This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How and why did the definition of the word FAITH change in the last 100 years?
According to Webster's New World Dictionary (original copyright 1953), the definition of the word faith is; Unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.
According to Noah Webster's Dictionary 1904 edition, the definition of the word faith is; The ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character, and doctrines of Christ founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith.
The modern definition makes no sense to me. The former definition compels me to question things of a religious nature, which is necessary to obtain meaning in anything. I have followed the earlier definition with good results (leading to spiritual growth). I have seen many abandon religion because of how it is being presented in modern times. I can't say that I blame them. How did faith get so twisted and narrow minded?
Closing Statement from Roy Bourque
The general consensus is that the modern definition of faith reflects how most fundamentalist present it. No longer is faith being presented as something to ponder, but is presented as the definition states. The people who have charge of the church expect you to take faith without proof or evidence.
In my personal view, the modern definition of faith is a departure from what true faith was meant to be. I believe that the ascent of the mind represented enlightenment. Creationists rebuke evolution, not by enlightenment, but by blind faith. If faith is blind, then it follows the modern definition.
Another point made is that faith is based on a creed. In today's world, there are so many differing creeds that it is impossible to tell which one may be closer to the original. Every church says they have the right answer even though they differ, sometimes appreciably. Since there is no consensus, then the ascent of the mind seems moot.
As far as how it got changed it, that was never settled.
For the record, the word "theology" was also changed. The old definition included that which can be learned from nature. The new definition excludes any reference to nature. It appears that the definition of both words changed in the wake of teachings on evolution.
Derek Young 30+
I want to ask you some personal questions, answering is your choice.
1. What is your specific religion?
2. How much knowledge do you personally yield about your own religion?
3. What do you view of other religions that aren't your own?
4. How much do you know about other religions? (ranging from little to extensive)
5. Finally, what do you believe and not believe from your own religion?
There may be too many questions, but answer any of them, but you don't have to answer all of them.
Thanks for reading my thoughts. Hope to read yours. =)
Roy Bourque 20+
1. I was raised a Catholic, I now consider myself a non-denominational Christian. I don't adhere to any specific Christian doctrine.
2. I have read the bible in full. I have read "From Jesus to Christ", "A History of God", "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", "The Desire of Ages" to get a feel for how others saw it. I have been to numerous Christian churches to see how others worship and pray.
3. I believe that other religions are different paths that lead to God, or divine spirit as I see it. I don't believe that they are all on the same level, but I don't discount them because they are different. As Jesus said "by their fruits you shall know them".
4. I have read "World Religions from Ancient history to the Present" by Geoffrey Parrinder. I have read books on mythology and Eastern Philosophy. I have read an english translation of the Koran. I would say fairly extensive.
5. I only learned things that the bible said from my own religion. My beliefs are largely due to personal religious experience and research. They go far beyond fundamental views (which is why I have a problem with the definition of "faith" changing). I believe that Jesus was the son of God (as a descendant of the divine spirit and not of some person who resides in heaven). I don't believe he was God. I believe that he knew things that we cannot yet understand. I don't believe that God is separate from reality, I believe that God is what is doing the creating (quantum fields according to science). I believe that religion is all built on right-brain associations in contrast to left-brain logic. It is a separate language altogether and can't be used to dispute what nature reveals to us. Incidentally, the old definition of "theology" is split in two; that which can be learned from nature and that which can be learned from revelation. That is another word in which the definition changed.
Derek Young 30+
That was very fascinating insight. I am very grateful to have you be so honest and detailed. =)
Back on topic, I'm not sure what the current definition of "faith" you described about above.
Could you clarify what the specific parameters of the definition you were posing in the topic above?
Roy Bourque 20+
In the original definition, it required an ascent of the mind or understanding, which is the basis of Eastern philosophical thought. It clearly shows that mere belief in the scriptures was based on history. An ascent of the mind requires questioning in order to come to an understanding. Without understanding, faith is blind. You cannot apply a formula if you don't understand what it means. And you cannot apply faith if all you have is words without meaning. Jesus had nothing good to say about blind faith. He called the leaders of his time whited sepulchers, full of dead men's bones. He is essentially saying your faith is dead. And yet the modern definition appeals to blind faith. Whoever changed it was either severely deluded about what faith was all about, or was intentionally seeking to undermine everything that true faith is based on.
Derek Young 30+
According to my observations, something untangible to the human senses is considered "unreal" in the current pop culture. The new culture is to obsess over evidence and fact seeking. Faith or religion has always been something untangible to human senses, which even some religious groups believe as well. This "blind faith" is what drives some individual's to believe or not believe. The unknown scares people, but it could also offer a place of bliss to the mind. To know something could be out there, and possibly listening/watching, keeps the mind at ease when "miracles" or "disasters" strike.
The new definition of Faith seems to have a strong consensus among the populace in most parts of the world. The untangible is made tangible through thought, practice, tradition, symbolic items, and conversation. I think Faith can make miracles. For me, the mind makes the miracles happen, and this strong "blind" faith is the power of the untapped mind working its "magic".
So, what tangible forms of faith have you observed and experienced to make you question its current definition?
Roy Bourque 20+
There is a difference between accepting something without evidence while seeking to explore its depths, and not questioning it at all. How can you put faith into practice if you don't believe in it in the first place? I believe that this is what you are referring to. You have to have a starting point in order for faith to grow. But then where do you go with it?
What happens when real evidence challenges what you have come to believe? You have to be capable of altering your beliefs when observation says what you believe isn't how it really is. Fundamentalists challenge real evidence with belief that is based on interpretation of words. And the modern definition says that is the way it is supposed to be. The scientist knows that in the church's rebuke of Galileo that it wasn't Galileo that was wrong. And yet the same rebuke of scientific facts still go on based on the same argument, that faith supersedes observation because God doesn't lie. Well, if God doesn't lie in the literal word, then God lied in the evidence that was left for us to find. Which is it going to be? Are you going to question the evidence, or are you going to question the interpretation of God's word?
By questioning the interpretation of God's word doesn't mean you cast it off. It still has value in calming people's fears of death and of the unknown. It may also lead to discoveries that couldn't come by evidence alone. Spiritual experience can be very enlightening. The journey a person takes is built on faith. Science may add to that journey, but trying to find who you are in the cosmic scheme cannot be answered by science alone. So in this regard, I give credence to faith. There are some things that science can't explain.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Roy Bourque 20+
You are right, which is why religion can't be taken for face value. It is similar to science fiction. It may lead to what is possible, but until the fruit is discovered, it is all points to ponder. Ancient wisdom was divided into exoteric (common knowledge) and esoteric (analytical) levels. Fundamentalists are only dealing with what is written. You don't hear the esoteric wisdom being preached in church. But that doesn't mean that there isn't any. And not having to prove it will only ensure that you never will.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Aren't these intuition based beliefs from the same psychological source as beliefs in nature spirits, ghosts, faerie, countless gods, spirits, daemons, and possibly alien abductions. You note all these are just as elusive as any god. What does this make you think. Does it support them being real? Its easy to see evidence if you assume some agency. God made all species, god made the earthquake.
Often connections to "gods" occur in heightened emotional and psychological states. What does that point too? Go live in a cave for a month and I guess you'll be seeing all sorts of tricks of the mind. Is this a sound basis for anything other than intuitive beliefs.
Not all beliefs are equal if they purport to relate to reality or the truth. While we can not know anything absolutely, this is not a justification to think intuitive connections are especially valid.
Intuitively it feels like the sun goes around the earth. We don't seem to be moving. The sun does. Modern day spirituality is just as implausible as an explanation for anything before modern science. You may believe the sun is pulled by a golden chariot. You may intuit that your consciousness goes on after death, or some feeling of connection that you assume or believe is the creator of the universe. .
Reading below, you personally also look for connections or reinforcement for your beliefs and insights. But I suspect we could unpack these if analysed in detail. Maybe you have stumbled on some divine truth for the first time. Or maybe your god based framework is just another internal variant of billions of others that contradict yours but may be inspired by some deep personal insight. Why should we trust any of these to reflect reality.
Roy Bourque 20+
Much of science came from religious persons who were willing to question things. That is an ascent of the mind through reasoning. The old definition of theology was divided between that which is revealed by nature and that which is revealed by revelation. you had to integrate the two. The new definition excludes any reference to nature. It almost seems to be a conspiracy to intentionally separate the two. After its attack on Galileo, the Catholic church took God out of reality so that science could develop without infringing on the doctrines of the church. I believe that this is all connected in some way.
Are you familiar with the term animism? This is where the idea of nature spirits came from. I have experienced it. While in meditation, I saw intuitively the basics of quantum mechanics. Eleven years later, I came to learn of quantum mechanics, which confirmed my revelation. It was this connection between the two that started me thinking about religion on a whole different plane. And that is how my book evolved "The Merging of Two Worlds". I saw connections that few have seen. And further revelations guided me in my research. I cannot accept faith on face value, and neither could Jesus. But he always spoke in parables, which says that he wasn't about to reveal things to just anybody. You had to think about what he said if it was to have any meaning. So, when fundamentalist say you don't have to prove it, what is guiding their thoughts? It certainly isn't a higher power. It is mere words out of a book. That kind of faith becomes dogma, the opposite of enlightenment. Atheists are dead set against it, and they should be. But that doesn't make the words to no effect. It just means you have to integrate them with whatever knowledge becomes available in order to see beyond the words.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I see the issue with literal blind faith. I expect people try to interpret things that support that view.
I'm not sure my point about more intuitive and personal experience being subjective and personal is coming across.
Enlightenment, seeing beyond the words leads people in different directions. I'm not sure how you assess which is closer to the truth or provable. You have mentioned by the results. One phrase can be interpreted in many different ways that might inspire someone to live well. Does not mean the phrase or interpretations are correct.
I've also read Karen Armstrong - the history of god etc. Your view of religion is similar.
However, the meaning seeking, the exploration, seems very suspect. Like an intellectual and intuitive fantasy. My first major was Chemical and Materials Engineering - in my first job I had an operator telling me about how a process worked to control steel properties. It was intuitive, I could see why they might guess that - but they were totally wrong not knowing about that metallurgy, grain growth, inclusions etc. Another operator had another theory that joined some dots but was also wrong.
This is what I worry about with intuitive, meaning seeking. You can create world views that feel right, maybe partially reflect some data, but based on false assumptions.
I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but even the quantum experience, your subconscious may have figured this out without help.
The blind faith is easy to address. The intuitive meaning seeking and experiences are most likely internal psychological experiences but so wide and varied and personal they are harder to evaluate. They obviously key into something in our brains, our human consciousness or condition - but still fall far short of proving the existence of a god.
I mean if you could see it from my perspective you are saying you are connecting to the divine. Big claim. Something is happening, but god is a guess. I've meditated, and Xtian xperience
Roy Bourque 20+
Your example of an intuitive process involving steel is where faith and reason cross boundaries. Any intuitive conception regarding how the physical world works falls into the heading of hypothesis. Faith based or not, it must be proved with actual evidence, for hypothesis is part of faith, but not to be taken for face value, for intuition isn't always right, but it gets the ball rolling.
Could my subconscious have figured out quantum experience? It's not only a possibility, it is probably the right answer. But the experience only occurred because I was willing to challenge the teachings of dogma. The experience showed me that dogma was giving me the wrong answer. My whole conception of God was transformed in that experience. Only by seeing it again in nuclear physics was I able to give credence to what I experienced. And that is when I integrated faith with reason. I realized that they couldn't be held as separate views, one telling me one thing and another telling me something different.
This being said, religious faith deals with the thought processes; what leads us astray and what leads us to higher ideals. The devil is a mythological character that represents that which leads us astray. It is all built on lies. How can you dispel the lies if you are not allowed to question things? You are running into the same problem. When someone wants you to accept things on faith without question, you are finding that it often goes against nature. What you have come to know through science must prevail against what one believes through faith.
And then there is another kind of intuition. The Disney characters were all built on intuition. Could we prove that they are real? The fact is they only exist in imagination. Should we discredit them on these grounds? Given the joy they have brought to millions, I vote that we accept them for what they are. This creates a quandary; when do we question things, and when do we not? It often depends on what it pertains to.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
We both support evidence and reason to justify belief.
We both object to blind faith and dogma.
We both see how religious and spiritual endeavours can lead to positive and negative results.
Your concept of god and spirituality is unusual or unique, but you do use loaded religious metaphors which may confuse things. I'm guessing there may be some cultural religious programming in your beliefs somewhere above and beyond the language.
I guess we agree that the devil is a metaphor for some and a real entity, a fallen angel for others.
However, I don't think the benefits of belief without evidence have anything to do with what is justified belief. Its another question whether belief in Santa Claus gives children a net positive experience.
The consolations of religion or spiritual beliefs don't make any difference to whether the beliefs are correct or justified.
I'm all for exploring ideas and consciousness - half my concerns would be allayed if people just stated I know this is just my interpretation of reality, I could be wrong and most likely are in some of the more speculative areas - but this enriches my life. And I don't use my beliefs to harm or impinge on the rights of others. If I want to argue for a law I bring it back to secular ethics - human rights, harm minimisation. Then it is a different conversation about the benefits and costs of a particular set of beliefs. Many are benign a lot are not.
I get your point that the bad examples in religion should not be used to right off the positive. But there is firstly the question of justifiable belief or not and secondly with any invention it can be used for good and evil. I don't mind if you try reduce the evil in religion. I suggest the root cause in part is due to the fundamental nature of religion and spirituality and how it all works in human individuals, organisations and society. The bad is just part of religion, like the good, in my view.
Rgds
Roy Bourque 20+
I don't have a problem with blind beliefs that bring joy to people. I have a problem when people argue against known facts with their fundamentalists views, and they have a definition that supports them in their right to do that. I feel that certain definitions changed, and that there is a lot more to why they changed than we realize.
You're right, I do use loaded religious metaphors. Religion is all built on associations; myths, parables, symbolism, artistic expressions, etc. As far as cultural religious programming, that comes from personal religious experience. This is what I saw in my mind's eye while exercising my right brain.
Mitch SMith 50+
The etymology of the word "faith" seems to have undergone a radical departure.
Could it be the definitions bracket 2 world wars? And it is the impact of these wars that shifted the practical function of the word "faith"?
Belief is functional topology.
THis topology defines the classification function between sensual data and cognitive information.
There are 2 major interfaces of cognitive topology in humans:
1. The direct sensory interface of primary field of perception
2. The indirect communicative interface between language and secondary field of perception.
The primary field of perception has the advantage of maximum logrithmic convergence via the infinite loop of action and observation. The secondary field is somewhat slower to converge.
THis gives rise to some words which describe the value of the topology. "Truth", and "Trust".
"Truth" is the description of absolute convergence - it cannot be posessed by perceptual topology. In the first instance, logrithmic convergence contains a mathematical limit that prevents absolute convergence - it gets closer , but never arrives. In the second instance, "trust" us used as a measure of divergence from "truth". "Trust" is more often applied to the secondary perceptive field because the divergence is most easily demonstrated. However, it still operates in teh primary perceptive field where the word "doubt" might be more applicable.
There are 2 main entry points to the topology of perception. What you have observed, and what you have been told. Observation creates it's own convergent topology, it is, functionally self-correcting. What you have been told will not converge beyond the measure of "trust".
This poses a dilemma. If a "belief" is accepted into the perceptional topology without any means of observational convergence, it cannot evolve in a self-correcting manner, and all correction will be via definitions contained in the communication itself. It will drift.
Enrico Petrucco 20+
If that sums your point well, then may I add:
If anyone is ever to understand any truth it will be underscored by what one believes and most certainly be derived from it just as what one believes will be derived from any existing truth.
In response to Roy I would say:
Faith has not become twisted and narrow minded, only the expression of faith within religious institutions has. With some level of fundamentalist operations in many religions through out the world, acting with ignorance to good reason, it is no wonder that religion is approaching it's end of days. Faith has evolved outside of religion and the archaic institutions that controlled society for their own psychological benefit yet self-profiting purposes is now mostly obsolete. The moral failures of religious persons seem to stem mainly from poorly integrated reason. A balance will be best found outside of religious institutions - in an open and reasonable community expressing faith ( in any sense of the word)
So I argue that faith has changed for the better, though most religious subscribers might not see the reality.
Mitch SMith 50+
To answer your question "seems that you are suggesting that faith or 'trust' can never determine a truth"
Yes, sort of, but I ran out of text-space to explore the truth/trust/faith relationship.
Self organising systems DO follow truth. In this I say that topology conforms to observation of reality (truth), but never conforms absolutely. In functional terms - close enough is good enough. My model proposes that "faith" is teh suspension of teh measure of "trust".
The drift of teh word "faith" observed by Roy could be explained as 2 different ways to treat the suspension of "distrust" - one way is to say "I'll accept that for now" the other is to say "I accept it for all time.
In the first definition of faith, the way forward to convergence is maintained, in teh latter, it is closed and will never converge. I observe that closed topologies will drift because they have no convergent target.
In simpler language, you could say that "dogma" may be true, but will never be proven, and that the definition of the dogma will drift towards teh agenda of the dogmatist - by way of redefinition of the language.
I like to use my more complex language to preseve the observable concepts that the model reveals - it is easier to connect to neural science than the simpler, broader words that are subject to a lot of assumption and drift.
What we see now as a dissolution of religion is not a dissolution, it is a topological transition as the dogmas prove to be unreliable belief systems.
THe attractor of these topologies is truth. The circumstances of reality move-on and teh topology must follow it. Over time, this destroys all trust in unconverged dogma.
To be reigious is to accept that "truth" is an expression of "god".
This does not conform to political agendas supported by dogma.
REdefinitions must be made to free the unconverged belief from closed system drift.
Mitch SMith 50+
Is, of course, an unresolvable topology ;)
Depending on how you apply "faith", it is either a dogma, or a "place-holder" that invites us to listen to "truth" as the most converged act of "faith".
There is always teh gap.
Also - the redfinitions required to free a closed topology, must be divergent enough to overcome the closure of teh system itself. Often new words must be coined to do this.
Gerald O'brian 50+
And let's call SPIRITUALITY the other stuff. What you define as the quest for one's inner world, the quest for reconciliation of mind and body, the quest to find one's place in one's environment, the quest of accepting one's mortality, ...
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Gerald O'brian 50+
Roy Bourque 20+
I would have to disagree with you on this because faith is what led to my spirituality. I would agree that your statement is most likely true for most people. Maybe the word NEVER should be seldom.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
you stated in you response to Gerald "How can philosophical progress come from religious blindness? "...what exactly did you mean by that because I'm quite perplexed
and then you state that it doesn't answer your original question but I think Gerald gave you one of the factors as to why the definition of faith has changed....so once again I'm quite confused
Roy Bourque 20+
Philosophy attempts to persuade you by analogy. It requires deep thought. Religious blindness merely takes things for face value. You cannot have philosophical progress if you don't have to think about it.
Yes, Gerald gave one of the factors, but my concern is who changed it and why, because you have to depart from faith based on the new definition in order to have any philosophical progress. The new definition gives people the notion that they can promote their faith without proof or evidence. The old definition required that you explain your position so that others could understand. This left the subject open for debate.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
I'm not sure what your trying to say when you state "you can't have philosophical progress if you don't have to think about it"....I'm not sure what your trying to imply here because that is the case with just about anything.
Roy,
I think your asking the wrong question here...its not a matter of who changed it. I doubt if any one person did this...throughout the vicissitudes of history, things have always been changed (mainly by those in power)
but in regards to faith, the notion of having faith without proof or evidence has been the case for hundreds of years. As a matter of fact I would credit the split of the church way back in the like 10th century (or maybe it was the 4th) and then credit the protestant reformation that allowed for people to have the leisure of defining their own propositional faith...
but nowadays I think you have to credit philosophy, science and modernity for the reason as to why faith is without proof or evidence. Since science answered many questions that religion once had the answer to and turned out to be wrong, this can lead to two things: nihilism or one has more admiration for their values.
If this is not the answer your looking for I really don't know what to say being that I'm not the only one to point this out to you..that's why I think your asking the wrong question. but I could be wrong..
Roy Bourque 20+
I have always had the sense that I don't see faith as others do. Maybe that is why this bothers me so much. I believe you are right, that most people feel that faith doesn't need proof or evidence, but that definition does not have biblical support. Jesus rebuked the pharisees and Sadducees for their blind faith, so whoever wrote this definition had no idea what Jesus was all about. Maybe that's not what a definition is all about. Maybe it is not what faith is supposed to be, but what most people regard it as.
You are probably right, that no one person changed it, it was most likely a committee or panel. I'm curious as to what decisions went into coming up with it. It is sad to see a definition that would lead faith in the wrong direction. I'm also curious as to whether there was any intention behind it.
Roy Bourque 20+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Over time the spoken or written word reflects these new meanings.
The meanings reflect the changing world view.
Perhaps in 400 AD the world view was different, from the late 1900. Perhaps common parlance now is back to the older view of faith or at least reflects the common usage.
I guess it is up to the editors of a dictionary what definitions they put in. Perhaps they had a more intellectual faith at the time. I doubt your view of faith, valid as it is, is not the common parlance.
Also, I doubt it is an atheistic conspiracy. But perhaps the questioning of the most common faiths has pointed out a lot of people are accepting things without challenging them. Also the increasing scientific picture of the universe is leaving less space for some sorts of gods.
E G 10+
When two definitions are contradictory we have a problem .
Adriaan Braam 20+
Mysteries were instigated and assumptions were made. So people who's eyebrows went up were told: STOP asking questions!! Just believe!!
And still today, asking questions is a 'sign' your faith is no good.
The Swedenborgian definition is radically different from the Christian theology.
Faith is a personal, internal acknowledgement and affection: an internal acknowledgement of truth from sight and understanding of it, and an internal affection of truth from willing the truth because it is true; and it consists in desiring from the heart to know what is good and true for the sake of life.
It is therefore inseparable from life and is one with the good of charity. Indeed we are taught the understanding of good is what is principally called the truth of faith, and that faith is the operation of the Lord alone through the charity in a person.
Historical (or blind) faith is that which rests upon human authorities; persuasive faith is a belief for the sake of selfish or worldly ends; and spurious faith is that in which falsities are mixed with truths. This is our doctrine of Faith
https://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/writings/Doc_Faith.pdf?attredirects=0
This is our doctrine of Life
https://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/writings/Doc_Life.pdf?attredirects=0
Come to think of it, the word "charity" has gone through similar changes.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I'd like to see more early dictionary definitions for faith and literary analysis before believing NW's view was the commonly accepted English interpretation of faith. It probably isn't biblical either. Maybe it is. Maybe this just reflects a time when faith of different sorts was taken for granted - that there was faith for the simple folk, and a faith for the more intellectual.
"The ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed" - This just looks like another aspect of religious belief, still based on faith that there is a god, that god is known, and that we can understand what god has revealed, as opposed to belief in dogma.
It is just as speculative to me as so called historical faith.
Roy Bourque 20+
I reflect back to Eastern philosophy; what is taught is not expected to be taken on blind faith. It is expected to lead you in a direction that helps you find truth. Until you understand it, it has no value. That is what the ascent of the mind means to the mystics, to come to an understanding.
Science is the new ascent of the mind. It offers information that allows for understanding. When someone is learning a subject, we differentiate between those who can just quote words and those who can apply the subject to obtain some result.
The word God is no longer understood. I could see that part of the definition being changed. But to say we don't need no proof or evidence opens the door to any religious claim that anyone can get others to believe. The bible says "prove all things". Jesus condemned blind faith. So the new definition does not support a biblical view. It supports a religious fundamentalist view and nothing more.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
How do we know who has the right understanding of the word god? Aren't they all equally valid? Zeus is just as valid a definition as Yahweh or Maduk.
It's another thing to say you think a particular understanding or definition of god is closer to the truth.
It's another thing to say a particular interpretation has less dissonance with what we know about human history and the universe in 2012 via science etc.
I suggest there are commonly 2 directions to faith.
1) You are told something and perhaps go about trying to make it fit with reality i.e. the contortions of young earth creationism, intelligent design etc.
2) You experience something and then seek an explanation
Even (2) is interpreted via your world view and belief system so is very subjective.
I suggest to think that a profound transcendent experience is due to a particular version of god is still a leap of faith in a way, and shaped by cultural factors e.g. the bible in the West or the Koran elsewhere, or Confucius or Buddha etc.
Roy Bourque 20+
Your argument is exactly the reason why you can't take it for face value. It is so ambiguous that you have to ponder on it to try and find any meaning. And as new information comes into view, you have to incorporate that information as part of your meditation. We know that the meaning of the word God has evolved. How can anyone say we have the right answer when the answer has been continuously changing since the beginning. You have to have an open mind or you get stuck in a stagnant belief system.
I believe that we need to use both directions to faith concurrently and never be satisfied that we now know. Tomorrow we may find something entirely different, and we have to be prepared to integrate that new information. We may never know the right answer. But we must never stop searching regardless of which side of the fence we are on.
Comment deleted
Roy Bourque 20+
Orlando Hawkins 20+
Nietzsche deceleration that "God is Dead" and
Modernity (which includes and have been caused by a growing knowledge of Science).
Gerald O'brian 50+
Roy Bourque 20+
How can philosophical progress come from religious blindness? This is what the new definition of faith leads one to believe. It is wrong. I would like to know why it got changed.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Roy Bourque 20+
I don't disagree with this. But it doesn't answer my original question.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Belief is the supernatural is quite weird nowadays in the Western world, so the definition points out that faith is reluctance to reason.
Roy Bourque 20+
Anyone who has gone beyond blind faith knows that this definition is wrong. It clearly flies in the face of Jesus who had nothing good to say about blind faith. Faith needs to be tested if it is to have any value at all. The fact that it isn't being tested is why it is falling apart. And those who are testing it are finding that it works on the spiritual level. Although I can't deny that blind faith is leading to atrocities, and that's my point. The modern definition supports blind faith, which has no biblical support.
There are a lot of weird things coming out of science these days. String theory, dark matter, nutrinos, etc. Give it a few more decades. Most people don't understand a great deal of it now. People are presently manipulating statistics to persuade people what they should be doing. We need to question everything as to what the motives are behind what we are being taught.
Gerald O'brian 50+
String theory, dark matter... Yes, weird things come out of science. Most of it is counter-intuitive, or it wouldn't be science ; it'd be opinion and personal feelings. Give it a few more decades and things will get a lot more mysterious. This is the only promise science can keep : we're in for big surprises.
Who is manipulating stats to persuade people?
Roy Bourque 20+
I've tested faith through meditation, allowing my intuition to speak to me. I then test my intuition by seeking confirmation through other sources. I've also tested faith by the observation of others. If they claim to have faith, but their life is falling apart, then something is wrong. The test is to figure out what is wrong. When someone's life is going well, and they claim it is due to their faith, then I ask how they know. I've been enlightened by some of the answers.
Maybe I'm different, but my father taught me to question things when I was young, including religion. When I heard the story of Adam and Eve, I knew that it couldn't be literal by the way it was written. I couldn't get any answers as to the specifics of the story so I concluded that my teachers didn't know what it meant. I never took it for face value and I never accepted anyone telling me that I should. When people talked about it, I asked them to explain it to me. And when all they did was repeat the words, I asked questions that I knew there had to be answers to. If they couldn't tell me, then I knew that they didn't understand.
In time, my intuition led me to the answers I was looking for. That is how I tested my faith. I always regarded religion as a window into another world, the world within. Until you see beyond the words, that is all it is, just words.
Knowledge is gained by observation of the world. That is how science works. Intuitive knowledge is more concerned with the concepts of right and wrong. Those concepts can change with time. As a child, they are very basic. As we get older, they take on multiple dimensions. The commandment says thou shalt not kill. Yet when faced with an enemy, you may have to violate that commandment. It's no longer black and white. That's when religion takes the lead. Science can tell you how to kill, but you need spiritual guidance to help you decide if you should.
Adriaan Braam 20+
"I'm interested. How is faith tested? And if it survives the test, how is it different from knowledge?"
This is one paragraph I copied from Swedenborg's booklet Doctrine of Faith. In which he also says that faith without love to the neighbour is not faith. That was also the whole disagreement between Cain and Abel.
Faith being an internal acceptance or acknowledgement of truth means that the person understands the ideas and concepts, (which are constructs of facts or knowledge) and thus they all make sense to that person who then applies that faith to their life.
This is from the booklet I mentioned,
"From these considerations it is evident that faith and truth are one. This also is the reason that the ancients, who from affection thought about truths much more than people of our time, instead of faith used the word truth. For the same reason in the Hebrew language truth and faith are expressed by the same word, namely, Amuna or Amen."
After all we can, and should, only believe what we see as truth. We can only have faith in truth. But on top of that! What we do is more important than what we believe. Any honest and consistent follower of any religion, being so a good person, is saved because of what he or she does.
We may have the knowledge and the means to build any Tabernacle, but only a Revelation can 'design' it so that the whole thing with every single detail reflects our spiritual environment.
Added-----
That Tabernacle
https://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/source/The%20Tabernacle%20of%20Israel.pdf?attredirects=0
Gerald O'brian 50+
But as an atheist, I think I have access to all of that... without faith.
This is why faith equals blind faith, in my worldview.
Roy Bourque 20+
We can see the falling back by the church during the witch hunts. And we can see it again when they rebuked Galileo. When it comes to finding the truth, you are often on your own. That is what I discovered, you have to get alone with the great I AM in order to find it.
My experiences led me back to searching the scriptures for what the church doesn't tell us. Through meditation, I discovered that there is much to be understood once you started thinking for yourself. But with scripture, you cannot analyze it logically. It is all built on associations, so you have to search for what is being associated. Our culture is not set up that way, and that is the reason that it makes no sense to the scientist. Hold true to what you understand. But someday, you may come to see what I am trying to say.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Also, I agree with you that searching in the Bible for scientific information, such as the origin of humans or the cosmos, is wrong.
I think these two points sum up the kind of atheism I would defend. Use mythology for spirituality, regardless of which it may be, and pursue truth through the rationnal trial and error method called science.
regards.
Roy Bourque 20+
Gerald O'brian 50+
ever?
Roy Bourque 20+
I can accept your previous post and wish religious fundamentalists could see it that way. Religion and science deal with separate issues and shouldn't be used to dispute with one another. The modern definition of faith is counterproductive to this process.
Adriaan Braam 20+
Your post started with "I've tested faith through meditation.."
There you mentioned your search for a meaning of the story of Adam and Eve. Some time ago I have offered this link, but don't know if you ever saw it.
In general, there is no useful history in the Bible. Everything in the Bible is there for a reason which is spiritual. Who cares what was said or done and when and to who?? Unless we can apply it and use it in our life for a purpose.
That is why everything is meant to be taken on a personal level and applied (if believed) in the life of an individual. I mean applied, NOT in the literal sense of the text 'don't eat this' and 'only wear that.'
I mean applied on the direction we develop (to or away from God) and the relationships we grow (how we see and relate to others). This type of application can lead us from our 'place' in Egypt to our 'place' in Canaan.
Egypt is like science. There is nothing wrong with Egypt (symbolizing learning things) or science, until we close our eyes and ears to anything else. Because then we become slaves in Egypt. That is why many prominent people in the Bible, including Jesus, at some point ended up in Egypt during their life. We all have to learn something in order to become something. this not only applies to an occupation, it even applies to sports as well.
That being said, part of that process is also pictured by the parable of Adam and Eve. Please take the time to examine this article and see if this explanation makes sense to you.
http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/studies/Parable_Adam_Eve.pdf
Roy Bourque 20+
I read your link. This is not exactly the way I saw it in my meditation, but it is a very close rendering of it. I guess there are many choices of words to tell the story you provided. The way I saw it is a reiteration of what you provided, so it confirms what I experienced.
When one sees it this way, one realizes that it is not faith to accept for face value what is written. That is why the original definition of faith was "the ascent of the mind or understanding...". To say you know what the words are is a far cry to knowing the esoteric understanding of what is written. That is why I wonder, who changed the definition? It is a corrupt and meaningless definition.
Adriaan Braam 20+
"I guess there are many choices of words to tell the story"
That is precisely what every religion, and person, on this planet should stay focused on. We are in principle all saying the same thing, just using different words and names. Driving different cars to the same destination.
One other thing we should not forget is that, yes the definition of faith changed over time. But so has faith itself. Thus Revelation changed also, from the Old to the New Testament and now to (what Swedenborgians sometimes call) the Third Testament.
Thanks again for this great and sometimes mind boggling, life altering, subject
Mary M. 100+
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld."
"By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God's word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear." Hebrews 11:1,3
Roy Bourque 20+
You are speaking of biblical faith. I am talking about the secular definition of faith, which most of us are accustomed to hearing. I don't believe you go along with it. I certainly don't. And most of the posts that I have seen concerning religion all have issues with blind faith. It is for that very reason that so many are running from it. Religion needs to be questioned, and the modern definition supports the religious fundamentalist claim that you are not supposed to question religion. If you can't question it, then it falls apart. That is what is happening.
Mary M. 100+
You cant' have blind faith......I have said many times that true faith has 20/20 vision.
Yes, people have to question religion Roy. But if their faith is blind, then they are not going to question it.
If the people in my community are any indication, then what usually happens is that people get all upset with their priest or pastor, or the ladies group, or choir, or members, and their faith goes down the ______.
Look what some are learning at this stage of their life........."how to dry their hands, and how to tie their shoelaces"..........and people actually think they know all there is to know about God and faith and religion??
Your conversation is a good one to have Roy. I will continue to check in and read what others will contribute.
Johnson Tam-Lit
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Imagine if Darwin had said I believe we have a common ancestor with the great apes because of a personal religious revelation from the great god bob.
Religious experience is obviously very profound but highly subjective and possibly just some neurological event completely divorce from a creator god.
People speak of alien abduction experiences with the same passion. I believe many believe they were abducted and are not lying. I've seen ghosts etc. But suggest there is most likely some other explanation than a lot of human spirits wandering around or stupid aliens abducting us.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Not sure if faith is the right word to describe it. The faith part might be believing all the assumptions packed into this statement - that there is a god, who has revealed some things, and that humans can understand this.
A blunt way of looking at it from a non theist perspective is this is yet another aspect of the mumbo jumbo of religious belief.
Roy Bourque 20+
Anything not understood is mumbo jumbo. There are many people that think that string theory and dark matter is mumbo jumbo. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it mumbo jumbo.
Religion was about coming to an understanding. That is what is meant by the ascent of the mind. I have had religious experiences and I can tell you that there is an aspect of religion that few people have come to understand. It is because of blind acceptance that religion is now considered mumbo jumbo by many people. They never got past the words.
Peter Law 30+
I expect you could find other examples. Our society is much more secular these days & ridicule has surpassed civilised discussion. So now faith must be blind in order to qualify as faith. Although my IPad dictionary is not quite so harsh...
"Strong belief in God, or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Whatever that means .
:-)
Ryan Ingogia
I believe that the availability of information and communication has led to the changing in definition. In renaissance times in Europe it was illegal to be anything other than Catholic and you could be put to death for going against the church. As advances in technology have happened people have learned of other religions and because of "Freedom of Religion" and not being forced into any one specific organised religion, people were free to explore and choose how they would believe if at all. While we have heard more of the Atheists speak up I believe that many people may be Agnostic or a Theist without knowing or having a firm belief of what the Deity they follow or believe in is.
Hence the difference in definition has been modified to reflect the change in mindset that you do not need to follow organised religion to have Faith. Whereas the 1904 version strongly reflects the view of the Catholic church and the 1954 version allows for broader acceptance.
Just my 2 Cents, but I'm no expert
Roy Bourque 20+
I follow what you are saying. What puzzles me is that the former definition required that we seek for understanding whereas the latter definition ignores this principle. If we open up faith to other religions, it still does not compute that we are not to question what we are taught. I believe that that is a dangerous position to hold. It is a leading cause for people to abandon faith altogether. I believe that there is more to it than just adopting a new definition.
Ryan Ingogia
The 1904 version does revolve around scripture. What has failed to convince me of Christianity is that the scripture was created by man hundreds of years after the events discussed have taken place. Interpreted by man and enforced by man. I am not an expert in any means on the bible, but there are many contridicting statements and has been linguisticly translated several times. So the version that most people read today is actually nothing close to the original. I have talked with an colleague that researches religion that has told me that the original version coveys God in the feminine form. There are many other points, but in short, by the 1904 definition I am asked to believe and follow the writings in a book that may not contain accurate information. I am not saying that the ideas a philosophies are flawed, but I question the actual authenticity of the information.
For a long time I personally do not believe in God. However I do remember the exact moment that I started. It was not a miracle or anything outrageous, just a situation that was too convenient. As I look at my life and the hurdles and outcomes I have faced, I have concluded that for me answered prayers are not freebies, but more like a chess game. You (I) have to make sacrifices to make it to the ultimate goal. Sacrifice a Pawn to capture the King so to say.
As far as "Seeking for understanding" as you put it, there is no viable source for me to accurately gain factual understanding. There are many places to obtain opinions or theories, but not proof. So that leads to "Unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence"
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I understand there is a significant difference in many ways between traditional religion and a self driven spiritual journey. There is a continuum of supernatural god related beliefs. Its not just blind obedience versus absolute certainty of no gods.
I think the position of challenging things is more intellectually sound. We have these brains - lets use them. I accept different people come to different conclusions when investigating god with an open mind and heart.
I guess we both came to different conclusions.
I guess even the most literal believers have their own explanations and theories to make the bible or whatever fit with reality.
I guess the explanations don't stack up as easily as for a deist type god.
Re Christianity - once the followers of Jesus decided to admit non Jews it opened up monotheism to the world. It's success may reflect many things, but not necessarily that it is based on the truth.
You use the power of association rather than logic for Religion - this to me is evidence of the problem with religion. You make connections and associations based on your religious framework. The insights might lead your view to evolve somewhat. It appears to be an internal mental exercise that leads people in many different directions. Its a flippant remark but I could see magic beings, our dead ancestors, nature spirits at work and truths to behold everywhere if I put myself into that frame of mind. If you were exploring in the middle ages or in India today you would end up in a completely different place.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Practically these days many Christians try fit their religious beliefs with their more evidenced based picture of reality. Some twist science to support their beliefs. Others ignore the bits of scripture that no longer make sense. Some draw the line at the virgin birth, resurrection, and other miracles and take this on faith, or come up with a supposed reasoned rationale that there is evidence for some of this, when in reality there is only the writings in the bible, and the church itself. No different from other religions.
In fact if everything in the bible happened or was experienced by people as written, the burning bush, the resurrection it would not automatically mean Jesus was an aspect of god as believed, that the claims were correct, that Yahweh was the creator of the universe. You still need to take on faith that the claims are truthful, because in the end you just have a mystery.
This guy died and then rose again, along with all the recently buried in Jerusalem. This doesn't automatically mean Jesus is god in the sense many believe. There is still a leap of faith.
Roy Bourque 20+
People regard history as something of the past. Very few seek to understand why it happened, what was going on when it happened, what implications does it hold, how has it affected events going forth, etc. The Romans were crucifying people. It was one of the darkest hours of human history. Jesus preached love and forgiveness. He refused to participate in its darkness. Going forth, Christianity became a state religion and the Roman empire fell apart. In time, organized religions would corrupt themselves and use the name of Jesus to conduct witch hunts. Modern science would dispel the notions that fueled the witch hunts.
You have rejected religion because you only saw the surface. I went beyond what religion teaches to seek what it is trying to convey. I still believe in love and forgiveness. I understand what the forbidden fruit is and I stay away from it. To me, religion is like going on an archeological dig; you sift through the information to discover what clues it holds as to why it was formed in the first place. You discover things about it that leads you to an understanding.
With religion, you use different brain functions than you do with science. You use the power of association rather than logic. Religion is made up of metaphors, parables, myths, etc. You have to seek their wisdom through association to understand what meaning they are trying to convey. If you never get this far, then you reject something you never understood to begin with.
Roy Bourque 20+
Your recent remark is getting to the problem I see. "We have these brains, lets use them." That is what "the ascent of the mind or understanding" means. As far as "... to what God has revealed", this pertains to our understanding of the cosmos. The word God has become so misunderstood as to render it superfluous because it is confused with a personification.
Our understanding of science is an ascent of the mind or understanding to what the cosmos is revealing. It is what allows us to fine tune what we are coming to know. It is not religion, but it shouldn't be rejected by religion either. It bears the burden of proof, and so should religion.
"You use the power of association rather than logic for Religion - this to me is evidence of the problem with religion." I don't say that religion doesn't have a problem. But when a definition supports a view that we don't have to prove it, then it compounds the problem that already exists. When you have to prove it, then you cannot reject new information that goes against it. You have to incorporate the new information, even if that means that you have to alter what you believe.
How the definition got changed to something that requires no proof is what bothers me. You can't argue with a fundamentalist when they have support that no proof is required to back up what they believe.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Adriaan Braam 20+
Would that be the same as (scientific) proof? The only reaction to evidence is, as in a movie scene, how the heck did you do that??
No one would ever want to be forced to belief in a God by proof!
We cannot (scientifically) proof a love for something because they are in different realms. That means we also cannot proof that God exists because, again, God and proof are on different levels.
Faith in God is an internal (mental) acknowledgement that since this, that and the other things happened - - - so there must be a God.
We can use whatever happens in our life, and what's in the Bible, any way we like. We can use it to 'proof' to ourselves there is a God or that there is no God. The Bible is in our court :) "let there be light."
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Perhaps being more confident of which particular god view was real, or that a god actually existed, we would be in a position to actually make a rationale choice.
I get to choose which political parties to vote for because they clearly exist.
If a god was more obvious, who knows whether all humans would follow god. Just seems such a tenuous thread that any particular god view is correct, even in part
I don't have much of a choice to follow god because it does not seem to exist in an interventionist sense - based on the evidence and arguments I have heard.
Choice is different from being forced. For me the choice is to believe in something I don't think is real or not. something that just looks klike it is manmade in terms of religion and a by prpoduct of our consciousness in terms of personal religious experiences. In fact when I look at the traditional religious frameworks associated with the Abrahamic religions they strongly indicate something manmade.
I guess this other realm does not exist and that the definition of being another realm is just to get around it not existing.I think if you spend years, especially if starting as a child reinforcing a belief in even an imaginary being it will be a very strong mental construct.
God could exist as you believe, it just doesn't seem evident to me.
Adriaan Braam 20+
"I get to choose which political parties to vote for because they clearly exist."
Talk about 'man made' :)
There is one very important thing that, I think, Roy often mentions as well. Religion is not God. God is not religion. God is not Christian or Islam. He is no more religion than you are your clothes. He is not male nor female. He is no more made by humanity, than you are made by your parents.
"I don't have much of a choice to follow god because it does not seem to exist in an interventionist sense"
If I understand you correctly; certainly, God does work behind the scene, but only to maintain our free will. But work He does, guiding us every second of the way. Have you started to click on any of my links?
"For me the choice is to believe in something I don't think is real, or not"
You have indeed that very choice. I am wondering what you base the "not real" on. Sit down, have a good, long look at the whole universe, from the grass to the stars, and let the good thoughts come into your mind..
If you fall asleep, fine too.. just give it a chance.
Don't forget, the realm in which you think is more real than the one in which you walk.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I think I'm pretty clear on the fact that if there are gods they may not be well defined by any particular religious tradition.
Sitting down thinking about the universe led me first to believe that no specific religious framework probably has any credence.
Then I thought some more and figure the idea of god is probably manmade. That there is no sign of any interventionist god. That the universe does not need a god to exist. The argument of an uncaused cause to explain what we don't understand is a fallacy of special pleading. It explains nothing. It just makes a huge assumption.
Then I thought, there could be many invisible or unknown or amazing natural things far removed from traditional superstitions. There could be a deist type god, but there is no proof. And the chance of the Judeo Christian beliefs or any other religious frameworks having any special exclusive insight is very low.
I guess I'm making points from the perspective that all spiritual, god, religious type human beliefs are probably wrong.
And you are making points with the deeply held convictions that there is something.
How do you prove something like a god is not real. These days most gods are invisible, immaterial, outside time and space, of a fictional spirit world - how do you disprove something like that? Makes me think it is all in our heads.
Actually, the burden of proof for something as incredible as an all powerful, all knowing, eternal being is to prove the positive not negative hypothesis.
I don't rule out a deist non interventionist god, but put the odds on any more specific interventionist god at close to zero.
What is there that should make me believe? A book from this or that human tribe. Human transcendent experiences, similar to what I get via meditation? From my view there are so many deeply embedded god related assumptions in most people.
The universe, life, my human existence is amazing. But to think it revolves around us is hubris. To assume god ....
Adriaan Braam 20+
Salim Solaiman 50+