What is Faith? A Clarification of Defintion

[De_Maria]

I only know if someone has faith if it is divinely revealed to me.
However, you are giving me an example of someone who was presented logic and refused to believe.

No. I’m giving you examples of believers who refused to accept any further evidence and convert to the Faith of Christ. Notice how St. Paul argued with them, logically:

Acts 17:1 When they took the road through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they reached Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Following his usual custom, Paul joined them, and for three sabbaths he entered into discussions with them from the scriptures, 3 expounding and demonstrating that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead, and that “This is the Messiah, Jesus, whom I proclaim to you.”

I have no beef there.

Neither wil I.

You kept accusing me of arguing against those who believe by “intellect alone”. I wasn’t doing that, but now it turns out that it is your position?

Hm? Are you just being argumentative?

Anyone who has access to the testimony of the prophets and documentation of Christ’s fulfillment.
Anyone presented with testimony from reliable witnesses. Anyone who reads Thomas’s “proofs”. Anyone who experiences a miracle or learns of a convincing one. Anyone who reads a “Case for …” book.

That’s evidence. Not proof. If it were proof, the whole world would have converted by now.

“Proof”, by definition, either establishes certainty or helps to that end.

Apparently, many people have looked at the things you consider proof, and they weren’t convinced. So, perhaps you ought to be using another word.

If You like the word evidence better, I’m fine with that.

Yes, it would be better. But people are free to set evidence aside. And that is what has happened throughout history.

So “not blameworthy” is the same as “virtuous”?

Yes. Being free of sin is virtuous.

So every single person who calls himself a Chrisitan, a member of our faith, should be presumed to “have faith”? Every single Jew?

In general, Christians and Jews are considered faithful. Whether that is true individually, is a totally different question.

 

[omgriley]

“You talk as if trust were not a rational capacity. It clearly does involve both will and intellect. This is why trust is not a reasonable thing to ask of a person you have continually betrayed, and it is not a reasonable thing to give to a person who has betrayed you. I do not deny that trust is predicated on certain beliefs, in other words. I’m just saying that the trust – the faith – is something that you DO with the beliefs. It is not merely having the belief that God exists, or is trustworthy. The devil has that!”

OK, it seems that we’re getting lost in translation. And if that’s my fault, I apologize.

If I understand you right, trust is the accepting of beliefs proposed to you by someone else (God). In this case, trust, belief, accent are all basically interchangeable.

“I believe you. I trust you. I accent to your proposition.”

To me, at least in theory, it seems that one can trust something by use of the will, without necessarily intellectually recognizing the truth of the thing. The act of trust resides in the will, not the intellect.

If by “trust” you mean accepting the proposed beliefs because God has given you the grace to recognize their truthfulness, then that is ipso facto Faith. In this sense, supernatural Faith and trust in God are indeed the same thing.

I can definitely take the fault if I didn’t understand you correctly.

-Owen

 

[Tarsier]

No. I’m giving you examples of believers who refused to accept any further evidence and convert to the Faith of Christ

Right. De_Maria, have I ever claimed that people will infallibly be persuaded by evidence or logic? Ever in this entire thread? If not, then why is this argument useful? This is not the case I’m making.

You kept accusing me of arguing against those who believe by “intellect alone”. I wasn’t doing that, but now it turns out that it is your position?

My position is this: “Faith”, as defined by the Church, is not meant to mean believe in a god without any logical or evidential reason for it. Faith is a supernatural virtue that allows us to believe, but works in cooperation with our rational minds. It is an assent to what God has revealed.

That’s evidence. Not proof.

It is proof if sufficient to establish belief, but I’m happy to concede that I should have used the word evidence.

Yes, it would be better. But people are free to set evidence aside. And that is what has happened throughout history.

Absolutely. Again, have I ever claimed otherwise? Have I ever said that evidence, without the virtue of faith, would convince someone into belief?

Yes. Being free of sin is virtuous.

No, being “without blame” is virtue-neutral. For instance, a family near where I live died in their sleep because someone had left the car running overnight in the garage. It was determined to be an accident. Supposing it was, the person who left it running was “without blame” in the same sense of someone who is invincibly ignorant of arguments for God. Was it, therefore, a virtuous act?

In general, Christians and Jews are considered faithful. Whether that is true individually, is a totally different question.

I agree. So I’ll refrain from answering because it is for God to determine someone’s faith, not me.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If by “trust” you mean accepting the proposed beliefs because God has given you the grace to recognize their truthfulness, then that is ipso facto Faith. In this sense, supernatural Faith and trust in God are indeed the same thing.

No, I think we genuinely disagree. I don’t think that trust/faith is “accepting” anything. I think faith is LEANING ON someone, namely God. “Acceptance” is what a belief is, basically. Faith proceeds from certain types of acceptance, for example from the acceptance that there is a decent amount of evidence that God exists. But faith itself, since it is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen”, steps beyond one’s beliefs. If it were cognitive in the way that you say, it would hardly be the substance of things HOPED for. We do not hope for things that we are intellectually certain of.

Moreover, do you realize what the NT Greek word for “faith” is? It is “pistis”. This means “trust”, historically, and in pretty much any other context in 1st century Greek.

Now if you want to say that it is possible to trust something without recognizing its efficacy, yeah, you have a point there. But I don’t think it means that trust is not cognitive; it just means that people can make cognitive mistakes. I cannot imagine someone trusting someone or something without BELIEVING this being was trustworthy. Even if they act like they believe, this would appear to be self-sabotage or living in denial, not belief.

 

[De_Maria]

Right. De_Maria, have I ever claimed that people will infallibly be persuaded by evidence or logic? Ever in this entire thread? If not, then why is this argument useful? This is not the case I’m making.

You’re not making a coherent case. I never said that you "claimed that people will infallibly be persuaded by evidence or logic? "

So, I can simply ask the questions back at you:

Have I ever said that? Ever in this entire thread? If not, then why is this argument useful? This is not the case I’m making.

My position is this: “Faith”, as defined by the Church, is not meant to mean believe in a god without any logical or evidential reason for it. Faith is a supernatural virtue that allows us to believe, but works in cooperation with our rational minds. It is an assent to what God has revealed.

And where do you see the passing on of faith by word of mouth, from father to son, generation to generation? Does it fit in your model?

It is proof if sufficient to establish belief, but I’m happy to concede that I should have used the word evidence.

Ok.

Absolutely. Again, have I ever claimed otherwise? Have I ever said that evidence, without the virtue of faith, would convince someone into belief?

You suggested that when you used the word, “proof”, which you’ve corrected, above.

No, being “without blame” is virtue-neutral.

That’s only your opinion. But the Catholic Church says:

Philippians 2:15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation,[a] among whom you shine like lights in the world,

So, if it is one of our goals, to be blameless, then it must be a virtue.

For instance, a family near where I live died in their sleep because someone had left the car running overnight in the garage. It was determined to be an accident. Supposing it was, the person who left it running was “without blame” in the same sense of someone who is invincibly ignorant of arguments for God. Was it, therefore, a virtuous act?

In this case, it was simply an accident. But, if one seeks to obey and to live without conflict, and thus remains blameless, that is a virtue. Therefore, the individual who seeks to obey his parents and teachers and learns his Vishnu faith based upon his desire to do the right thing in accordance to what he regards as the righteous thing. For him, that is a virtue in the eyes of God.

I agree. So I’ll refrain from answering because it is for God to determine someone’s faith, not me.

[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t make sense. I said:

In general, Christians and Jews are considered faithful. Whether that is true individually, is a totally different question.

I don’t see where you got the impression that you were supposed to determine the faithfulness of individuals, as though you were supposed to judge their souls.

 

[omgriley]

“No, I think we genuinely disagree.”

Well that’s a shame. My friend, Faith is not merely an act of the will, or leaning on someone. That sounds very poetic, but it’s not faith and it isn’t a very good definition. God infuses the grace into our soul to recognize (via the intellect) that the teachings about Him and our relation to Him are true. We simply cannot know that God is Triune, for example, without Him revealing that to us. Then we can accept his revelations in the will, or deny them. If we accept, then we have faith.

This is the understanding of Thomas Aquinas and the Church.

God Bless,

-Owen Riley

 

[Tarsier]

You’re not making a coherent case. I never said that you "claimed that people will infallibly be persuaded by evidence or logic? "

So, I can simply ask the questions back at you:

Have I ever said that? Ever in this entire thread? If not, then why is this argument useful? This is not the case I’m making.

You have provided, over and over, examples of people who refused to believe despite being presented with powerful evidence. I guess I’m confused as to what statement of mine this disproves. Please clarify.

If I’m misrepresenting you, then I apologize. Here’s how we clear this up. I’m stating that it is not in accord with the Church’s definition of faith to say that one can have faith that God exists, even if that person has no evidence or logical argument for the existence of God. When I stated this earlier, your response was to characterize such a faith as “blind” faith and to say you accept it as genuine faith. However, I’m asking what the Church defines it as.

Again, though, please clarify which statement of mine warrant all your examples of people who reject evidence or logic, as I am not claiming either is irresistible to the human mind.

And where do you see the passing on of faith by word of mouth, from father to son, generation to generation? Does it fit in your model?

Instruction in the faith can be passed on, but faith itself is a gift from God. However, when I talk to my kids about God, I present reasons to believe he exists and hope that God will bless them with the theological virtue to accept it.

That’s only your opinion. But the Catholic Church says:

Philippians 2:15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation,[a] among whom you shine like lights in the world,

So, if it is one of our goals, to be blameless, then it must be a virtue.

Right, I agree. Seeking to do the right thing is a virtue. Choosing error is not, itself, a virtuous act. It is a mistake you made while attempting to be virtuous. However, I’ll cede this point. Let me ask it another way - would you say that the child’s belief in Vishnu is “faith” in the same way that your belief in Christ is? In that God, himself instilled that belief in him?

I don’t see where you got the impression that you were supposed to determine the faithfulness of individuals, as though you were supposed to judge their souls.

Because you asked me if I thought they had faith - those who rejected the message of Christ.

 

[De_Maria]

Here’s how we clear this up. I’m stating that it is not in accord with the Church’s definition of faith to say that one can have faith that God exists,

That certainly clears things up. Up to now, you have not said we are discussing, “faith that God exists”.

In fact, if we go back to a previous comment when we were discussing the Apostles, couldn’t we all assume that the 12 Apostles believed that God exists?

So, based on that, I’ll exit stage left. I think you and I are talking past each other.

 

[Tarsier]

Up to now, you have not said we are discussing, “faith that God exists”.

Except when I said it, in bold, in the opening post for this thread (which you quoted directly):

The definition that many Christians seem to hold, and which atheists assume is the default Christian definition of faith, seems to be something along these lines:

Faith is a belief in God without a requirement for proof of his existence.

If you missed that, no problem, but if that statement clears things up, you surely understand my frustration with you not realizing that this was the point of the whole thread. Though I’m happy to amend this statement to change proof (a word I chose because St. Thomas did) to evidence.

Anyway, thank you for the dialogue, and apologies for my part in the confusion.

EDIT: I take back my concession on the word “proof” after seeing that it is the prefered language of the Church for what we are discussing: “CCC #31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.”