The Lord of the Rings

[Betterave]

Of course we always have beliefs. What I’m arguing is that faith and belief are different dimensions of experience. While beliefs may be understerstood as habits of action, all habits of action and all human experience are not necessarily exhausted by beliefs. I’m not saying that we don’t also need to have good beliefs. I’m saying that conflating beliefs with faith can be an impediment to having faith as well as to having good beliefs. It is an impediment to having faith because people may think that they have accomplished all the spiritual work possible by simply holding the right beliefs.

Okay, but what does simply holding the right beliefs (i.e., having the right habits of action(?)) mean? You’ve established a verbal difference between this and having faith, but as the Boromir example has shown, the verbal difference you’re trying to establish dissolves when the reality is examined. I’m suggesting that the difference between faith and belief as dimensions of experience is established (merely) conceptually - but it dissolves in life.

They may think that they have faith when they are still anxious and have really only assented intellectually to a certain set of facts. It is an impediment to belief because beliefs may be accepted dogmatically rather than provisionally and open to new and better beliefs.

But the rejection of dogmas, the insistence that everything is provisional, can be dogmatic. And smug. Indeed, it very often is.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t have any problem with religious practices that help people to be better more loving individuals. My objection is to the dogmatism that so often accompanies such practices which divides rather than unites us. In this thread I am objecting specifically to the “I have something that you don’t have”-smugness of many believers who seem to me to actually have little of the sort of faith I am interested in. I object to being viewed as somehow lacking by such people, and I object most of all to being viewed as morally objectionable by such people because of my lack of belief in religious dogma.

Best,
Leela

If we think of faith as the ability to believe that the future should reward our efforts to accomplish a task, whether that involves planning to build a doghouse that’ll end up serving its purpose, or furthering an altruistic goal-or an evil one for that matter- it could be said that none of us would even bother trying if we thought the task couldn’t be done. But if we narrow this to speak only of accomplishing positive goals, and I think we can often agree on what the definition of a “positive goal” is, then we’re contemplating the notion that there might be a loftier meaning and purpose to what we do.

But in any case, I have a hard time believing that the religious tendency of the vast majority of mankind throughout history doesn’t* point* to the transcendent-that man gropes towards something that he doesn’t know so well but senses exists, and that this “something” is bigger and more powerful than him-and in control of his fate in some way that he obviously isn’t. While some of man’s deities don’t offer much to admire or place ones hope in, faith and hope in the future is nevertheless a part of this groping-and if nothing else reflects a notion that at least some amount of reason is at the helm. And in the same vein, while a belief in some form of afterlife could be placed under the rubric of wishful thinking, it might just as well be the result of an innate human sense that there’s something deeper about life than mere science can provide answers for and that justice and goodness and reason are realities of their own that demand that a rational creature would not be left without a reason for his existence and the possibility of continued existence.

We don’t know where we came from, if anywhere, what we’re here for, if anything, and where we’re going, if anywhere. This condition pretty well describes what Christianity means by the term “lost”. A rational being can’t help but ask questions and I think some of those questions need answers for them to be truly at peace in the world. But these answers pretty well = beliefs, truths proposed to place one’s faith in.

Maybe the truth is that any general faith we have in the meaning and purpose of life could actually coincide with a more specific or fact-based faith but our own fear of coming off as arrogantly dogmatic keeps us from taking a more serious look.

 

[Betterave]

Leela wrote:
“You are correct that if the beliefs upon which you’ve built your faith turn out to actually be true, there is no problem. One who’s faith relies on such beliefs [1] must always hope that her beliefs are never shown to be false and [2] must deny any evidence and arguments that put her beliefs in question. I would think that this would represent a sort of anxiety which is the opposite of faith or a desire to not know what is true in case your beliefs turn out to be false.”

Leela,
I wonder if your making claims [1] and [2] betrays a sort of anxiety about believing which is the opposite of faith. A person of faith would say, instead of your [1]: “will hope that her beliefs are not shown to be false (not that it’s something she will dwell on - this would be destructive to faith)”; and instead of your [2]: “should treat any evidence and arguments that put her beliefs in question as opportunities for testing and growth.” You seem to be in quest of indestructible faith, super-human faith, infallible faith - why? Why not be content with believing faith, that can be challenged, that could conceivably fail, and accept that as your lot? I think that would deserve to be called the courage to be, rather than making yourself invulnerable - invulnerability would be inhuman and would remove the need for courage.