faith or belief first?

[wolfgang]

How is it we believe something or anything?

It seems to me faith comes after you decide or feel that you can belive something. but many say you need to have faith first. I would say that putting faith first before believing is not really faith - it's blind faith and not faith at all. It's a form of "trying out" a belief to see if it makes sense or feels right ot believe. Then the faith kicks in where what you believe is your faith that it feels right and will continue to be true to you and you can say, yup I believe that.

[Mark Lapierre]

How are you (and they) defining faith? If faith is the feeling of certainty in a specific belief, then the belief must come first, of course.

But if faith is a general tendency to believe in things for which there is no evidence (not including personal experience or authoritative assurance), belief follows faith. It's not necessarily blind faith unless it means believing everything (or at least everything stated by a particular authority)

I suspect you're asking the question because people frequently use the same word in those two contexts without making it clear what they mean.

In my opinion both forms of faith fall short of true validation of a belief. The former is too reliant on feelings which can very easily be misleading, and the latter inhibits questioning of suggestions which could very possibly be damaging.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

How are you (and they) defining faith? If faith is the feeling of certainty in a specific belief, then the belief must come first, of course.

I would like faith to mean your already believe something. One would have faith in their beliefs. But one would not have belief in their faiths.

But if faith is a general tendency to believe in things for which there is no evidence (not including personal experience or authoritative assurance), belief follows faith. It's not necessarily blind faith unless it means believing everything (or at least everything stated by a particular authority)

This is where I think faith is not operating. To call a tendancy to believe something, as faith, doesn't seem to make it fit as a precondition to belief, for me.

In my opinion both forms of faith fall short of true validation of a belief. The former is too reliant on feelings which can very easily be misleading,

Faith coming after belief may not be only feelings. But it probably is a personal conviction or experience that lead to having the belief. Once the belief is in place, we have faith that it is true and stays true and is reliable to use for influenceing one's actions.

and the latter inhibits questioning of suggestions which could very possibly be damaging.

This form of faith, that comes before believing, I don't see how to call it faith. Or faith has two meanings. I'd like to call this pre-belief faith as blind faith. It's blind because the belief is not really operating. We don't have the experience or personal conviction that something it true. And then we could end up following some path that doesn't question or get brain washed even, ha?

[Maguru]

To 'believe something' and to 'have a belief in something' are two different things. You don't need faith to believe anything that has evidence. You might need faith to believe the evidence, again a different thing.
Faith is quantifyable and shows how much or how little you believe your belief to be true. Faith is generally attached to a belief based in the unknown\uncertainty and queries the truth or validity of the belief.
No faith=no belief. Bit of faith=maybe true. Lot of faith=more than likely true. 100% faith=fact, in the individual, not neccessarily true.
I agree that feelings cannot be trusted to know if your faith is telling you the truth. However, faith is always based in a feeling and not thought. The feeling will be supported by thoughts but nevertheless, the core of faith for everyone of us is a feeling. Yikes! I think we are in trouble!

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

How are you (and they) defining faith? If faith is the feeling of certainty in a specific belief, then the belief must come first, of course.

But if faith is a general tendency to believe in things for which there is no evidence (not including personal experience or authoritative assurance), belief follows faith. It's not necessarily blind faith unless it means believing everything (or at least everything stated by a particular authority)

I suspect you're asking the question because people frequently use the same word in those two contexts without making it clear what they mean.

In my opinion both forms of faith fall short of true validation of a belief. The former is too reliant on feelings which can very easily be misleading, and the latter inhibits questioning of suggestions which could very possibly be damaging.

[Uplift]

For me, faith always comes first. Faith in myself. The faith to explore something and make my own decisions. Faith that if I make a mistake I will learn. Faith to be accountable for my own thoughts and actions. Faith to think for myself. Faith to take that first step and deal with whatever. By doing that, having that faith, I examine, form, change or get rid of belief.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Maguru

However, faith is always based in a feeling and not thought. The feeling will be supported by thoughts but nevertheless, the core of faith for everyone of us is a feeling. Yikes! I think we are in trouble!

I disagree with faith always being based on a feeling.

For me faith is based on critical thinking, common sense, past experience and intuition (some might consider this a gut feeling). It has to pass many tests for me to have 'faith' in a concept, proposition or theory.

[Mr Jody Hudson]

I love this discussion!

For me; first I must be looking that is researching into something whether it is physics, real estate (my profession) art or religion and philosophy.

Once I have begun my research which is pretty much every waking and lucid-dreaming moment; then I try to pay attention to my observations. That is to (“See what I see, not what I am told to see.”) really look and observe without ASSUMING. I think this point of Assuming while seeming, even to ourselves, to be Observing is a great source of trouble and disappointment for ourselves and others.

I like to continue looking, really looking, Observing to discern differences and agreements between what I observe and even what I have observed in the past and what I am finding in my research. Assuming, according to my empirical understanding is the bugaboo at all times, no matter what assumptions are made or rather jumped to.

At some point there comes a Certainty of my Observations and those observations were made because of my research so they are in a specific area. I may become certain that my observations agree with my research or not and from that greater and greater certainty evolves and continues to evolve as long as I maintain interest in the thing.

Ahh… and then after Certainty comes a Belief that the next time this Thing, this subject, is involved there will be a relation between the results of my research and the results of my observations and as the certainty increases with more and more examples then the Belief becomes stronger.

Eventually, I arrive at Faith in my Beliefs based upon beliefs in my certainties which are constantly reinforced with observations and continued research. IF, some conflicting data appears within my research or observations then I check it more thoroughly or dismiss it or add it to my data base and thus perhaps adjust my certainty and faith.

This is how I build (and sometimes adjust) my Faith, Beliefs and Certainties regarding my Observations and Research -- in the Truth of physics, real estate, art, religion and philosophy and other things…

[Maguru]

Yes faith is supported by critical thinking, common sense etc. We are not talking about 'blind' faith here. Supported faith may not seem like a feeling but it is. Faith is the indicator of how much we accept things to be true.

Originally Posted by ZHereford

I disagree with faith always being based on a feeling.

For me faith is based on critical thinking, common sense, past experience and intuition (some might consider this a gut feeling). It has to pass many tests for me to have 'faith' in a concept, proposition or theory.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

How are you (and they) defining faith? If faith is the feeling of certainty in a specific belief, then the belief must come first, of course.

But if faith is a general tendency to believe in things for which there is no evidence (not including personal experience or authoritative assurance), belief follows faith.

pretty close. By definition, faith is the belief in something which cannot be proven. Well, let me clarify that. Faith, in the religious context, is the belief in that which cannot be proven. We have no proof that any of the big hitters in the bible (Jesus, Noah, Moses, Mary, et al) ever walked the planet; no archaelogical evidence whatsoever, and yet we have plenty of archaelogical evidence of people predating them by hundreds of thousands of years.

In regards to faith in the religious context, you either have it, or you don't. My sister has it very strongly in the Roman Catholic sense. I have faith as well, but it doesn't really fit well with any specific religion; more of a free-form type of thing that I find extremely personal with my higher power, and that works very well for me indeed.

So in my opinion, as far as religion is concerned, belief in the religion is virtually synonymous with faith in the religion. They both serve to bolster the belief structure of the person involved, and any attempt to proof it with science would only serve to undermine the entire house of cards and get one second guessing one's self.

v

[Mark Lapierre]

It's clear that most of us in this thread define faith and belief differently. I wasn't attempting to define either, but rather describe two distinct ways in which the words are used, just to illustrate how either can come first.

However for an accurate definition I think valis came closest:

Originally Posted by valis

faith is the belief in something which cannot be proven. Well, let me clarify that. Faith, in the religious context, is the belief in that which cannot be proven.

Faith is a set of propositions considered self-evident

In other words, faith is confidence in the truth or validity of a proposition, a confidence which does not require verification and a truth which does not require explanation.

Belief is the acceptance of and conviction in the truth of a proposition, verified or otherwise. In other words belief and faith are interchangeable, but only if the thing in which belief or faith is placed has not been verified.

It's a matter of semantics; both have been treated as wholly interchangeable for a long time. Faith can be considered a subset of belief. Faith is belief considered self-evident.

Originally Posted by ZHereford

For me faith is based on critical thinking, common sense, past experience and intuition (some might consider this a gut feeling). It has to pass many tests for me to have 'faith' in a concept, proposition or theory.

Something is no longer solely self-evident if it has been analysed through critical thinking etc. While it is possible, and even beneficial, to apply logic and other means of verification to an object of faith, the resulting belief is no longer pure faith.

Originally Posted by Mr Jody Hudson

Eventually, I arrive at Faith in my Beliefs based upon beliefs in my certainties which are constantly reinforced with observations and continued research. IF, some conflicting data appears within my research or observations then I check it more thoroughly or dismiss it or add it to my data base and thus perhaps adjust my certainty and faith.

This is a great way of looking at the world, and one most likely to ensure belief in reality reflects reality itself. But here you've equated faith with certainty. However it's no longer pure faith (a self-evident proposition), but certainty through empirical verification.

Over time validation of a belief can create a certainty so strong that it is no longer questioned, and perhaps no longer needs to be questioned. This is when you might arrive at the certainty Uplift has shown:

Originally Posted by Uplift

For me, faith always comes first. Faith in myself. The faith to explore something and make my own decisions. Faith that if I make a mistake I will learn. Faith to be accountable for my own thoughts and actions. Faith to think for myself. Faith to take that first step and deal with whatever. By doing that, having that faith, I examine, form, change or get rid of belief.

But these propositions aren't self-evident. They are verified through an ongoing lifetime of evidence. No-one is born with that degree of confidence; it is instilled gradually as one learns that all of those statements are valid.

Eventually, as those propositions are proven valid over and over again we might stop questioning them, and so in our mind they appear self-evident. But they are not; their truth is evident through their ongoing validation.

Previously I described faith as a general tendency to believe in things for which there is no evidence. This isn't pure faith but rather a description of a personality trait. Only if a specific proposition becomes the focal point could it be called faith, and only then if the proposition is considered self-evident. (So I agree with you on that, wolfgang)

Originally Posted by valis

So in my opinion, as far as religion is concerned, belief in the religion is virtually synonymous with faith in the religion. They both serve to bolster the belief structure of the person involved, and any attempt to proof it with science would only serve to undermine the entire house of cards and get one second guessing one's self.

I don't think that's quite true. Undermining would only occur if a) science showed the belief to be wrong, or b) confidence in the validity of the belief was not very strong. Since most religious beliefs are stated in such a way that they can't be tested scientifically, there is no opportunity for science to falsify it. (also, if science shows that a belief does not reflect reality, and thus the house of cards is destabilised, was it really a stable house in the first place?)

[valis]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I don't think that's quite true. Undermining would only occur if a) science showed the belief to be wrong, or b) confidence in the validity of the belief was not very strong. Since most religious beliefs are stated in such a way that they can't be tested scientifically, there is no opportunity for science to falsify it. (also, if science shows that a belief does not reflect reality, and thus the house of cards is destabilised, was it really a stable house in the first place?)

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. One's belief structure is very near and dear to oneself; I know mine is, but I also know that mine doesn't fit well with any 'organized' religion out there. It's on a more personal level.

But back to the point at hand; faith is belief in that which is unprovable. To attempt to scientifically prove that could easily result in the confidence IN the belief structure to become suspect. For instance, let's take a long, hard look at the bible; there is evidence that supports it, but it is all secondary evidence. For the big hitters, there is nothing, no proof whatsoever. To attempt to prove that Noah built an ark x by y in size would result in failure; it's been tried, and the boat was simply too big and collapsed upon itself. Repeatedly.

At that point in time, you've conducted your scientific experiments to prove out your belief structure, and your belief structure came up lacking, for science certainly cannot. Science is the knowledge learned from tested and proven scientific method. This is why science and faith should never intertwine.

While I agree that many of the things stated in religious texts cannot be tested scientifically, there are things that are rather clearly drawn out, and Noah's ark was given rather specific dimensions that simply will not hold up in reality. Obviously, neither does the fact that he had two of each animal on the vessel, but that's neither here nor there. IMO, the ark was simply a metaphor for the church to show that the church can sustain mankind throughout whatever the world throws at it, but again, that's just my opinion.

Regardless, it's a discussion that can go round and round for quite some time, and no answer ever resolved. Everyone's faith is theirs to own and cherish; science is to be shared and learned from.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by valis

At that point in time, you've conducted your scientific experiments to prove out your belief structure, and your belief structure came up lacking, for science certainly cannot. Science is the knowledge learned from tested and proven scientific method. This is why science and faith should never intertwine.

I strongly suggest anyone who thinks this way read Michael's post. More than showing any inability to combine science and faith, your example shows a misunderstanding of the nature of proof, and of what science does. Note that I'm not saying you don't understand it, but that whoever conducts your hypothetical experiment with the intent of proving the Ark's existence certainly doesn't. I agree with you that's it's a pointless exercise, and a sure way to undermine one's beliefs.

Michael's post is a far more comprehensive treatment of the misunderstanding than I could give, but in very brief summary, science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by valis

Regardless, it's a discussion that can go round and round for quite some time, and no answer ever resolved.

Only as long as we don't agree on definitions, or disagree on self-evident propositions.

Originally Posted by valis

Everyone's faith is theirs to own and cherish; science is to be shared and learned from.

Agreed

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by valis

We have no proof that any of the big hitters in the bible (Jesus, Noah, Moses, Mary, et al) ever walked the planet; no archaelogical evidence whatsoever

You wouldn't have any archaelogical evidence of George Washington or William Shakespeare either, unless they were exceptionally well-preserved.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

But these propositions aren't self-evident. They are verified through an ongoing lifetime of evidence. No-one is born with that degree of confidence; it is instilled gradually as one learns that all of those statements are valid.

Eventually, as those propositions are proven valid over and over again we might stop questioning them, and so in our mind they appear self-evident. But they are not; their truth is evident through their ongoing validation.

Previously I described faith as a general tendency to believe in things for which there is no evidence. This isn't pure faith but rather a description of a personality trait. Only if a specific proposition becomes the focal point could it be called faith, and only then if the proposition is considered self-evident. (So I agree with you on that, wolfgang)

For some reason, you are judging all the comments on your particular outlook, and not rational, logical, academic thinking.

The Macquarie dictionary says;

'1. Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing.'

Despite what you may or may not like to add to that, there is no mention of, or reference to the confidence or trust needing to be learned, verified, supported or validated. By adding your own slant to it, virtually speaking your own langauge, you either ignore the dictionary, or feel it is wrong.

Your statement, 'No-one is born with that degree of confidence.' What evidence are you basing that on? What studies, by who, over what time frame have you found to support it? Or do you just have faith in it?

I subscribe to the school of behaviouralists who believe that we are born with different personalities or makeups. From that stance, your assumption that faith must be learned or verified, is based on your particular makeup and viewpoint. I believe some personality types posess confidence or faith in themselves from birth, and view the world differently from the personality type which would rather act after reassurance. For me, as I said, I have total faith in myself, and always have had. Whether you agree or not is your unsupported choice, based on something other than the meaning of the word 'faith'.

I have learned that it takes all kinds. It is a valuable thing to learn to realise that not everyone is the same, or need be the same. Fear of, or the inability to recognise or enjoy and accept difference among people has created much devastation.

However, personalities aside, thankfully we have dictionaries for this very situation. Perhaps it might help you to consult one, and without bias reassess your translation and understanding of the word 'faith' and its actual meaning.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You wouldn't have any archaelogical evidence of George Washington or William Shakespeare either, unless they were exceptionally well-preserved.

Ditto for the people who lived 150k years ago as well, I presume? Again, that's just my opinion. I've always found it that particular fact odd, and this is coming from a former altar boy, albeit just in a podunk country multi-denominational church (grew up in a remote area of Colorado), so I've definitely got a bit of religion in my c.v.; I also am a computer engineer, and we all know how screwed up engineers think; the glass is neither half full nor half empty, just twice as big as it needs to be. So I own my opinions, and it's worked out well for me.

Having said that, those are MY opinions. My wife is methodist, and we take our little monkey boy (coming up on 3, currently channeling Ghengis Khan, apparently) to church, both to indoctrinate him in the experience, and also to ensure that he is not denied something that could be beneficial to him, whereas it wouldn't necessarily be to me. After all, if you don't have all the info at your fingertips, you can't make the correct decision, and I certainly cannot make his decision regarding his belief structure for him. That's between him and his higher power.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I strongly suggest anyone who thinks this way read Michael's post. More than showing any inability to combine science and faith, your example shows a misunderstanding of the nature of proof, and of what science does. Note that I'm not saying you don't understand it, but that whoever conducts your hypothetical experiment with the intent of proving the Ark's existence certainly doesn't. I agree with you that's it's a pointless exercise, and a sure way to undermine one's beliefs.

well written post, that. A few things I would elaborate upon would be, in his statement about 'taking the word of one scientist and belaboring the rigid blindness of all scientists', one should remember the case of Galileo and how he had to retract his heliocentric views, essentially to save his skin, by order of the R.C. church. I'm not here to begin a debate about science versus religion, but I will state that I am more than versed in the nature of proof, and you may have mis-spoke there. But I'll leave it at that.

He hit the nail on the head when he said that 'these proofs cannot be proven wrong, for they cannot be tested'. That is the crux of my statement. I would add the 'and neither should they be', as I quite firmly believe that one's belief structure should come from within, and not without. But again, that's me.

All told, a very good post by Mr. Chui. I disagree with the dichotomy between science and religion, but that is my view, and last I checked, still entitled to those. I do find it sort of ironic that all the astronauts, cosmologists, theoretical physicists, etc, are all deeply religious people.

I like that.

v

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Uplift

For some reason, you are judging all the comments on your particular outlook, and not rational, logical, academic thinking.

The Macquarie dictionary says;

'1. Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing.'

Despite what you may or may not like to add to that, there is no mention of, or reference to the confidence or trust needing to be learned, verified, supported or validated. By adding your own slant to it, virtually speaking your own langauge, you either ignore the dictionary, or feel it is wrong.

You're close. I wasn't academically precise, but I don't see any lack of reason or logic. I said this:

It's clear that most of us in this thread define faith and belief differently. I wasn't attempting to define either, but rather describe two distinct ways in which the words are used, just to illustrate how either can come first.

However for an accurate definition I think valis came closest:

And then I went on to give a definition. What I didn't make clear was that I was presenting a definition which aims to clear up the confusion which started this thread. My statement may have been less than academically precise, for sure. (luckily this isn't an academic paper. My professors would be very disappointed in me)

And before that I said this:

It's a matter of semantics; both have been treated as wholly interchangeable for a long time.

What I meant by both those quoted statements was that the meaning of those words, belief and faith, as per the dictionary, are not as clear as they could be. And that's ok, language is not always clear, so of course the dictionary can't be if it intends to reflect our use of language.

Originally Posted by Uplift

Your statement, 'No-one is born with that degree of confidence.' What evidence are you basing that on? What studies, by who, over what time frame have you found to support it? Or do you just have faith in it?

It's based on all the psychological literature I've read on childhood development, in particular the development of personality and temperament. I can give you references if you'd like, just PM me as this is getting off topic.

Originally Posted by Uplift

For me, as I said, I have total faith in myself, and always have had. Whether you agree or not is your unsupported choice, based on something other than the meaning of the word 'faith'.

Ahh but you misunderstand me. I have absolutely no doubt that you have complete faith in yourself.

Originally Posted by valis

I'm not here to begin a debate about science versus religion, but I will state that I am more than versed in the nature of proof, and you may have mis-spoke there. But I'll leave it at that.

I may have, it's happened before. And as you can see above, I can also miss the mark when aiming for clarity

Originally Posted by valis

...I quite firmly believe that one's belief structure should come from within, and not without. But again, that's me.

Could you elaborate? I ask because, unless Uplift is right, we're not born with specific beliefs, they're learned. Do you agree with him, or does your statement mean you believe that one's belief structure should be considered and weighed against one's own values and principles, and adopted because one chooses to do so, not because society says so? (the latter is my belief)

Originally Posted by valis

All told, a very good post by Mr. Chui. I disagree with the dichotomy between science and religion, but that is my view, and last I checked, still entitled to those.

Fo' shizzle.

Originally Posted by valis

I do find it sort of ironic that all the astronauts, cosmologists, theoretical physicists, etc, are all deeply religious people.

By 'all' I take it you don't really mean 'all', considering that many are atheists. (be careful, Uplift might throw the dictionary at you)

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

You're close. I wasn't academically precise, but I don't see any lack of reason or logic. I said this:

And then I went on to give a definition. What I didn't make clear was that I was presenting a definition which aims to clear up the confusion which started this thread. My statement may have been less than academically precise, for sure. (luckily this isn't an academic paper. My professors would be very disappointed in me)

And before that I said this:


What I meant by both those quoted statements was that the meaning of those words, belief and faith, as per the dictionary, are not as clear as they could be. And that's ok, language is not always clear, so of course the dictionary can't be if it intends to reflect our use of language.

It's based on all the psychological literature I've read on childhood development, in particular the development of personality and temperament. I can give you references if you'd like, just PM me as this is getting off topic.

Ahh but you misunderstand me. I have absolutely no doubt that you have complete faith in yourself.

I may have, it's happened before. And as you can see above, I can also miss the mark when aiming for clarity

Could you elaborate? I ask because, unless Uplift is right, we're not born with specific beliefs, they're learned. Do you agree with him, or does your statement mean you believe that one's belief structure should be considered and weighed against one's own values and principles, and adopted because one chooses to do so, not because society says so? (the latter is my belief)

Fo' shizzle.

By 'all' I take it you don't really mean 'all', considering that many are atheists. (be careful, Uplift might throw the dictionary at you)

Academic precision as you put it, or the correct use and understanding of words is necessary to avoid confusion, and is the common base to promote, develop and explain a rational, logical idea. It is a requirement of fields like science, which you espouse here, and offer knowledge of... even strongly advising others to improve their understanding of it.

When using a word wrongly, it is probably better if the rest of the presentation is at least clear.

I can only speak for myself, but I have no confusion as to the correct definition of, and thus use of the word 'faith'.

I don't know about your professors being disappointed, but your original argument and subsequent ramble about belief, faith, intentions, reflections, language, clarity and dictionaries would definitely be dismissed by them, as it is based on an initial misunderstanding and incorrect use of the word faith... yet at the same time offers judgement and directions to others.

Again it couldn't be less confusing, or simpler:

The Macquarie dictionary says;

'1. Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing.'

Your confusion becomes even more obvious with the following statement:

"I ask because, unless Uplift is right, we're not born with specific beliefs, they're learned."

Firstly, where did I say that? Where did I mention being born with belief? Or specific belief. It gets worse... this is an academic disaster! How you read that into my words really interests me, as it is a classic demonstration of filtered, coloured observation and thinking. I actually said myself and some people are born with inherent faith in themselves. Self assurance, based on the given, actual meaning of the word 'faith'. So they don't rely on external reassurance. It is neither better or worse, but others born with different traits would find that difficult to understand. People with different traits failing to grasp that others are capable of naturally behaving differently, is a basic observation of behavioural science and counselling. I completed studies in behavioral science, and the premise I learned was that personality is inherent at birth. That we are born with identifiable, labelled personality types.

Yes I did introduce the dictionary, and I do strongly suggest you read it, especially before throwing the academic field of science around. I'd rather see your professors happy, and your arguments at least start on the right foot, with a decent foundation to build on, so that they don't quickly collapse under proper scrutiny.

So, again, for me, faith comes first. Simple.

[Mark Lapierre]

Uplift, I repeat, this is not an academic paper. This is a discussion. In a discussion I expect people to question me when they're unclear about what I mean, and if they expect me to be 100% clear, to their satisfaction, right from the start, they're guaranteed to be disappointed.

Originally Posted by Uplift

"I ask because, unless Uplift is right, we're not born with specific beliefs, they're learned."

Firstly, where did I say that? Where did I mention being born with belief? Or specific belief.

Here:

I believe some personality types posess confidence or faith in themselves from birth

As per the dictionary, as I stated, faith and belief have similar meanings.

From the definition of belief:

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

To say a person can have faith in themselves from birth is to say a person can believe in themselves from birth.

You wanted me to use the dictionary meanings. I've done so. I don't appreciate the condescension.

Originally Posted by Uplift

That we are born with identifiable, labelled personality types.

Others have argued that we develop an identifiable temperament at a very early stage, and that it is strongly influenced by our genes and thus may be innate, but still others have argued that specific temperament does not always lead to specific personality, and that personality is even less likely to be predetermined than temperament. But I don't claim to be an expert so statements such as "no-one is born with that degree of confidence" are open to criticism.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Uplift, I repeat, this is not an academic paper. This is a discussion. In a discussion I expect people to question me when they're unclear about what I mean, and if they expect me to be 100% clear, to their satisfaction, right from the start, they're guaranteed to be disappointed.


Here:

As per the dictionary, as I stated, faith and belief have similar meanings.

From the definition of belief:

To say a person can have faith in themselves from birth is to say a person can believe in themselves from birth.

You wanted me to use the dictionary meanings. I've done so. I don't appreciate the condescension.

Others have argued that we develop an identifiable temperament at a very early stage, and that it is strongly influenced by our genes and thus may be innate, but still others have argued that specific temperament does not always lead to specific personality, and that personality is even less likely to be predetermined than temperament. But I don't claim to be an expert so statements such as "no-one is born with that degree of confidence" are open to criticism.

If you are interested in discussion free from academic restraints, not imposition of your viewpoint, then don't continually attempt to impose academic, scientific criteria and judgement on others, and lecture as if you, or those you choose are the experts. It is extremely condescending, and totally unfounded. Unless you wish to defer to the scientific viewpoint again and provide proof of your expertise. Have a look at your posts, they are like academic marking of papers, by a senior lecturer.

Again,

The Macquarie dictionary says;

'1. Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing.'

I made my definition of faith crystal clear, and that it was the basis of my answer to the initial question.

Your continued assertion and application to me of;

"To say a person can have faith in themselves from birth is to say a person can believe in themselves from birth."

continues to not listen to my view, and to attempt to impose your view and confusion about faith and belief, and is extremely condescending.

It was you who pointed out that your lecturers would obviously be disappointed with your answer. Obviously then others could be too.

Regarding;

"But I don't claim to be an expert so statements such as "no-one is born with that degree of confidence" are open to criticism."

Obviously, and as you point out there are varied, expert schools of thought, one of which I agree with and choose. So in that respect, in a discussion, another's view is also open to acceptance and basic respect, regardless of your view.

You constantly point out your expectations, then equally consider those of others.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Could you elaborate? I ask because, unless Uplift is right, we're not born with specific beliefs, they're learned. Do you agree with him, or does your statement mean you believe that one's belief structure should be considered and weighed against one's own values and principles, and adopted because one chooses to do so, not because society says so? (the latter is my belief)

certainly. My belief structure is definitely not what one would call an 'organized' religion. We go to church, but that is more to show the monkey boy (got a kid going on 3) what the options are. You can't make informed decisions without all the evidence, and I was given that chance as well; I was an altar boy for a few years in a backwoods church.

As for the belief structure coming from within, I think that anytime you have anyone telling you what to believe and how to believe it, you have lost touch with your own higher power, and are merely sheep following the leader. Now, this is not to say that the leader is incorrect, this is merely to say that you are listening and reacting, as opposed to conversing and acting. I feel that I have a very personal relationship with my higher power, and he/she/it has helped me through many difficult times, and I am sure will help me through many more. I say my thanks nightly, and ask that he/she/it remove all worry and stress from my life so I can see what decisions I need to make to continue to make my life better for myself and my family.

That's really about all I mean. I feel very strongly about my personal relationship with my higher power, and I feel closer to it through my own methods than I do in a church listening to someone tell me about some story that relates to something in the Bible. Again, it's merely a choice on my part; my wife is pretty religious, and my sister is a RC fundie, so I've got all ends of the spectrum around me. I find theology a fascinating field, and as a result have done a lot of independent research into a wide variety of religions, and have picked up a bit here, a smidgen here, and a little elsewhere to basically frankenstein my own belief structure.

Which, to come complete circle, comes from within. I ask for clarity through the lifting of stress and worry, and it is delivered. I ask for guidance and strength through times of stress, so that I may see the path necessary to take to reach the desired goal. It works for me; it may not work for everyone.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

By 'all' I take it you don't really mean 'all', considering that many are atheists. (be careful, Uplift might throw the dictionary at you)

No, of course not 'all'. I do read a lot, and Antoine de St. Exupery springs to mind immediately: ""The meaning of things lies not in the things themselves, but in our attitudes towards them."

That about covers it. As for the dictionary throwing, well, I guess I've had worse.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Uplift

If you are interested in discussion free from academic restraints, not imposition of your viewpoint, then don't continually attempt to impose academic, scientific criteria and judgement on others, and lecture as if you, or those you choose are the experts. It is extremely condescending, and totally unfounded. Unless you wish to defer to the scientific viewpoint again and provide proof of your expertise. Have a look at your posts, they are like academic marking of papers, by a senior lecturer.

Everyone is welcome to give feedback on my writing, positive or negative. Yours is noted. (I gave you an F )

Originally Posted by valis

Which, to come complete circle, comes from within. I ask for clarity through the lifting of stress and worry, and it is delivered. I ask for guidance and strength through times of stress, so that I may see the path necessary to take to reach the desired goal. It works for me; it may not work for everyone.

Ahh, I think I see. Your higher power provides a source of support, guidance, and maybe inspiration? But it's still you who makes the choices and so the higher power doesn't influence which beliefs you adopt, but rather helps you to make the choice which benefits you the most?

Originally Posted by valis

As for the dictionary throwing, well, I guess I've had worse.

As you can probably see, so have I

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Everyone is welcome to give feedback on my writing, positive or negative. Yours is noted. (I gave you an F )

Ahh, I think I see. Your higher power provides a source of support, guidance, and maybe inspiration? But it's still you who makes the choices and so the higher power doesn't influence which beliefs you adopt, but rather helps you to make the choice which benefits you the most?

As you can probably see, so have I

Again thats your self appointed, yet unsupported choice. Interesting you demonstrate evidence of different personality types by seeking the support and reassurance of others, even when being condescending, whereas I have inherent faith in myself, or self reliance.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Ahh, I think I see. Your higher power provides a source of support, guidance, and maybe inspiration? But it's still you who makes the choices and so the higher power doesn't influence which beliefs you adopt, but rather helps you to make the choice which benefits you the most?

pretty close. I would rather paraphrase it as it clears my mind and enables me to see the path necessary to choose from, clear from worries and doubts, and gives me the confidence and knowledge to make the correct decision based upon the facts I have at my disposal.

As I said, more of a 'free will' thing, sort of a repository for all my doubts and fears about myself and my future.

[wolfgang]

It's interesting to read everyone's posts on this.

Some are saying faith is belief - but why are there two words?

Some are saying faith must exist before believing something. In which case it is a blind faith to start.

Maybe there's an other word for where I put faith. Faith to me is the conviction of a belief. In other words you have the belief and then you generate the faith to hold that belief.

As far as proving a belief or not - this is where faith steps in. Faith gets used in beliefs that are not externally provable to others.

Ask yourselfs this:

Can I believe something without faith in that belief?

(I can't - once I believe something I put my faith in it)

Can I have faith and yet not belive the idea?

(If I do this, I have blind faith - I dont' really believe it, yet)

If you have faith in a belief that is not externally provable - how much of that confidence is psersonal and part of your experience and in your feelings?

(Most of my faith based beliefs are based on my feelings and I look at my feelings as my connection to the unseen/spiritual world.)

[Brutha]

I do find it sort of ironic that all the astronauts, cosmologists, theoretical physicists, etc, are all deeply religious people.

Unfortunatly that isn't true.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Unfortunatly that isn't true.

I don't see the irony. I would think these types of people would be very spiritual, and maybe they use a particular religion to carry their spirutual views or are just spiritual.

The astronaut has seen the earth from space and that has got to be so awesome that they feel that there's more to everything.

Cosmologists expose themselves to the mysteries of space and in a way are looking at nature at a grand level that must bring them to appriceate how wonderous creation is - so then they wonder and believe beyond what they see.

A theoretical physicist delves into duality and experiments that can't be explained as apart from their observing - so they can take the door to seeing the oneness of everything.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Unfortunatly that isn't true.

thanks for the wonderful, informative feedback.

In retrospect, I reckon I should have made it 'many' as opposed to 'all'.

[Clarity]

Faith AND Belief together at the same time.