Faith vs Belief

[Whateverist]

I didn't expect to make this thread for a few more weeks yet.  But then on my first googling I came upon this and thought it as good a place to start as any.  My intention is to add more sources every week or two in the service of my over-arching goal which is to drive a wedge between the two words.

Briefly, I want to establish that faith is a receptive stance while belief is a declarative stance.  Faith insists there is meaning whether or not one is capable of articulating it.  Whenever you specify what it is that has meaning, you are expressing a belief.  Many (but not all) Christians carry on as if life, the cosmos and identity are simple things - because they have the holy reference book of meaning called the bible.  True believers are locked in a stance of espousing their truth.  The faithful reserve the right to self correct as needed in their search for the truth.  One stance grabs truth and pins it in a collection box, the other studies and marvels at it wherever it flies.  

Okay, Exhibit One: from a catholic source, Dr. Gregory Popcak who distinguishes faith from belief according to what he calls the psychology of religion.  (I know very little of him or his website but offer what he says on its own merits.)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithonthec...ifference/

---

Faith– Most of us think of “faith” in supernatural terms, as in “faith in God.”  This is actually more of what psychologists of religion would call “belief” (see below). Faith, from a more naturalistic, psychological perspective, is merely the innate drive to search for meaning, purpose and significance.

From infancy, every human person has an innate sense that “there is something more than just me” and a drive to discover what that might be.  The baby calls out for the mother even when the mother is gone from view.  In the same way, all people, whether they are believers or not, seek the deeper meaning, purpose, and significance that exists in life, relationships and the things that happen to us.  We recognize this basic striving as “faith” and it is a universal part of being human.  Even atheists have this kind of faith.  I think this is an especially useful understanding of the term because of its universality.  We often hear that “faith is a gift”  but when we see so many people who do not believe in God, we wonder if God simply did not gift those people with faith.  The answer is that everyone has the gift of faith–that innate drive to seek meaning, purpose and significance–but some people have exercised this innate gift more than others, allowing their faith to be better defined than others.

---

Note I suspect he and I might have different ideas about the best way to exercise one's faith.  He is probably more motivated than I to be sure faith sticks the landing into the appropriate beliefs.  Wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that what he would count as the appropriate beliefs turn out to be found in the catechism.  Regardless I like the way he makes the distinction between belief and faith.

[KevinM1]

I hate his definition of faith. The term he's really looking for is curiosity. We wonder about our place in the universe.

And his baby analogy is idiotic as well. The baby is looking for its mother because of instinct. I know that he's trying to say that our existential curiosity is also instinctual (in which case he'll need more than an assertion to convince me), but even if it were, there's a huge difference between a baby looking for an absent parent because it's hungry/dirty/lonely in a physical sense than someone striving to gain understanding.

But, yeah. It's pretty clear he chose his definition so he can play the tired, "See? Even atheists go on faith!" idiocy.

[Whateverist]

I hate his definition of faith.  The term he's really looking for is curiosity.  We wonder about our place in the universe.

And his baby analogy is idiotic as well.  The baby is looking for its mother because of instinct.  I know that he's trying to say that our existential curiosity is also instinctual (in which case he'll need more than an assertion to convince me), but even if it were, there's a huge difference between a baby looking for an absent parent because it's hungry/dirty/lonely in a physical sense than someone striving to gain understanding.

But, yeah.  It's pretty clear he chose his definition so he can play the tired, "See?  Even atheists go on faith!" idiocy.

Hey this is only exhibit one.  I thought it fitting that the first crack be delivered from within the church.

I think once we get all the calcified doctrine off of it you'll like faith just fine.  We'll see.

[Whateverist]

This one comes from Jungian psychologist, William Walker.


http://www.explorefaith.org/steppingstones_Jung.htm




"Faith is not the state of believing but the state of trusting in the source that makes faith possible." 





Remember, the point of this thread is to make the case that "belief" and "faith" are different things.  It is expressly not about any particular claim made by someone who practices a form of religion.  Those would all be beliefs.


But for those of us who describe ourselves as agnostic atheists, 'god' is a bridge we'll cross when one appears.  We're not huddling behind any belief in their non-existence.  We just don't currently have any impetus to believe.  The decision to make no decision requires no justification.  Nonetheless the answer to the question "do you believe in god(s)?" remains no so the atheist label is appropriate.

[robvalue]

The problem with "belief in God" is I can't even get as far as knowing what it is I'm supposed to be believing in. No one can give me a definition that would adequately identify it even if I "saw" it. It's just some appeal to a powerful being of some sort, who did certain things, and excuses why there is no evidence. How powerful? Super ultra powerful! Infinitely powerful!

But don't you try and measure it... it's science proof!

Really. So it's powerful then. Not powerful enough to actually get my attention though.

[KevinM1]

This one comes from Jungian psychologist, William Walker.


http://www.explorefaith.org/steppingstones_Jung.htm




"Faith is not the state of believing but the state of trusting in the source that makes faith possible." 

Holy recursion, Batman!

For me, personally, to trust in any source of anything, it needs to hold up to scrutiny, so....

[Whateverist]

The problem with "belief in God" is I can't even get as far as knowing what it is I'm supposed to be believing in. No one can give me a definition that would adequately identify it even if I "saw" it.

Tell it. brother.

Holy recursion, Batman!

For me, personally, to trust in any source of anything, it needs to hold up to scrutiny, so....

I'm with you regarding most any particular claim.  So "belief" as ardent wishing goes in the shitter as far as I'm concerned.  For me, what I believe is synonymous with what I think is true .. not what I hope is true.

But I'm not willing to discard "faith" altogether.  At its core I think there is something of value that needn't have any connection to religion.  I do not wish to concede that I am "faithless" even though I am lacking in religious faith as that typically applies.  Nor will I allow that I am "unfaithful" in the sense of even of being "disloyal, treacherous, or insincere".  

I don't think any of us on this site feel hobbled because we lack of an objective basis for morality.  My own sense of right and wrong seems to animate me as strongly as most theists in my experience.  Despite what some theists like to tell us to the contrary, we are not driven by unchecked malevolent urges.  You could argue that subjectivist based morality even has advantages.  Chief among these being the relative ease with which we can (though don't always) embrace tolerance.

[robvalue]

It would be amazing if we could somehow give theists a "day of atheism". Nothing weird, just kidnap a load and fuck with their brains or something. Just enough to remove their religious beliefs. Then we could see how many of them try and murder and rape all the people they see. I'd bet that all but any actual properly disturbed psychopaths would be surprised by their lack of action, and indeed urge. Then put their brains back to normal and return them to wherever theists go. A church!

It's like anything, if you're told you can't do it, it has some sort of weird appeal. But as soon as it's fair game, it loses that mystery and it's just dull.

It would be very interesting to force theists to go through their holy book and honestly highlight which parts they follow, moral wise, and which parts they don't. What percentages do you think we'd be looking at? About 5% of the former I reckon.

[Whateverist]

It's like anything, if you're told you can't do it, it has some sort of weird appeal. But as soon as it's fair game, it loses that mystery and it's just dull.

Just to be clear, you're not talking about marital sex now, right?

[robvalue]

Lol! No way