In what (or who) should one have faith?

In this forum and in numerous other discussions, I have seen or heard the word “Faith” used in various ways. In Wikipedia, Faith is described:

I believe that it is important to examine the beliefs, ideas, and things in which we have faith, and to consider how we came to have faith in them.
[size=150]Were we just going with the group we were in, or was it from our own understanding?
What have been the results of our faith?
Have there been confirmations that our faith was well placed?[/size]

[size=150]Do you have the courage to ask these questions with an open mind, and perhaps let go of some of those things that you formerly claimed to have faith in??[/size]

There is no such thing as pretty people. But many of us beleive they exist. Some of us see ugly people. And we go with the group.
Understandingly there is no such thing in reality. Most of us have a faith in what we think or what we are told.

Humans divide them selve in to nation. Be percieve themselves as different from everyone else. American, Japanese, Morrocan, English, etc… Some one some where made up the title and many kill of that idea. Nationailties are not based on reality. But we go with the group or beleive what we are told.

Many unfounded ideas and many faithfull to them.

Wiki’s explanation is misleading.

Faith refers to “sticking to the plan”. That plan might have to do with belief in some particular ontology or not.

You can have “faith in the road” meaning that you are going to continue down that road regardless of doubts and increasing evidence that it is the wrong road. To have faith in a religion means that you are holding to its precepts regardless of interference and doubts. Questioning your faith, is not having faith.

Faith is required by any and all gatherings. When someone questions their marriage, they break faith and typically destroy the marriage. When they question their political alignment, they weaken it. Anything one questions is weakened “by the fire”.

The whole point to doubting is to weaken what is, not necessarily to find anything better. Even if something better is found, once doubted, it too becomes weak. Doubting is a form of entropy and is metaphorically “the fire” in ancient scriptures.

It was once presumed that certain things cannot be doubted and thus by doubting everything, the things that cannot be doubted would be the only things left standing. Then one could build his beliefs upon those undoubtable things. But eventually it was discovered that truly anything can be doubted, all it takes is either intent to destroy or mental incapacity (blindness) to see the irrationality of your questioning.

If it so happens (usually contrived to be so) that something is not questioned enough to weaken it, the unquestioned thing survives where all else fails. Such is the impetus for secrets. One cannot question what they cannot conceive.

from that notion that what is not questionable due to its hidden nature, power is gained in the form of secret societies and conspiracies. The Home Land Security office is designed around that principle.

I supplied the explanation from Wikipedia not because I take it as an authoritative source, but rather because i found that it stated reasonably well my own understanding of the meaning of Faith. What is interesting about your reply is that you present a meaning of the word which I find misleading, though popular.

The definition or descriptor “sticking to the plan” refers to commitment. If you substitute the word “commitment” for “faith” in all that you have said, I would agree entirely, but faith is something more powerful. Faith can lead to commitment and can strengthen commitment: For example, I am committed to my marriage and therefore to my wife. I have faith in God and in His commandments about marriage which I can read in scripture, and therefore I have Faith that marriage is a sacred institution. I also have faith in the power of prayer, and in the efficacy of Baha’i spiritual consultation to solve differences. These all serve to support my commitment.

I believe the following examples from the New Testament exemplify what I consider to be the essence of Faith: An absolute certainty in God’s power to assist one in doing God’s work.

From Matt 14:
[25] And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
[26] And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
[27] But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
[28] And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
[29] And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
[30] But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
[31] And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

And Matt 17:20 “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.”

As I said, I believe that well placed faith includes certainty of the truth of God’s guidance. But I do not think that faith should include certainty in the truth of other people’s interpretations of scripture. This is really the crux of what I am digging at: The followers of the most foolish, suicide-by-Koolaid cults are duped into placing their faith in the interpretations of their leaders, and that commitment to belief is strengthened by the ridicule and opposition that they endure as a result of their aberrant beliefs. The science of Social Psychology bears this out, as do the techniques of “brain-washing.” Such cults provide an obvious example, but what of those who follow the doctrines of popular churches? Does not the doctrine of, for example, literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2, engender a foolish loyalty because of the very opposition which it arouses? The greatest danger of religion comes from the ability of people to twist it into a means for their own control, and the exalted station of “faith” used in the sense of “commitment to our church and its doctrine” becomes a tool in that enslavement.

Those passages from Matthew support what you have to say here, so perhaps I should have tempered my remarks with a appeal to seek out the truth, free from the sayings of men.

Never follow leaders. Put no faith on anything other then your own ability.

Me, follow me up this hill over the horizon…

…in hindsight, that was a cliff.

We all make mistakes. When subjective values in the universe are conditional, and objectivism is only theoretical, all things are fallible.
Faith is a manifestation of hope, and hope being an unapplied will that a theorisation of the future will be fulfilled, one cannot determine the value of ones faith, so the question is defunct.

First you ask what or who, then you go on about the different meanings of ‘faith’. So what are you seeking then; a suitable meaning for the word ‘faith’. Or are you seeking Something and/or Someone to have faith in, or both or neither? :text-imwithstupid:

In answer to the OP… in one’s-self.


and this doesn’t neccisarily mean your ability

You can have faith in impermanence.

Yet this impermanence and everything might just be a dream.

Awesomely, impermanence could be the only permanence in life or a dream, jonquil says buddhistically.

You know…I’m not sure that really requires any faith does it?
Seems like something you can observe directly pretty readily.

How would that possibility effect how you choose to live? In other words, could you say more about what you’re thinking here?

You sure can! :slight_smile:

Just faith in one’s-self to get things done, for relying on other’s one will be waiting a long time. #-o

I, too, once held the Cogito as the single statement worthy of full faith (if that is what you are referencing.) As of late, I would argue otherwise. If you’ll pardon my copying and pasting, I’ve pre-written my argument in a blog of mine:

"Cogito ergo sum. I think; therefore, I am. A concept typically associated with Descartes, the Cogito attempts to prove the existence of oneself. The logic of the Cogito states that if one thinks, one must exist in order to perform such an action. For a significant period of time, I turned to the Cogito as the sole proposition upon which I could fully rely. I recently questioned myself regarding the matter; is this a valid argument?

From my reading, I’ve come across two main counterarguments to the Cogito- the first assumes that the Cogito must be self-evident. Otherwise, the premise of the statement, “I think,” presupposes the existence of the entity ‘I.’ Accordingly, the conclusion is invalid; it would be no more valid to say, “I exist; therefore, I exist.” However, is one’s existence truly self-evident? Is self-evidence a credible argument, as it inherently lacks proof? Does awareness suffice as proof of existence? I cannot answer, as all logic and reason I possess is based upon the axiom of my own existence. Additionally, why is this thought attributed to an ‘I?’ Descartes has only proven the existence of thoughts in the present time frame (as the past and future could be an illusion.)

The second argument attacks the syllogistic quality of the statement. “I think; therefore, I am” is a flawed syllogism. Its completion would require the extra premise “whatever has the property F, exists.” This is known as the instantiation principle. According to this principle, in order for a property to exist, there must be an object which has said property. For example, if there were no red objects in the universe, the concept of ‘red’ would not exist. If one accepts the instantiation principle, the Cogito is valid. Nevertheless, the instantiation principle is an axiom, and numerous great minds did not accept it- Plato, for instance.
Taking the arguments described above into account, I’m quite convinced that the Cogito does not effectively prove the existence of oneself. Per contra, does it prove the existence of thoughts? Can a thought exist without a mind? Is it possible that nothing is in existence? To answer that, a more precise definition of existence is necessary. Thus, my interest in ontology was sparked, and I am forced to conclude that all knowledge is developed on the basis of some form of axiom. "

The issue of a ‘fundamental truth’ still haunts me. I find little in which I can place full faith.