“Devoid of hope and fear” - yes, exactly. 
So faith is something of an understanding. You understand the potential folly it, which is likely why you are content to let it rest. You believe it regardless, so you’ve come to an understanding in your life that incorporates that belief all-encompassingly. I kind of see this as getting over an intellectual, or spiritual, speed bump – you realize the nature of something well enough to be comfortable with it and begin to move beyond it.
Yep. I like this definition. Kind of Epicurean…
Anon and statiktech–So ya’ll are content w/ blind (bad) faith. You don’t have reasons for being okay, or for your definition of okay, therefore, we cannot communicate on this “okay” thing.
Btw, earlier I spoke of passive (intuitional) knowledge…that isn’t really the sort of knowledge spoken of w/ reference to “justified true belief” but is a sort of practical knowledge (birds know nests, spiders know webs, we know true meaning…that is all passive, intuitional knowledge…not justified-true-belief knowledge).
Hey Ichthus!
They say that many persons with autism develop depression later in their life because they don’t have the capacity to engage in positive future-oriented delusions… e.g. the idea that when we’re 65 or so me & my wife will own a retreat somewhere and settle into the sunset. They say such thoughts go far in getting one through the day, even when one consciously may not “believe” in them. Their persistence, however, as a possibility, is so powerful that it raises the quality of one’s life single-handed. Is that not the power of Faith?
That’s a leap! (pun intended).
Seriously - huh?
If you need a reason to be ok, your life will be filled with empty hopes and fears. Your joy in living will be fragile and easily lost. I’ve been trying to communicate on this “okay thing”, and it doesn’t seem like an especially difficult thing to understand to me. But sometimes communication just doesn’t happen for whatever mysterious reason. Who knows.
Howdy, Oughtist. Are you equating autistic folks with people with sociopaths? Planning and looking forward to the future results of planning require not only empathy with one’s future self, but also faith in the evidence that the results are a real possibility, and trust in any persons responsible for bringing about the results. If it is a real possibility, it isn’t delusive…but…it also isn’t certain…and so does require faith. In fact…without that faith…it may never happen. Faith is only as powerful (strong) as the evidence. You might also actually be thinking of hope.
Anon–so, you’re not cool w/ blind faith? That’s great.
When I say “reasons for being okay” – I mean…reasons for believing everything is going to be okay. I don’t mean ‘motivations’ for actually ‘being okay’. How do you know everything is going to be okay? How is “being okay” different from “being apathetic as to how things turn out”? How is “being okay” different from “not caring one way or the other”? Is it different from “being happy”? If not–I’m not saying we need reasons to be happy, I’m saying–how do you know the results will be happy results, or, how do you define happiness?
What makes you think that faith is apathy or happiness, if that is what you mean by “being okay”? Obviously faith is not “deciding not to decide one way or the other, what one believes” (that would be a decision made in bad faith, right there) (…I think my shovel just struck something?). I think someone who is happy will have good faith and avoid bad faith…and I think having good faith is more conducive to happiness than is bad faith…but I wouldn’t say happiness is “justified true belief, lacking certainty”. Happiness is closer to Kierkegaard’s subjectively interpersonal faith/trust.
No, I’m noting the fact that a greater than normal number of persons with Autism experience debilitating depression in early to mid-adulthood. And that a leading theory in that regard has to do with the notion (cf. also Theory of Mind) that these persons have a much greater capacity not to have the otherwise very common and natural presence of positive future-directed delusions. And that without these little everyday parades of minithoughts (e.g., I will be an infamously influential person sometime in my future, or, I will show the greatest depths of my love to my loved ones, or, I will win the lottery) (…even though I am not that person right now, of course…), the banality and impersonal reality of day to day life can take a person down.
No, I’m not talking about those rational spans of moments when one deliberates in a conscious manner, I’m talking about everyday life.
But it doesn’t even need to be a real possibility, at least in any meaningful sense. It can be an absolute fantasy. Whatever works, as they say.
And with that faith it may never happen. And without that faith it may happen. And with that faith it may happen.
Is “strong evidence” like “strong curry”? Sorry, I’m just not getting the idea that faith is based on evidence. It’s simply oxymoronic to me. Faith may attempt to see patterns of affirmation, sure. But faith is its own “evidence” (it is a gift from the grace of God, so they say).
Yes, and also wishes, and dreams. Lots of things to relate it to! 
Oughtist…it feels like you are presenting a false dilemma, between “delusions” and “pointlessness”. Let’s leave autistic folks out of this…though I may be mildly aspie, so that would be kinda difficult, since I’m in this discussion. Anyway, a lot of folks suffer depression and wonder if there is any real meaning in life. You have said to me before … that we should be happy making our own meaning. But that isn’t genuine meaning–that’s made up meaning. Blind faith that there ‘may’ be meaning that is genuine–that is not what I am talking about, no. I am saying that would be bad faith. I know…it runs counter to Pascal’s wager. I was never fond of it.
Hope is based on evidence too, y’know. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” 1 Peter 3:15.
Answer. Reason. Gotta love it.
[P.S. The gift of faith is based on evidence. It is his grace that saves us, through faith, which is the choice to trust/love him back, in response to the evidence. If his grace does not save us, if there are no real promises, faith is empty and trusts in nothing real. He will fulfill his promises, whether or not we choose to be a part of that. It must be a choice, so without faith–we won’t be a part of it. But the main point of this thread is that faith…the choice to believe evidence or to trust a person…is not blind, or it is bad faith.]
Sure, I didn’t mean to isolate the argument to clinical diagnoses. But I stand by the conceptual point I nonetheless made in that regard. Happy delusions are healthy, when taken in small serial doses on a mundane level.
Why isn’t “made up” meaning genuine. Why isn’t “creation” legitimate?
So, Peter is saying, “Always have a reason.” Well, this, I think, is an unfair expectation. And certainly flys in the face of modern psychology, don’t you think? Sounds, rather, like a set-up line for the follow-up, “And, hey, here’s a pre-packaged deal of reasons for your preparatory convenience!! Freee!!!”
“Answer” = “to swear against”
“Question” = “to keep on walking…”
God = evidence?
That’s not an argument against meaning being constructed - if meaning is constructed, made-up meaning is genuine meaning.
In any case, I feel my point still stands - faith is justification, is evidence in its own right, not simply cognitive belief. It’s a belief in which we have emotional investment in place of shared ‘objective’ evidence.
this bears repeating, so i am repeating it. faith is not irrational - it is, in its way, evidence of itself. faith however, is not knowledge - it is rather belief, and though all knowledge is belief, not all belief is knowledge - faith cannot be true in the way that something with “objective” evidence can be true - the two forms of belief serve different purposes, or ought to. one of those rare questions which only philosophy can adequately adress is: what does it mean for something to be true? i would argue that things for which the only evidence is faith don’t make the cut.
so rather than saying faith is knowledge lacking certainty, i would say faith is belief lacking knowledge
of course, i would also argue that knowledge and certainty aren’t the same thing, so maybe the above assertion depends on that being the case
in addition to being uncertain, i also don’t know
Wasn’t Job, in the bible, an example of someone with great faith? Job was able to bear situations that others would have found unbearable, because he wasn’t attached to outcomes. His faith would have been even greater if he wasn’t attached even to after-death outcomes, such as his presumably unshakable confidence that he would enter a permanent heaven as his reward for bearing such hardships.
See, I think this is both the beauty and value of faith, as well as its primary problem. It acts as an all-in-one as for knowledge, evidence, justification, etc.
I know I’m repeating myself here, but, for instance, there is no evidence for God, only of God. One can say intelligent design is evidence that God exists, however that does not answer, then, where God came from. One can say anything exists because of God’s will, but nobody can say why or how God exists. God needs no evidence, just like a belief in God needs no justification. They are matters of personal preference and sentiment.
I also think this particular portion is very well said–
Much like Anon is invested in his faith that everything will be OK, regardless of circumstances presented to him. There is an obvious lack of objective evidence to justify his belief, so he trusts his sentiments.
To me, this is neither “bad” nor “blind” faith – it is a well educated sentimental appeal. This is not necessarily intuitive either. It is just something that Anon believes is good, and believes for his own good. What is the “bad” in that?
Oughtist…I don’t want delusive–I had my share of that already. I want real. I’m a philosopher. (I’m a philosopher?) Yeah.
True creativity, true life, mimics the eternal. Mimesis, I believe it’s called.
Y’lost me at Peter. Know Thyself.
There is a reason I’ve got a Greek name…
God = evidence? Hm. Of what? You’re being very vague, sir.
Only_Humean…“if” meaning can only be constructed, then all the cultures in history who found the Golden Rule and ask the “deep questions” (espECIAlly philosophers) are collectively delusional…just like Oughtist said. Who knows, your faith assumption may just be right (but–not “evidence” that you are right…u.p.f. and statiktech).
Anon,
Let’s skip biblical interpretation. The ultimate end is love. That is the right outcome, right here and now. That its source is eternal and can maintain us eternally–added bonus. However–if none of that is true, then to put faith in it would be crap. See my moral truth litmus, and research how the Golden Rule is found in every culture in history. There is cause for faith.
Statiktech–
Intelligent design is crap. Google BioLogos. Since God is eternal, “Where did he come from?” is a meaningless, illogical question.
To believe (have faith) in God’s existence and trustworthiness, just like to believe (have faith) in anybody else’s existence and trustworthiness, does require evidence, or you may as well just drink the kool aid.
That was just an example for the purposes of my point, I wasn’t proposing that you, or anyone, actually believed it (or ought to. ever.)
Most people are simply drinking the kool aid in this context, my friend. The evidence of a concept like God is what you make of it – nothing can guide you to actual knowledge about God, but, rather, a strong belief, or faith, in God (if you wish to interpret it as such). The Bible, Koran, what have you, are good examples – they prove absolutely nothing (no offense to anyone intended), and the justification in a person’s acceptance of a religious text as the ‘word of God’ is purely personal in nature. A belief in God, or faith, does not require any evidence at all; but people actively seek evidence (or purposely interpret certain phenomena as evidence) to justify their own faith to themselves.
To trust my mom, or believe in her existence is a far simpler matter. I’ve experienced her presence for 20+ years, and experiences that I attribute to her are easily held in relation to her physical existence. I perceive her through sensory perception, as well as sentiment, and need not look for evidence or justification in that – it is presented to me without my own intent or request.
Evidence and justification of something like God requires motive, intent, and preconception about what you are looking for. To have faith in that which you already wish to have faith in is essentially a matter of convincing oneself to a degree that you personally deem sufficient.
What evidence? You make the above statement as though such faith is something other than just your own imagining – a religious sort of imagining in this case. I view it that way because I can’t examine your reasons for it, they’re unavailable to me. God belief is only based on faith, it’s not about evidence. In fact, you couldn’t maintain that faith unless you divorced it from evidence. For religious believers, faith without evidence is considered desirable…to them, that seems to be what is admirable about maintaining it in the first place.
I suppose that is true. An absence of evidence can work in the favor of some believers. That way, if someone asks for proof of God, they can simply respond by asking for proof of no God. It is equally difficult to prove and disprove something we know as only a concept. No rational, no logical formulas. The attempts that do exist are refuted with equal, if not more, validity.
You either believe or don’t – perspective.
what is it you can’t become or gain if you do not have faith in God?
In any case, it wouldn’t be the first or only thing that many cultures around the world at different times have been delusional about. But I don’t think you need to conclude that; it could be that the Golden Rule is a reasonable approximation of what most people feel to be meant by “fair” or “just” - given that all cultures involve humans living together, and much social behaviour is (or at least may be) simply pragmatic guidelines to harmonious, efficient and productive co-operation, it wouldn’t be a huge surprise if societies came upon similar notions of how to behave together. Or there could be an inborn cognitive bias towards certain behaviours that is pleased by the Golden Rule.
Delusion’s not necessary, if it works as a political/justificatory tool rather than as a claim to having some objective status as a discovered part of reality.