge or truth are available to us.

It is probably better said with a favorite quote of mine (usually used when I do process improvement work):

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H. L. Mencken, Prejudices: Second Series, 1920

US editor (1880 - 1956)

[elguanteloko]

This is what I mean: I disagree with your second sentence here. I think you can have faith in the most obvious explanation. That faith can be well placed or completely wrong.

This contradicts Hebrews 11:1 and Alma 32:21 where in both it is clearly stated that faith is placed in things NOT SEEN, for one. Secondly, this makes "faith" ANY belief about anything, which is silly. 2+2=4 would be a statement of faith. Logical inferences would also be faith-based. Statements about immediate experiences would be statements of faith. There would be no difference between the blind person who walks and he who is having his faith tested (look at the Indiana Jones analogy in the OP, please).Look at the cases of "tests of faith" in the scriptures and you will find one common link: the test of faith required a risky situation. Abraham killing Isaac was a test of faith because that went against what Abraham thought as good or prudent or desirable. Let's say Abraham cooked dinner whenever needed. If the commandment would have been to cook dinner whenever needed for a week that would not have been a test of faith since he was going to do it anyways and didn't present any risk at all or any danger. Killing your son is an act of faith PRECISELY because you see moral danger but you choose to trust in God.

Edited June 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[KevinG]

This contradicts Hebrews 11:1 and Alma 32:21 where in both it is clearly stated that faith is placed in things NOT SEEN, for one. Secondly, this makes "faith" ANY belief about anything, which is silly. 2+2=4 would be a statement of faith. Logical inferences would also be faith-based. Statements about immediate experiences would be statements of faith. There would be no difference between the blind person who walks and he who is having his faith tested (look at the Indiana Jones analogy in the OP, please).Look at the cases of "tests of faith" in the scriptures and you will find one common link: the test of faith required a risky situation. Abraham killing Isaac was a test of faith because that went against what Abraham thought as good or prudent or desirable. Let's say Abraham cooked dinner whenever needed. If the commandment would have been to cook dinner whenever needed for a week that would not have been a test of faith since we was going to do it anyways and didn't present any risk at all or any danger. Killing your son is an act of faith PRECISELY because you see moral danger but you choose to trust in God.

Parsimony is not a mathematical equation. There are many more complex situations somewhere in between sacrificing a son and cooking dinner. Not all of these decisions are risky by definintion or even riskier than others but experience and knowledge of a situation may negate the requirement for faith for some while other may require it for the same situation.

If you look there are counter examples the scenario you set up to illustrate your definition. Lets take Abraham and Isaac. What if the commandment was to heal his son of an illness? It would be prudent and desirable, but still require faith in God and the priesthood to accomplish. There would be little risk other than risk of failure and no additional harm to Isaac.

I can tell you have a scientific mind and are very interested in logical explanations. A "daily walk in faith" as my good Baptist friends say may not jive with your paradigm but it is a very common way of life among many very intelligent and reasonable people. Life is not a closed system.

[elguanteloko]

I made several points, DG, and you didn't address them at all and just chose to ignore them. Come on, man.

What if the commandment was to heal his son of an illness? It would be prudent and desirable, but still require faith in God and the priesthood to accomplish. There would be little risk other than risk of failure and no additional harm to Isaac.

This is the only thing you wrote in that post that even resembled a reason. Look, DG, the point is that the most likely thing for a given situation is NOT the miraculous but there has to be that risk, if not, then there can't be faith. Do you understand this? If you don't understand this, then please ask or if you don't agree tell me specifically what you don't agree with. I've given you plenty of reasons for my position. What is it you don't agree with? You gave a definition for faith that clearly contradicts scriptures and doesn't make sense and I told you why it doesn't make sense. What else of interest do you have to say? Some situations require greater faith than other ones but that is completely irrelevant since we are talking about what faith is in the first place, NOT about what situations require more faith than others (which assumes already a definition for faith).

Edited June 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[KevinG]

I made several points, DG, and you didn't address them at all and just chose to ignore them. Come on, man.

I addressed your main premise and I'm not inclined to follow all trails tonight. Someone else will indulge you in that exercise.

This is the only thing you wrote in that post that even resembled a reason. Look, DG, the point is that the most likely thing for a given situation is NOT the miraculous but there has to be that risk, if not, then there can't be faith. Some situations require greater faith than other ones but that is completely irrelevant since we are talking about what faith is in the first place, NOT about what situations require more faith than others (which assumes already a definition for faith).

Perhaps the difficulty understanding your point is the use of risk to mean unknown. There can be faith with no risk as I have explained above. There is no need for faith when all of the variables are known.

Ether 3:19And because of the ^aknowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the ^bveil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had ^cfaith no longer, for he knew, nothing ^ddoubting.

Edited June 29, 2011 by DaddyG

[elguanteloko]

I addressed your main premise and I'm not inclined to follow all trails tonight. Someone else will indulge you in that exercise.

...ok, and I told you why you were wrong and all you do is keep on repeating your opinions with no reason whatsoever. I told you of some serious problems to your view and you keep on ignoring them without any reason.

Perhaps the difficulty understanding your point is the use of risk to mean unknown. There can be faith with no risk as I have explained above. There is no need for faith when all of the variables are known.

I'll repost my comment where I say why this is wrong (you know, the one you keep on ignoring): "This contradicts Hebrews 11:1 and Alma 32:21 where in both it is clearly stated that faith is placed in things NOT SEEN, for one. Secondly, this makes "faith" ANY belief about anything, which is silly. 2+2=4 would be a statement of faith. Logical inferences would also be faith-based. Statements about immediate experiences would be statements of faith. There would be no difference between the blind person who walks and he who is having his faith tested (look at the Indiana Jones analogy in the OP, please).Look at the cases of "tests of faith" in the scriptures and you will find one common link: the test of faith required a risky situation. Abraham killing Isaac was a test of faith because that went against what Abraham thought as good or prudent or desirable. Let's say Abraham cooked dinner whenever needed. If the commandment would have been to cook dinner whenever needed for a week that would not have been a test of faith since he was going to do it anyways and didn't present any risk at all or any danger. Killing your son is an act of faith PRECISELY because you see moral danger but you choose to trust in God. "

Ether 3:19And because of the ^aknowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the ^bveil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had ^cfaith no longer, for he knew, nothing ^ddoubting.

Thank you. This perfectly illustrates what I'm saying and goes directly against what you are saying.

[KevinG]

I'll repost my comment where I say why this is wrong (you know, the one you

keep on ignoring): "This contradicts Hebrews 11:1 and Alma 32:21 where in both

it is clearly stated that faith is placed in things NOT SEEN, for one.

Your inability to understand my response does not mean I ignored your question.

Very simply you are confusing concept of "risk" with the concept of "unknown" thus making your definition of faith problematic. Not all unknowns equate to risk.

We have faith in the unknown until it is known and therefore need no faith. Re-read the brother of Jared quote, I think you misunderstood it. It fits quite well with my explaination.

Have a good night.

[elguanteloko]

Your inability to understand my response does not mean I ignored your question.

Very simply you are confusing concept of "risk" with the concept of "unknown" thus making your definition of faith problematic. Not all unknowns equate to risk.

I have no idea where you are getting the "unknown" from. Risk means the option you choose is NOT the most likely thing to be correct. The most likely thing to be correct is not the "known" because you don't know all throughout what the correct option is. All you know is that some seem more likely to be correct than other ones. If you choose one that is not the most likely AND YOU REALIZE THIS then you are having faith. If you choose the most likely AND YOU REALIZE THAT, then you are not having faith. If you choose something without any sense of risk then you are not having any faith.

We have faith in the unknown until it is known and therefore need no faith.

... no need of faith AFTER you know. That's 100% consistent with what I'm saying, brother! My definition of faith clearly and unproblematically allows for this but the definition of faith you gave (which included as faith ALL beliefs) does NOT allow for "no faith after knowledge since knowledge is also a type of belief.

Re-read the brother of Jared quote, I think you misunderstood it. It fits quite well with my explaination.

Saying all beliefs are faith-based is against saying you don't have faith after you know since knowledge is also a type of belief (a "justified and true" one, as traditionally conceived). Your use of faith goes against the verse you quoted for that very reason. Mine is perfectly consistent.

Have a good night.

you too.

Edited June 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Stargazer]

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

I think I get where you're going with it, and I don't think that your definition is necessarily wrong. I think you have framed it in high-octane verbiage, however, and gave it thus a philosophy-of-men-mingled-with-scripture look and feel.

When you say that a particular belief isn't necessarily the MOST likely explanation, I do understand that you're doing something to the effect of looking at a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the human race and comparing it to the God-created-Man-in-His-image explanation. Since, to you, it is most likely that the naturalistic explanation is the correct explanation, this would square quite nicely with your proposition.

However, I do not regard the naturalistic as the most likely explanation, and thus your proposition seems quite backwards. Others who have found your definition of faith to be flawed are likely of the same outlook.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Stargazer

[elguanteloko]

However, I do not regard the naturalistic as the most likely explanation, and thus your proposition seems quite backwards. Others who have found your definition of faith to be flawed are likely of the same outlook.

Do you think the explanation for why grandma's cancer went away is because a super-powerful being cured her with his power is the most likely explanation you can think of?

I'm not asking if you believe grandma's cancer was cured by God's power, I'm asking whether it is the most parsimonious thing to believe.

I haven't met anyone who didn't admit after careful consideration that this wasn't the most likely thing to believe. What do you think?

Edited June 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[CV75]

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.

I think I get it, but I don’t buy that faith is assessed by the many reasons not to take the step and not by actually taking the step. Faith is in taking the step. Doubt and fear prevent taking the step. The level of risk one might assess determines neither faith nor fear, but is formulated, affected and applied by a person exercising faith or fear.

The same principle applies in revelation trumping experience; that faith of a mustard grain is all it takes; and that the voice of the Lord is not in the wind, the earthquake, or the fire, but in the still small voice. Faith is not measured by the drama around it.

[Ahab]

Risk means the option you choose is NOT the most likely thing to be correct.

No, risk means the option you choose could be wrong, whether or not the option you choose is what you consider to be the most likely option. Even the option someone believes is the most likely option can be the wrong option, and NOT really the most likely option, FYI. You don't seem to be taking that into consideration.

When I exercise faith I believe I know more than I don't know about whatever my faith is based on with risk thus kept at a minimum, at least in my perspective. Does that qualify as "faith" in your perspective? I'm thinking it doesn't, in your perspective, because you seem to think it's not faith unless risk is at the maximum. To me, and most other people I know, it's still counts as faith, though.

The most likely thing to be correct is not the "known" because you don't know all throughout what the correct option is.

Yes, but my faith is still based on the things I do know while I know I don't see the complete picture.

That's what someone like Indiana Jones thinks when he makes a step like that off of a cliff. He doesn't know exactly what will prevent him from falling, and he may even feel there is a chance he will fall if his faith in God isn't well founded, but he will still take that step based on his faith he won't fall because he'll have faith that most likely God will save him from falling.

All you know is that some seem more likely to be correct than other ones.

Yes, and when I exercise faith I am choosing what I see to be the MOST likely choice out of all of the options I see and while knowing that I don't see everything.

If you choose one that is not the most likely AND YOU REALIZE THIS then you are having faith.

Perhaps, but in my perspective, that is an example of a reckless faith, rather than the type of faith of rational people. In my perspective, everything I have faith in I have faith in because I believe it is based on the most rational choice.

If you choose the most likely AND YOU REALIZE THAT, then you are not having faith.

In my perspective, I am, because what I consider to be the most likely isn't necessarily the correct option, even though I feel sure that it is.

If you choose something without any sense of risk then you are not having any faith.

I accept that much of what you are saying. That's the difference between a choice based on faith and a choice based on knowledge, in my perspective. And when I know something, I usually know that I know only in part.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Ahab

[Nemesis]

I made several points, DG, and you didn't address them at all and just chose to ignore them. Come on, man.

Making people follow you down rabbit holes is not a discussion. Tone it down.

Nemesis

[Ahab]

Come back, elguanteloko, come back, and let us see when you've seen the light!

[elguanteloko]

I think I get it, but I don’t buy that faith is assessed by the many reasons not to take the step and not by actually taking the step.

I don't quite see what you mean by "assessed". Faith is to be faith when those conditions are present, the conditions being "to realize the option you trust on (or are going to trust on) is not the most likely explanation". If you don't take the "leap of faith" then you obviously don't have faith. If you don't trust in a less-likely option then you also don't have faith.

Faith is in taking the step. Doubt and fear prevent taking the step.

Again, you can TRUST 100% in your option and STILL realize that option is not the most likely thing to be the case by all best accounts. The whole point of trusting in someone or something is because there's a bridge between what we see and a goal of some sort. The bridge is trust. If there is no difference between what you see and the goal OR you go with the best option to reach there, then those things are not faith or trust.

The level of risk one might assess determines neither faith nor fear, but is formulated, affected and applied by a person exercising faith or fear.

What I'm saying is that a risk determines IF IT IS faith or not (and you have to realize that risk, btw, in some form or another). If you see no risk in crossing the bridge (following the Indiana Jones movie analogy here) then you can't have faith that you can cross the bridge. If you DO see a risk (in the sense that if you do something, the result is not the most likely thing to follow) in crossing the bridge and you realize that to try to cross it and survive is NOT the most likely thing to happen (EVEN IF YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS ONE), then you CAN have faith that you will cross the bridge and you will survive (since it isn't the most likely thing to happen, or so you think).

The same principle applies in revelation trumping experience; that faith of a mustard grain is all it takes; and that the voice of the Lord is not in the wind, the earthquake, or the fire, but in the still small voice. Faith is not measured by the drama around it.

"by the drama around it" is a misleading way of saying it. It is about the possibilities YOU REALIZE when going to trust in something. "Objectively", though, you may be completely wrong about the possibilities you assign to several events and then saying "THIS is the most likely" when it really is not the most likely. If you are wrong, however, that does NOT matter since you are having trust in what you see as an unlikely option.

[elguanteloko]

Making people follow you down rabbit holes is not a discussion. Tone it down.

Nemesis

I would imagine pointing to the fact that someone ignored a big chunk of a post that answered the questions was important for discussion so they don't miss that next time. I guess I'm wrong.

Arguing with the moderators is not a good idea. You are free to present your ideas but you may not badger or belittle other posters for disagreeing with you. - Ares

[elguanteloko]

No, risk means the option you choose could be wrong, whether or not the option you choose is what you consider to be the most likely option.

Right. Even the "most likely option" from amongst the possible options may be extremely risky. I meant risky, however, in the relation between one option to the others, not in the relation between an option and the final goal or what is trying to be explained since there may be an incredibly big gap between them in cases where every explanation seems unlikely though one of them must be the case.

Even the option someone believes is the most likely option can be the wrong option, and NOT really the most likely option, FYI. You don't seem to be taking that into consideration.

I've always been speaking of "less likely" and "more likely" options which implies a relationship amongst themselves (amongst the options). That's all I've been talking about. That an option could be wrong is irrelevant. If choice A has 99.99999% of being right while option B has 0.00001%, option A could STILL be the wrong option but that's not the point of probability. Faith would be if you opt for option B and say "This is the right one!" based on trust though you realize (and HAVE to realize) that it doesn't have much chances of being the right one. Once you know what the right answer is, however, you can NOT have faith anymore since you already know. If you go with option A you also (and realize the probabilities I mentioned) can't have faith in option A since you know it is the most likely. Choosing A is just the best you can do, no trust needed.

When I exercise faith I believe I know more than I don't know about whatever my faith is based on with risk thus kept at a minimum, at least in my perspective. Does that qualify as "faith" in your perspective? I'm thinking it doesn't, in your perspective, because you seem to think it's not faith unless risk is at the maximum.

This is where the "degrees of faith" problem come in. The least likely you see the option you trust on to be (in relation to the most likely option), the more faith you have if you indeed trust in that option you choose. The closer the likelihood of that option to the most likely option, the lesser the faith (if you choose the most likely then you can't have faith at that point). You can think of the most likely option as a line with a bunch of small stones at different distances apart from it on one side (each stone is a different explanation or choice and the distance is the likelihood in relation to the line). The further to the line the stone you pick is, the greater your faith since you need more trust to do so because they have progressively less chances of being correct.

You said that I seemed to be thinking that it's not faith unless the risk is at a maximum and I think you can see now that that is NOT the case. You are thinking that faith is ONLY to pick the furthest stone from the line (with trust) but that is obviously not what I'm talking about. To form the least likely option you would require an infinite number of assumptions.

To me, and most other people I know, it's still counts as faith, though.

Faith to people is a bunch of uses without much reflection directed to them. That one can come up with a different view of faith (or systematize all those uses of faith) when you think about it shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Yes, but my faith is still based on the things I do know while I know I don't see the complete picture.

To "not see the complete picture" is to see a picture anyways. That is the only picture you can work with be it the "complete" or not.

That's what someone like Indiana Jones thinks when he makes a step like that off of a cliff. He doesn't know exactly what will prevent him from falling, and he may even feel there is a chance he will fall if his faith in God isn't well founded, but he will still take that step based on his faith he won't fall because he'll have faith that most likely God will save him from falling.

Saying that "Indiana MAY fall" means nothing. Almost everything "may or may not be". This offers no information whatsoever. All you are saying here are tautologies.

Yes, and when I exercise faith I am choosing what I see to be the MOST likely choice out of all of the options I see and while knowing that I don't see everything.

then you can't have faith because this requires no trust in anything. You work with what you have or understand and to say you "probably don't see the whole picture" is ABSOLUTELY useless.

Perhaps, but in my perspective, that is an example of a reckless faith, rather than the type of faith of rational people. In my perspective, everything I have faith in I have faith in because I believe it is based on the most rational choice.

In my perspective, I am, because what I consider to be the most likely isn't necessarily the correct option, even though I feel sure that it is.

NO ONE is saying even the "most likely option" is FOR SURE the correct one. No one. If you know what is the correct option FOR SURE then that's it, end of the game, you already know. There's nothing to have faith upon in that case since now you know.

I accept that much of what you are saying.

you can only say this if you don't see what I'm saying.

That's the difference between a choice based on faith and a choice based on knowledge, in my perspective. And when I know something, I usually know that I know only in part.

Knowing "only in part" is the whole point of chances and trust and likelihood and everything I've been saying faith is. If you "know the whole picture" then you don't need to have faith in anything since you know what the right answer is already.

When discussing what faith is and bring up that you don't know "the whole picture" is like discussing the life of Poe and bringing up the quality of paper the biography is written on.