How do you define faith?

[DigitalShadow]

First, let me explain that I am not religious, but am very curious about religion in general. My wife is LDS, I go to church with her most of the time (for just over a year), I've talked with our Bishop and also a couple missionaries but no one has been able to provide satisfying answers to my questions so I decided to come here.

I have always been fascinated with the concept of faith. All religious people I have talked to refer to faith as an inherently good trait, but what exactly is "faith" and why is it good? I've always understood it as a belief in something that there is no evidence for. But there are an abundance of concepts out there that have no strong evidence for them, blindly believing in all of them doesn't make any sense to me, but if you blindly believe one, why not more of them?

Having a strong scientific background, in general I accept whatever I've seen the most evidence for. I would like to be religious, but I can't find any strong evidence that any of them are true. But even if I did find evidence that one were true, I wouldn't be doing it correctly because it wouldn't be out of "faith", it would be because I've seen enough evidence for it. This presents somewhat of a paradox to me and I would like other people's opinions on the matter.

I've been told to pray about the matter, but I've not received any divine inspiration as of yet. I've been told that I don't really want answers and maybe that is why I'm not getting them, but if someone really wants answers badly enough, when they receive them, how do they know it's not just their brain filling in the gaps and giving them what they want? How else do you explain why there are so many religions out there and how people can receive "divine inspiration" with completely conflicting messages?

I'm sorry if this comes off as hostile, I really don't mean it to. I am just trying to fully present my viewpoint so that it can be properly discussed.

[prisonchaplain]

Faith is the gap between what you know and what you believe. "Blind faith," generally means you know nothing and believe totally. Saving faith need not be blind--and probably shouldn't be.

Some people study many of the world's major religions, before embracing a faith. Others, explore various philosophies. Still others, dabble in the world's many avenues of fulfillment (pleasure, academic pursuit, wealth, altruism, etc.). (See Ecclesiastes).

Regardless of how much comes to be known, what the Bible (both Old and New Testaments), the Book of Mormon, and even the Quran, all promise is that the one with a pure and true desire to know God will find him. And, once you see him, you will realize he was there all along.

Perhaps part of your search is to figure out just what kind of evidence or finding would point you in the direction of faith to begin with? Blessings on your quest.

[the_jason]

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -- Hebrews 11:1

"And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." --Alma 32:21

Faith, in my mind, is more important for one to obtain than is knowledge. If we have knowledge of things, there is no room left for progression. We become stagnant and begin to fall away. There's nothing left to aspire to.

Faith, however, requires a constant search for truth and knowledge, but never fully obtaining it. It allows spiritual progression and the ability to get closer to our Heavenly Father.

Not only that, but it's impossible to gain a perfect knowledge in this life. There are many things Father has not revealed to us and will not reveal to us until we have been faithful and endured to the end. Only those who've obeyed God's commandments to the best of their ability and received the required ordinances will know these mysteries.

[DigitalShadow]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Faith is the gap between what you know and what you believe. "Blind faith," generally means you know nothing and believe totally. Saving faith need not be blind--and probably shouldn't be.

Some people study many of the world's major religions, before embracing a faith. Others, explore various philosophies. Still others, dabble in the world's many avenues of fulfillment (pleasure, academic pursuit, wealth, altruism, etc.). (See Ecclesiastes).

Regardless of how much comes to be known, what the Bible (both Old and New Testaments), the Book of Mormon, and even the Quran, all promise is that the one with a pure and true desire to know God will find him. And, once you see him, you will realize he was there all along.

Perhaps part of your search is to figure out just what kind of evidence or finding would point you in the direction of faith to begin with? Blessings on your quest.

If faith is the gap between what you know and what you believe, how is it that you determine what you "know?" I don't presume to "know" anything for certain as I believe that would be rather arrogant of me, so it seems that any faith would be "blind faith" for me.

[AmyL]

Your story sounds very familiar to mine. I am from a very scientific background, if I could touch or test it I didn't believe it. That was until I actually prayed about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The answer I got didn't need any scientific proof, I got all the proof I needed in the feelings that overcameme at the time. Sometimes in the area of Faith you need to listen with your heart and not your questioning mind. I have learned that Faith is an ever growing thing in your life, it is not instantaneos, you need to nurture it and watch it grow. Give it a change and you may be surprised. I hope you find what you are looking for.

[jadams_4040]

Originally Posted by the_jason

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -- Hebrews 11:1

"And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." --Alma 32:21

Faith, in my mind, is more important for one to obtain than is knowledge. If we have knowledge of things, there is no room left for progression. We become stagnant and begin to fall away. There's nothing left to aspire to.

Faith, however, requires a constant search for truth and knowledge, but never fully obtaining it. It allows spiritual progression and the ability to get closer to our Heavenly Father.

Not only that, but it's impossible to gain a perfect knowledge in this life. There are many things Father has not revealed to us and will not reveal to us until we have been faithful and endured to the end. Only those who've obeyed God's commandments to the best of their ability and received the required ordinances will know these mysteries.

But on the other hand personally for myself, I also have a knowledge of the truths of this church that is unshakable, Faith? yes i have always had that, because as you mentioned one must in order to continue to grow, but my knowledge of the truths are 1000 percent unchallengable. Maybe its because i have been blessed more than most in the field of confirmation, i do not know why, all i do know is that the knowledge is there. It is sure,natural,spiritual and wonderfully beautifull.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by DigitalShadow

If faith is the gap between what you know and what you believe, how is it that you determine what you "know?" I don't presume to "know" anything for certain as I believe that would be rather arrogant of me, so it seems that any faith would be "blind faith" for me.

You are perhaps thinking of philosophical "ultimate knowledge." I just had in mind what I've learned. I "know" the world has great beauty, operates in a delicate balance, etc. I know that most people are mostly good, but that we all battle our lesser selves. You may want to look over Romans 1 to get a feel for what I'm driving at. The writer, Paul, basically says that we have enough knowledge so that, in the end, we are without excuse for how we live out our lives, and for how we respond to God.

[NateHowe]

Faith is a huge subject. If you are serious about your study of it, and since you are an analytical person, it's probably worth acquiring a copy of Lectures on Faith. The lectures were delivered by Joseph Smith. You can buy a used copy on Amazon for less than four bucks. Or, if you prefer, you can read them on a website with a distracting background that makes the text difficult to make out: Lectures On Faith

One teaching within these lectures which I appreciate is the following from the third Lecture:

Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

First, The idea that he actually exists.Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I cannot define or advise on faith better than these lectures. In the early Doctrine and Covenants, the Lectures on Faith were the Doctrine and the revelations which make up our current D&C were the Covenants. Later, they were removed from canonized Scripture because they were doctrinal expositions rather than direct revelations.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by DigitalShadow

First, let me explain that I am not religious, but am very curious about religion in general. My wife is LDS, I go to church with her most of the time (for just over a year), I've talked with our Bishop and also a couple missionaries but no one has been able to provide satisfying answers to my questions so I decided to come here.

I have always been fascinated with the concept of faith. All religious people I have talked to refer to faith as an inherently good trait, but what exactly is "faith" and why is it good? I've always understood it as a belief in something that there is no evidence for. But there are an abundance of concepts out there that have no strong evidence for them, blindly believing in all of them doesn't make any sense to me, but if you blindly believe one, why not more of them?

Having a strong scientific background, in general I accept whatever I've seen the most evidence for. I would like to be religious, but I can't find any strong evidence that any of them are true. But even if I did find evidence that one were true, I wouldn't be doing it correctly because it wouldn't be out of "faith", it would be because I've seen enough evidence for it. This presents somewhat of a paradox to me and I would like other people's opinions on the matter.

I've been told to pray about the matter, but I've not received any divine inspiration as of yet. I've been told that I don't really want answers and maybe that is why I'm not getting them, but if someone really wants answers badly enough, when they receive them, how do they know it's not just their brain filling in the gaps and giving them what they want? How else do you explain why there are so many religions out there and how people can receive "divine inspiration" with completely conflicting messages?

I'm sorry if this comes off as hostile, I really don't mean it to. I am just trying to fully present my viewpoint so that it can be properly discussed.

As a scientist (math and physics background) and a person deeply devout in the LDS faith – I find you question most interesting. I will define faith first from my scientific background. Faith is the engine to pursue an idea one believes but lacks empirical evidence. Let me give you an example. It should not take a great deal of study to realize that the model taught in most high school and college classes concerning electrons lacks both detail and accuracy.

Yet by faith most will turn on a light and expect it to operate. Even if the light does not come on few doubt that it is because the concept is wrong. Why then would someone with a scientific background expect that non empirical things (spiritual) are to only be measured by empirical methods?

Again let us consider an example. Do you love your wife? If you do how can you quantify (by scientific method) your love? In order to experience love and loving; one must take a leap of faith. Such faith causes one to be kind even though such kindness creates vulnerability – which is anything but logical. Such effort is faith. To know G-d one must have faith to become vulnerable and loving not just G-d but accepting his love towards us. Faith in G-d therefore becomes faith of what is possible.

Now I would like to take faith a different direction and ask the question – what is real? Most of us think we can look around us and see and touch that which is real. Such reality is really illusion because the dimension of such experience is temporal. 20 billion years ago what you think is real did not exist and if our understanding of temporal effects is any indication in several trillion years none of what is claimed to be real will still exist. Why then do you have faith and believe in that which is not real? What then is there that is worthy to believe? What can last? Only that which is eternal – but that reality cannot be measured with temporal means. Is love something that is not temporal?

If you cannot distinguish that which is light from that which is dark – no one will ever be able to help you understand what is day and what is night.

The Traveler

[DigitalShadow]

Originally Posted by Traveler

As a scientist (math and physics background) and a person deeply devout in the LDS faith – I find you question most interesting. I will define faith first from my scientific background. Faith is the engine to pursue an idea one believes but lacks empirical evidence. Let me give you an example. It should not take a great deal of study to realize that the model taught in most high school and college classes concerning electrons lacks both detail and accuracy.

Yet by faith most will turn on a light and expect it to operate. Even if the light does not come on few doubt that it is because the concept is wrong. Why then would someone with a scientific background expect that non empirical things (spiritual) are to only be measured by empirical methods?

Again let us consider an example. Do you love your wife? If you do how can you quantify (by scientific method) your love? In order to experience love and loving; one must take a leap of faith. Such faith causes one to be kind even though such kindness creates vulnerability – which is anything but logical. Such effort is faith. To know G-d one must have faith to become vulnerable and loving not just G-d but accepting his love towards us. Faith in G-d therefore becomes faith of what is possible.

Now I would like to take faith a different direction and ask the question – what is real? Most of us think we can look around us and see and touch that which is real. Such reality is really illusion because the dimension of such experience is temporal. 20 billion years ago what you think is real did not exist and if our understanding of temporal effects is any indication in several trillion years none of what is claimed to be real will still exist. Why then do you have faith and believe in that which is not real? What then is there that is worthy to believe? What can last? Only that which is eternal – but that reality cannot be measured with temporal means. Is love something that is not temporal?

If you cannot distinguish that which is light from that which is dark – no one will ever be able to help you understand what is day and what is night.

The Traveler

I like your approach to the subject but it still seems somewhat flawed to me, so let us debate this further.

When I flip a light switch, I don't have "faith" that it will turn on and that the concepts behind incandescent lighting are sound. I have simply observed that when I hit the switch, the vast majority of the time the light will turn on. The same logic can not be applied to faith in religion. I have observed that when people pray using any religion, this does not improve their chances of anything. Good things and bad things happen just the same... if good things happen, they assume their prayer was answered, if bad things happen they justify it by saying either they didn't have enough faith or it was God's plan. This gives me no precedence to rely on as I haid with the lighting analogy.

Yes it is true that I love my wife, but I don't believe it required a leap of faith. I didn't bare everything and leave myself completely vulnerable to her the second I met her, just as she didn't bare everything to me. As we got to know each other better, we slowly opened up to each other as new levels of trust were reached. Again, applying the same philosophy to religion yields no results. I have prayed many times and received nothing in return. No imperical evidence or even feelings of the divine.

Reality is subjective. We each create our own reality through our unique neural mappings in our brain. All any of us have to go on is what we see and touch, so that's what I draw my conclusions from, and so far none of my observations have lead me to believe in a religion.

Now let me pose another question to you. People believe in religion based on feelings, right? Arguing which religion has more emperical evidence is fruitless because because they are all meant to be taken on faith. But the problem I see with this is that there are many religions out there all with people that claim to have received divine feelings leading them to their particular religion. I've met people from different faiths, all extremely devoted and claiming to "know" their religion is true. Obviously all of them can't be right as many of them have conflicting messages, so how can these divine feelings be trusted if they obviously have the capability to mislead people?