Scepticism and Faith

[Qoeleth]

It would seem that at least some degree of Scepticism is a necessary pre-condition of Faith. If a person says he or she kno****ws for sure God exists, then, in fact, they are not exhibiting faith- but knowledge (or supposed knowledge). Even if they hold that God probably exists, ‘faith’ would therefore not be ‘faith’, but rather a decision to go with a probable hypothesis. And that does not seem to be the same as the virtue called Faith.

Epistemological uncertainty seems to be necessary and constitutive condition of Faith. If we are Sceptical about God (i.e. we do not assert either His existence [or non-existence] is certain or even probable), then we have room for faith- a commitment to live and hope for something which we do not know for sure.

So it seems that, not only are Scepticism and Faith compatible, but indeed, the greater the Scepticism (epistemological non-determination), the greater the merit of Faith.

Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection says much the same thing, that Faith is greater where the evidence against it is strongest.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I think you are right, that faith requires that you do not know through any conventional means of “knowing.”

Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.

I can “know” something either of at least two ways, by “seeing” or by “faith.” Those who see are like Thomas, and well Thomas became a saint, didn’t he? And those who do not see but believe, “know” through faith – and blessed are they.

By “seeing” I include pretty much all conventional means of demonstrating something is true, seeing, feeling, hearing, logical arguments, etc. If these are in place so that your worldly, carnal mind is satisfied that something is true, then it is by sight and not faith we know something, in my use of the terms in this post.

Of course there is nothing wrong with faith turning to sight. The more things that I hold in faith and then they prove themselves to me, the more it builds my faith in those things I have not yet seen.

Honestly I think I have very little “pure” faith. I doubt all the time. Even stuff I’m not supposed to doubt or honestly do not by any means want to doubt.

I don’t even take “what is real” for granted, largely due to my having experienced some very different states of mind than psychology can deal with. So it’s just about impossible for me to think of something I “know” through faith, so strongly I’m willing to claim it as my own information. For example, I say the creed with other people, but honestly there are parts that I would write differently if I were speaking from my heart and not out of obedience to tradition.

Alan

 

[danserr]

It would seem that at least some degree of Scepticism is a necessary pre-condition of Faith. If a person says he or she kno****ws for sure God exists, then, in fact, they are not exhibiting faith- but knowledge (or supposed knowledge). Even if they hold that God probably exists, ‘faith’ would therefore not be ‘faith’, but rather a decision to go with a probable hypothesis. And that does not seem to be the same as the virtue called Faith.

Epistemological uncertainty seems to be necessary and constitutive condition of Faith. If we are Sceptical about God (i.e. we do not assert either His existence [or non-existence] is certain or even probable), then we have room for faith- a commitment to live and hope for something which we do not know for sure.

So it seems that, not only are Scepticism and Faith compatible, but indeed, the greater the Scepticism (epistemological non-determination), the greater the merit of Faith.

Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection says much the same thing, that Faith is greater where the evidence against it is strongest.

It depends which sense of the word “faith” you are using and what we mean by faith? Is it a matter of the intellect or the will?

In its most important sense, faith is not simply a matter of belief, but a matter of the commitment of one’s entire being to God. Certainly, this is compatible with have excellent evidence for belief, even approaching near certainty.

That being said, I do think there is also a sense in which you are right. Suppose a friend of mine is arrested for murder and all the evidence is against him such that he is sure to be found guilty. Yet knowing him, I believe that he is innocent. It seems that my merit in believing his innocence is greater the more the evidence is against him.

 

[Taestron]

It would seem that at least some degree of Scepticism is a necessary pre-condition of Faith. If a person says he or she kno****ws for sure God exists, then, in fact, they are not exhibiting faith- but knowledge (or supposed knowledge). Even if they hold that God probably exists, ‘faith’ would therefore not be ‘faith’, but rather a decision to go with a probable hypothesis. And that does not seem to be the same as the virtue called Faith.

Epistemological uncertainty seems to be necessary and constitutive condition of Faith. If we are Sceptical about God (i.e. we do not assert either His existence [or non-existence] is certain or even probable), then we have room for faith- a commitment to live and hope for something which we do not know for sure.

So it seems that, not only are Scepticism and Faith compatible, but indeed, the greater the Scepticism (epistemological non-determination), the greater the merit of Faith.

Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection says much the same thing, that Faith is greater where the evidence against it is strongest.

Why do you separate knowledge and faith so radically? It seems to me that faith is the foundation for all our knowledge. As Descartes once said, the only thing I cannot doubt is that I doubt. I think therefore I am. Yet this conclusion is only valid if one takes the laws of logic on faith. Now of course there is evidence to suggest that logic is valid, however, if one accepts evidence, then he/she is also accepting the validity of inductive reasoning which can only done through faith. So it should be clear that all forms of knowledge contain an element of faith. Put another way, faith is a source of knowledge (this proposition can only be accepted through faith ) In short, I do not accept your distinction between faith and knowledge because the only way to have any sort of certainty is through faith. So while I agree with your premise that “epistemological uncertainty is a necessary and constitutive condition of Faith” I fail to see how this really says anything meaningful.

 

[Actaeon]

It would seem that at least some degree of Scepticism is a necessary pre-condition of Faith. If a person says he or she kno****ws for sure God exists, then, in fact, they are not exhibiting faith- but knowledge (or supposed knowledge). Even if they hold that God probably exists, ‘faith’ would therefore not be ‘faith’, but rather a decision to go with a probable hypothesis. And that does not seem to be the same as the virtue called Faith.

Epistemological uncertainty seems to be necessary and constitutive condition of Faith. If we are Sceptical about God (i.e. we do not assert either His existence [or non-existence] is certain or even probable), then we have room for faith- a commitment to live and hope for something which we do not know for sure.

So it seems that, not only are Scepticism and Faith compatible, but indeed, the greater the Scepticism (epistemological non-determination), the greater the merit of Faith.

Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection says much the same thing, that Faith is greater where the evidence against it is strongest.

I agree with the first scenario: that knowledge and faith are two different things… we don’t say we know God, we say we believe in God. It’s funny that the bible addresses this so extensively, if in a subtle manner… blessed are those who have not seen and have believed), and yet it’s still a common complaint in aggressive atheism (“How can you rationally say that you KNOW God exists???” … we don’t make that claim anyway)

On the second point, I disagree, but I ascribe to a philosophy called the passion of the faith.

That is to say, that the Christian has a duty to study their faith, and that God has left compelling if not conclusive evidence towards His existence. However, the more we study, the more we realize that we have NOT reached the level of epistemological knowledge, and the more we realize that we CANNOT ever get there. This introduces a struggle of doubt (contained in the “why can’t I KNOW?” question) and therefore introduces a passion: a struggle to maintain faith in the face of a greater collection of compelling evidence balanced against a greater awareness of the distance that will always exist between epistemological knowledge and our current belief… and that passion defines faith.

So to say that the more we believe there is no evidence for God the more that we are able to exibit faith is, I feel, incorrect, so much as it is the more we realize that there will never be FULL knowledge (which in itself requires a different kind of skepticism than mere supression of disbelief).