Why is faith considered to be such a great virtue?

[tonyrey]

Recall that Abraham had faith up to the point of putting his son on a sacrificial altar. We find such faith admirable, but not the faith of parents who let their children die because of their faith.

If Abraham had killed his son we wouldn’t find such faith admirable!

 

[Gaber]

Faith is belief in something despite a lack of evidence, or evidence against it. I don’t see anything particularly good about this, yet many people think that it is a great virtue? Why is this?

Because consensus in beleif is safer in some ways than acknowledged ignorance as a way of life. Consensus tends to make things feel real. Reality itself is dangerous and impersonal. And yet at its base is infinite Love.

As one man said “the search for Reality is a dangerous undertaking: it will destroy your word.” Why? Because the “world” we live in is a parochial construct only cracked in some few places by glimmers of what actually IS. It takes persistent work to go through the inculcations of one’s trianing in beliefs of any kind. And if we do, castles and huts, landscapes, skies, lakes and rivers all change before our eyes. Yet they remain themselves, such as they are. We change, not the world. So as long as we idenify with being of the world, not just “in” it, it will collapse in kind and degree of our insights, and reveal itself anew.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I wasn’t contesting your examples. I was demonstrating that a overwhelming devotion to some God, cause, or other belief is not always considered virtuous. Recall that Abraham had faith up to the point of putting his son on a sacrificial altar. We find such faith admirable, but not the faith of parents who let their children die because of their faith. Why do you think a suicide bomber is able to kill himself? Is it not out of faith that his actions will accomplish something?

So tell me, how do we determine who is actually acting out of faith? What are the criteria? It seems to me that you simply disallow any example of faith which doesn’t seem virtuous.

So when you say faith is a virtue, you don’t mean that all faith is a virtue, only that your particular faith is a virtue. This is different than other virtues. There are no qualifications on the virtue of love, hope, or patience, are there?

But I think we will also agree that a suicide bombing is an example of someone totally committing themselves to God.

Oh, no, we won’t agree on that. God does not ask people to kill themselves and others in His name. That command comes from Satan, and Satan alone.

 

[danserr]

I wasn’t contesting your examples. I was demonstrating that a overwhelming devotion to some God, cause, or other belief is not always considered virtuous. Recall that Abraham had faith up to the point of putting his son on a sacrificial altar. We find such faith admirable, but not the faith of parents who let their children die because of their faith. Why do you think a suicide bomber is able to kill himself? Is it not out of faith that his actions will accomplish something?

.

But I agree with you that overwhelming devotion to some causes is not desirable. I have never contested that at all. We should be totally committed only to God, who revealed Himself in Jesus. A real total commitment to God could only be desirable.

The situation of Abraham is not comparable to a suicide bomber because Abraham trusted that God would return Isaac to him. Second, this faith in God was based on good knowledge. The suicide bomber lacks this good knowledge and so is mistaken.

The suicide bomber is not acting out of commitment to God, but instead the *mistaken *belief that God approves his actions. Sometimes not even that. It may amount to little more than hatred justified but not caused by belief in God.

So tell me, how do we determine who is actually acting out of faith? What are the criteria? It seems to me that you simply disallow any example of faith which doesn’t seem virtuous.

As a general rule (which I am willing to modify according to suggestions, belief without evidence can be virtuous (not just rational) when it involves trusting a person who we already know and have reason to trust on other grounds, yet the evidence may appear against him in this case.

For example, if a good friend is put on trial, but protests that he is innocent despite the evidence against him. Or if the evidence seemed heavily against Jesus rising, but Thomas should have known Jesus better.

So when you say faith is a virtue, you don’t mean that all faith is a virtue, only that your particular faith is a virtue. This is different than other virtues. There are no qualifications on the virtue of love, hope, or patience, are there?

Not at all. I mean faith, period, is a virtue. Faith in the wrong things is not faith any more than hope in the wrong things is not hope or “love” for the wrong reasons is not love.

A muslim suicide bomber may think that he has faith, but it in no way follows from this that he actually does anymore than a mother who spoils her children to the point she discourages them from moving out on their own really loves her children (though she thinks she does).

But I think we will also agree that a suicide bombing is an example of someone totally committing themselves to God.

We agree to no such thing.

At most this would show that a suicide bomber thinks he is committing himself to God, but he is simply mistaken. He is mistaken about his conception of God and what God wants. Hence, he is not committing himself to God as God actually is, only as he mistakenly thinks God is. In doing this, the suicide bomber acts on bad knowledge and against God’s moral laws as are written on the hearts of all men. Hence, he does not show faith and is morally responsible for his actions.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

If Abraham had killed his son we wouldn’t find such faith admirable!

Indeed, so as I said before, we only find faith virtuous when it is vindicated. Abraham didn’t obey God because he thought God was just testing him. Abraham was willing to kill his own son out of faith. Is that any different from parents who risk their children’s lives by withholding medical treatment out of faith? If the child recovers, we might even be tempted to call the recovery miraculous. However, if the child dies, we call it murder. Isn’t it the same faith in either case?

What if God told Abraham to make a suicide vest and wear it into the market, but at the last minute told him not to set it off?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The situation of Abraham is not comparable to a suicide bomber because Abraham trusted that God would return Isaac to him. Second, this faith in God was based on good knowledge. The suicide bomber lacks this good knowledge and so is mistaken.

Oh? I always understood the story of Abraham to say: “Abraham was willing to be obedient to God, to the point of being willing to kill his own son.” instead of “Abraham knew God wouldn’t have him kill Isaac, so Abraham just played along.”

 

[fhansen]

Oh? I always understood the story of Abraham to say: “Abraham was willing to be obedient to God, to the point of being willing to kill his own son.” instead of “Abraham knew God wouldn’t have him kill Isaac, so Abraham just played along.”

I think it’s relevant that, regardless of Abrahams’ faith, God knew that God wouldn’t have him kill Isaac.

 

[ASimon]

I think it’s relevant that, regardless of Abrahams’ faith, God knew that God wouldn’t have him kill Isaac.

Leaving aside the fact that there’s no textual evidence to support this assumption, what would’ve happened if Abraham had refused the test outright?

 

[Godmachine]

I think it’s relevant that, regardless of Abrahams’ faith, God knew that God wouldn’t have him kill Isaac.

So why did God ask Abraham to kill his son in the first place?

 

[Godmachine]

Leaving aside the fact that there’s no textual evidence to support this assumption, what would’ve happened if Abraham had refused the test outright?

Then there would be no story and the predominant religion today would be some form of sun worship.

 

[fhansen]

Leaving aside the fact that there’s no textual evidence to support this assumption, what would’ve happened if Abraham had refused the test outright?

The textual evidence is that God didn’t have Abraham kill Isaac. If Abraham refused, then His faith/trust in God would’ve been proved to be lacking.

 

[fhansen]

So why did God ask Abraham to kill his son in the first place?

To test his faith. But in spite of that the fact remains that God turns out to not be the kind of God that would have him kill his son.

 

[Godmachine]

To test his faith. But in spite of that the fact remains that God turns out to not be the kind of God that would have him kill his son.

Wait a sec…why would an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful God have to test someone’s faith this way? Why couldn’t he just look into Abraham’s heart/mind/whatever and see how faithful he was? Why torment the poor man the way he did? This is the same god that tells us what is “moral” and “good”? Then why does he act so immoral and evil?

 

[ASimon]

The textual evidence is that God didn’t have Abraham kill Isaac. If Abraham refused, then His faith/trust in God would’ve been proved to be lacking.

That God ultimately chose to spare Isaac says nothing about what his intent was prior to that choice. If Abraham had refused the test outright, why couldn’t God have killed him for disobeying Him?

If the point was to create an object lesson on the virtues of faith, striking down Abraham for insufficient faith could’ve easily done the job.

 

[nightranger]

Faith is belief in something despite a lack of evidence, or evidence against it. I don’t see anything particularly good about this, yet many people think that it is a great virtue? Why is this?

I don’t know. I think the same way as you. Perhaps it’s a craving for something after death, maybe to calm us as we leave this life.
But certainly I agree with you, there is no evidence to support this.

 

[Godmachine]

To test his faith. But in spite of that the fact remains that God turns out to not be the kind of God that would have him kill his son.

But he is the kind of god that would have Jephthah sacrifice his daughter.

 

[abucs]

First of all I see faith as in ‘being faithful’ not how modern atheism defines faith.

Secondly i see the Abraham / Isaac story as one where unlike Israel’s neighbours, God’s people are not to kill their children as sacrifice. Child sacrifice is not an acceptable or a good thing whether 3000 years ago or today through abortion.

Also this story, with all its horror and near personal tragedy parallels very closely the future Jesus.

In this future case however God does not spare ‘his Son/incarnation’ in order to establish the New Covenant with God’s people.

In the horror of the Isaac non-offering we see clearly the reality of the Jesus sacrificial offering.

God’s faith in humankind if you like and the challenge to respond in peace, humility and thanksgiving to that horrific sacrificial act.

 

[tonyrey]

But he is the kind of god that would have Jephthah sacrifice his daughter.

That was not due to the Will of God but folly on the part of Jephthah.

 

[tonyrey]

If the point was to create an object lesson on the virtues of faith, striking down Abraham for insufficient faith could’ve easily done the job.

God is the Creator not the Destroyer!

 

[danserr]

Oh? I always understood the story of Abraham to say: “Abraham was willing to be obedient to God, to the point of being willing to kill his own son.” instead of “Abraham knew God wouldn’t have him kill Isaac, so Abraham just played along.”

God had previously promised Abraham that God would make a great nation from Abraham through Isaac. Hence, for God’s promise to hold, Isaac would have to live and become the father of “a great nation.” God promised this repeatedly through himself.

Thus God’s test of Abraham was a test of his faith in God and God’s promise, and that God would keep his promise to make a great nation through Isaac. For this to happen God would have to either stop Abraham or raise Isaac or some other solution that involved Isaac coming through the affair alive.

Hence, it is reasonable to think that Abraham believed that God would either stop him or else raise Isaac afterwards.

You keep bringing up the suicide bomber as if it is relevant, but the suicide bomber has no reason for thinking that God would immediately raise the people he has killed. Big difference.

We’ve now gone far off topic in going into the Old Testament.

Leaving aside the fact that there’s no textual evidence to support this assumption, what would’ve happened if Abraham had refused the test outright?

Some scholars think that he would have incurred no guilt since reading the text carefully indicates that God knew the costliness of what he was asking. In this case, he would simply have failed to demonstrate his trust and dependance on God and would not have gained merit from the affair.

Otherwise, he might have incurred guilt and God simply would have chosen some other people