How do you define faith?

Originally Posted by Aelswyth

To me, all faith starts out with an intellectual conviction of some kind. One cannot just "have faith" based on nothing at all; that is why we have been given scriptures, prophets, even scholarly research, to help us begin to exercise faith - to give us something on which to base it

"Intellectual" implies prior knowledge acquired thru rational/inquiry means, which may or may not be the case for most people so we can not expect that to be true even most of the time. Most people have a "social awareness" (traditions, conversations, historical account) of religion and God. Such can not be construed as intellectual, in my opinion since they have never question the surrounding body of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Aelswyth

But I think most people need some kind of basis and confirmation for the things they believe to be true. I certainly do. I believe in this Church because of a spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost, but also because of my own purely mental conviction that, from a rational and logical standpoint, it doesn't make any sense for these things to have been falsified or invented in some way. I find there is too much corroborative evidence from multiple sources to dismiss the claims of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Church. So I have faith in that which is unknown, because I am convinced by that which IS known

.

I am not a big believer in the need for "evidence or intellectual experience" to perfect or strengthen the faith. For 150 years faithful LDS lived and worked for the building of the Kingdom of God on the earth without a thread of "evidence". as we refer to it today. Faith is built and strengthened by the Spirit as we live in obedience to the commandments, as we engage in His work and study His word. The blessings mount, your insight is multiplied, your strength increases and the reach of the priesthood to act, influence and modify the very world around us is augmented. I can truly and sincerely testify to that effect.

The whole historical background of faith point to a progression that goes from the physical manifestations of God (burning bushes, voices from heaven, angels, etc) to a a testimony of Him based on faith rather than evidence. Meaning that, you must believe and the manifestation re-affirming your belief is shown forth after the fact. You must read the scriptures, but the intention must be that of faithful inquiry not an intellectual exercise. Most biblical archaeologists as not religious people at all. They have no interest in the spiritual claims of the text.

Your argument is eloquent, but it draws from a rational root that is simple not supported by the biblical record. The experiment ALWAYS begins with faith, which is the hope for things not yet known but true. It starts with the heart-felt desire inspired by the Spirit to get to know more about God and to get closer to Him. Anything else is indeed an intellectual exercise, which in my sometimes less than humble opinion, could be the first step in a very slippery slope if your faith is not solidly rooted.

What do you think?

[Aelswyth]

Originally Posted by Malcolm

"Intellectual" implies prior knowledge acquired thru rational/inquiry means, which may or may not be the case for most people so we can not expect that to be true even most of the time. Most people have a "social awareness" (traditions, conversations, historical account) of religion and God. Such can not be construed as intellectual, in my opinion since they have never question the surrounding body of knowledge.

.

I am not a big believer in the need for "evidence or intellectual experience" to perfect or strengthen the faith. For 150 years faithful LDS lived and worked for the building of the Kingdom of God on the earth without a thread of "evidence". as we refer to it today. Faith is built and strengthened by the Spirit as we live in obedience to the commandments, as we engage in His work and study His word. The blessings mount, your insight is multiplied, your strength increases and the reach of the priesthood to act, influence and modify the very world around us is augmented. I can truly and sincerely testify to that effect.

The whole historical background of faith point to a progression that goes from the physical manifestations of God (burning bushes, voices from heaven, angels, etc) to a a testimony of Him based on faith rather than evidence. Meaning that, you must believe and the manifestation re-affirming your belief is shown forth after the fact. You must read the scriptures, but the intention must be that of faithful inquiry not an intellectual exercise. Most biblical archaeologists as not religious people at all. They have no interest in the spiritual claims of the text.

Your argument is eloquent, but it draws from a rational root that is simple not supported by the biblical record. The experiment ALWAYS begins with faith, which is the hope for things not yet known but true. It starts with the heart-felt desire inspired by the Spirit to get to know more about God and to get closer to Him. Anything else is indeed an intellectual exercise, which in my sometimes less than humble opinion, could be the first step in a very slippery slope if your faith is not solidly rooted.

What do you think?

Well, I'm sorry, but I am above all a rational person. That is simply who I am, and my post was about my experience of faith, and my process of coming to and nurturing that faith. It was not intended to be a how-to guide for anyone else. If, as you seem to imply, my approach to faith is less perfect than it ought to be, then that is my own failing and a function of my nature, which at this point I cannot remedy. Perhaps I need to work on that. But I feel that my faith is strong, and I stand by my assertion that we are given rational minds and intellect for a good reason, and that we are to use these in the exercise of our faith, both the cultivation of it and the exercise of it in our everyday actions. Of course, that is simply my opinion, which I happen to consider to be just as good as that of any other common human being.

[DigitalShadow]

Originally Posted by Malcolm

Hello DS:

I think you suffer from "west-tocitosis" like a dear friend of mine coined our short-sighted, naive and misinformed perspective of world. There is no such thing as an "universal sense of right and wrong." Just because you see a more or less "civilized" societies in the west and the appearance of law and order it does not mean that it is the norm but rather the exception.

In most of the world today, law, order and rules are ascertained based on mores and values, communal rules linked to survival and the threat of war. Safety and well being is a function of tribal affiliation, aggressive posturing and the means to inflict death or the fear of.

The ONLY reason the west is a bit better is because of the Judeo-Christian traditions and history. But we are 1000 years away from its origins so we can not see it. You are a product of the west and its mores and values, including a socially "impregnated" sense of moral behavior, which is nothing more than socially expected behavior that can be adjusted depending on your family history, educational level, socioeconomic status and the like. But it is not a universal concept. The natural man is an enemy to God and has been since the beginning.

For the non-believer there is no life after death so nothing to worry about. It is the one that knows but decides to ignore the "warning labels" for whatever reason the one that should be affraid. At the end of the road the anxiety creeps in and they then recognize that there is no other way but to turn to God for certainty. Although some remain defiant to the end. Go figure. For the believer faith is precisely the absence of fear. It is the affirmation of certainty since we know for SURE where we are going after this life on account of having lived our lives in accordance with the commandments of God, who is the ultimate judge and arbiter for the faithful and also the unfaithful.

I was not implying that you were not an upstanding citizen. On the contrary. Eloquent as your assertion is about you being a morally upright person, which again is in nowise in question, it is however naive. To say that it is a spontaneous expression of self (universal goodness) ignores most of the atrocities recorded in recent history. Again I have heard the argument before and it seems to me that ignoring/denying God but believing in goodness and an innate sense of right or wrong is like talking about wood furniture and refusing to talk about the forest.

Any thoughts?

I believe that people have a basic sense of right and wrong which is refined and enforced with laws and culture. Just because some places in the world are less "civilized", doesn't mean they have a different basic sense of right and wrong, they have simply justified their actions with necessity. Survival is obviously a stronger human imperitive than altruism, that doesn't mean altruism doesn't exist. Anyone who spends a few seconds pondering morality will realize that if everyone treated others how they would like to be treated the world would be a lot better place. The fact that our country is prosperous and that we don't have to worry about survival or impending invasions means that we are better able to focus on morality, it has little or nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian cultural start.

I would also like to clarify something. Believing that there is nothing after death is a belief, just like believing there is something after death. A "non-believer" doesn't have to subscribe to either of those. I admit that I have no idea what happens after I die, and I am OK with that. You say that faith is the absence of fear for a believer, but I tend to think it is more accurately the reliever of fear. Instead of having to deal with the concept of not knowing what happens, a believer puts their faith into a religion and then they no longer have to fear because they "know" what will happen.

I don't believe that my good behavior is a spontaneous expression of a universal concept of morality, but I do believe that it has nothing to do with my acceptance/rejecting of God. There are many factors that affect how moral a person is, but in my experience it has little or nothing to do with their religion (or lack there of).

No need for apologies. I welcome your reply. I was also expressing my opinion and experience on the matter, which it so happens to diverge somewhat from yours.

We use whatever gifts we are given to discern and inquire and thus there are many.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by DigitalShadow

......

I would also like to clarify something. Believing that there is nothing after death is a belief, just like believing there is something after death. A "non-believer" doesn't have to subscribe to either of those. I admit that I have no idea what happens after I die, and I am OK with that. You say that faith is the absence of fear for a believer, but I tend to think it is more accurately the reliever of fear. Instead of having to deal with the concept of not knowing what happens, a believer puts their faith into a religion and then they no longer have to fear because they "know" what will happen.

.........

I do not think believers have any better idea of what happens after death than people like your self. Never-the-less there must be a connection with consequences or there will never be a sense of morality, purpose, intelligence or enlightenment.

As a fellow scientist can you give me any example of any event that occurs without incentive or in other words a result without a cause? Is this not contrary to the “scientific method”?

The Traveler

[Aelswyth]

Originally Posted by Malcolm

No need for apologies. I welcome your reply. I was also expressing my opinion and experience on the matter, which it so happens to diverge somewhat from yours.

We use whatever gifts we are given to discern and inquire and thus there are many.

Actually, after re-reading your post, I believe we are basically saying very similar things; we both believe in the chicken and the egg, where we differ is in our opinions of which comes first. Either way, I think it's safe to say that the two in co-existence (intellectual knowledge and faith) support and continually give birth to one another, all things being ideal.

I'm still not sure, though, that I agree with your idea of scriptural history showing a progression from evidence-based belief to faith-based belief. In most scriptural accounts, evidence was provided to those who showed themselves worthy by having at least enough faith to fill a mustard-seed. Meaning, yes, one must at least believe in the possibility of such things, otherwise one is unable to perceive them. Those who don't believe they can be healed, cannot be healed. "No sign will be given to this evil and adulterous generation." But still, evidences are provided for those that deserve them. After all, the Father and Son appeared in the flesh to Joseph Smith, which I think is a far greater manifestation than the simple burning bush which Moses first saw. Joseph Smith and others saw many physical manifestations and heard audible voices. They saw Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, multiple angels, and multiple resurrected prophets. I don't consider that to indicate progressing towards faith without evidence. I do, however, think that that viewpoint is one that could be espoused by the mainstream churches who no longer believe in visions, manifestations and miracles - those who "have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof". It would certainly be necessary for them to believe that evidences are no longer given, because otherwise they would be faced with the plain fact that God is just not revealing himself to them because they don't deserve it. (Not to claim that I've seen any manifestations or out-of-the-ordinary miracles myself; I'm probably as undeserving as the next person in that regard!)