Talk:Faith
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Faith article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 | |||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 This article has an assessment summary page. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Faith in Christianity section
This section needs to be rewritten in encyclopedia style. Its current style is more akin to evangelism. Phrases like "But it's not the works that saves us but God's grace" assume that the reader is a Christian. The entire section reads as instructions on how to practice Christianity rather than an exposition of how Christians practice. 173.3.113.232 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] William Ashley's Opinion
"In accordance, oneness, truth, belief, faith unknown becomes a favorite" Faith is actuality of the future. Fides, Fidelity, it is accordance. It is only with doubt of faith that the connotations referenced in the article come into play. FAITH IS. Faith is seen as a societal occurrence. Different individuals or cultures may express different notions of faith. Faith is truth in being. The context of belief is just that idea of faith. The difference between personal faith and group faith is that personal faith is an individual belief, or undoubted notion for the future and what is actualized now, perhaps in view of the past; while, group faith is that which can be commonly agreed which shapes the common law, common knowledge or common practices, it in many ways is the people's practice, or basis of reason in their common occurrence. Faith when exercised is an unquestioned impowerment of belief, it is what allows belief to maintain. Major knowing worship is not required for faith, faith is worship as a basis to the constitution or unconscience of the person. Faith building is to fortify ones faith, and observance of 'the law' or the meaning of the person. Knowledge and Opinion stem from ones faith, and acceptance or paradigm. The difference between faith and belief is that faith is a emotional sense where belief is a form of knowledge which is unquestioned by the individual, it is. Faith interacts with belief and the spirit. Faith in many was is the personal spirits interpretation of knowledge. Where there is a question of faith, or question of the persons spirit belief may become challenged as an emotional test unfolds. Thus belief is at the core of faith, and only when concordance reveals conflict can faith or innate worship be questioned. The difference of worship and faith is that worship is an activity that stands beyond 'regular activity' while faith is all pervasive, it is just a question what is the faith. While some people may be one religion all their faiths may not be identical, their occupations may say something of their faith, or their personal stances on a particular religion may not align. Faith is intune with emotional, moral and ethical identities of the individual.
Faith in someone or something can be construed to be loyalty, that is following someone or something because it corresponds with your faith. Faith is not loyalty, faith is agreement. While faith can equate loyalty when it is faith in a person, faith itself is not required to be cultic in origin, that is, faith does not need to be worship of a person, but rather it is like a personal philosophy, but emotional rather than intellectual.
[edit] Working Hypothesis, Explanatory Myth, and Faith
The contrast between what one person believes and another believes is one of the most problematic features of individual brains. Some people may believe that the Earth is flat, others that it is a sphere, and still others that it is only roughly spherical.
In my opinion, faith is the practice of voluntarily holding onto a belief. If I check my pockets frequently to assure that my keys are still there, it would be reasonable for someone to conclude that I have little faith that they will stay there. If I leave my money in a bank account for decades without ever seeing it, it would be reasonable for someone to conclude that I have a lot of faith that my money will stay there.
Since I view faith in this broad way, it is easy for me to get comfortable with the idea that there are wide gray lines between Working Hypotheses, Explanatory Myth, and Religion. In this view, a Scientific Hypothesis is a belief held onto very lightly for the duration of a scientific experiment. An Explanatory Myth might be held onto for years until a better explanation is presented. A Religion may be held onto very tightly indeed, and many intend to make it stay for more than a lifetime.
The difference seems to be a matter of degree or determination.
It seems subjective to define faith as only existing in one of these shades of gray but none of the others. A person who believes that they have seen penguins may hold onto that belief and then abandon it when someone points out that they might have been puffins. That would have been faith in a small degree or exhibiting very little determination. A person who believes that their prayers are heard and responded to by dieties may hold onto that belief, even when pain and suffering still plague them, or others ridicule that belief. That would be faith in a greater degree or exhibiting much more determination.
Faith seems to be a basic mental operation in some ways. In particular, it seems that some faith is necessary to any attempt to formulate a plan based on abstract concepts, memory, or the testimony of others.
The contention is about what specific beliefs different people hold onto and therefore place their faith in.
That seems valid. It seems entirely appropriate that many people will disagree about how hard one should hold onto any particular belief. After all it is only rarely that people can share a complete set of experiences and the same perceptions about those experiences.
[edit] 11 million Mormons, one third of which is active, and they get the bulk of this article?
This page has obviously been run over with Mormon content. Not proportionally representative of the varying views. It appears we have some zealous Mormon editors.
[edit] Faith and Evidence?
I heard something about faith and evidence. I forget what David Asscherick said in "Pascal's Wager" which was on 3abn a couple of nights ago. Something about faith isn't blindly trusting, but is based on evidence. Maybe, it was there is "no faith without evidence" or something. Thanks.
I think I found it.
[edit] Faith in Country
Faith in country is when someone has belief or believes in their own country to do something great for that country.
[edit] Faith as commitment
Removed the section "Faith as commitment" because as it stands it is not well written section. If someone wants to re-write it, get the text from history.
(reasoning in italics): Sometimes, faith means a belief in a relationship with a deity. redundant.
In this case, "faith" is used in the sense of "fidelity." not explained
For many Jews, the Hebrew Bible and Talmud depict a committed but contentious relationship between their God and the Children of Israel. This is covered in "Judaism" with a link to "Main article: Jewish principles of faith"
For a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identity, for example a person who identifies himself or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. way to generic for an article that goes into so much detail elsewhere, maybe add to intro?
According to Michael Green (theologian) faith is "Self-commitment on the basis of evidence". unreferenced, if included it needs expanding and explanation.
[edit] Faith and Science
With Dawkins' declaration in mind, there are respected scientific theories that are based on faith in a priori knowledge, justifications or arguments. Such acceptable principles are thought to almost certainly be true, and yet they have never been directly observed or have never been directly tested or duplicated. Some examples in astronomy and physics are the principles of dark energy, einstein-rosen bridges and quantum mechanics. There is still much to learn about even magnetism and electricity. The degrees of such faith range from the acceptance of a priori principles by scientists to the everyday faith that when a switch is thrown, a light will go on or off. Another controversy in astrophysics involves the widely accepted Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. This theory, first proposed by Georges Lemaître, is that the Universe began with a "singularity" and expanded from that point; however, as British scientist Stephen Hawking emphasizes, "At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down."[1]
1. ^ "The Beginning of Time", lecture by professor Stephen Hawking
Virtually every word of this is inaccurate. It confuses belief on partial evidence with belief on based on no evidence (everyone has plenty of evidence that light switches will work for instance). Georges Lemaître's theory only proposed expansion, not an initial singlularity. Quantum mechanics is heavily tested. etc etc.
1Z (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this, Peterdjones! Perhaps if I'd used "axiomatic" instead of "a priori", it would have been clearer? I thought of that later. There is nothing wrong with starting with axioms to improve logic and to prove theorems in geometry or give substantiation to hypotheses and theories in science. Perhaps on the surface it seems that evidence for some things are plentiful. But what if you turn on the switch and nothing happens? It can be frustrating because you didn't get what you expected (what you had faith in). The early Lemaître theory only proposed expansion from a "primal atom"; however, present theory suggests that the expansion began with a singularity, which, as the Hawking comment shows, is yet another article of conjecture and faith (not really "science"). Quantum mechanics is heavily tested, yes, as our conversation here, our usage of computers and the internet will attest to; however, the testing is merely like the flipping of the light switch to "test" if the light comes on. The basics of QM are still quite a bit controversial and talked about, each discussion based far more upon "faith" than on scientific evidence.
- The point is that while Richard Dawkins correctly points out that faith-based beliefs are "non-thinking" processes, the fact remains that whenever a person makes a decision about something, thinking stops (ref. S. I. Hayakawa). And this is true whether there is evidence, no evidence or partial evidence.
- Belief based on partial evidence or belief based on no evidence can be confusing for some. For example, one person may believe there is "no evidence", while another person believes there is a great deal of evidence. So this distinction can be very subjective. The paragraph I rewrote above is quite accurate, however it does lack citations. This is why I asked that either you help out by finding citations or at least place {{Fact}} templates where you believe citations are required. This is what is usually done before text is deleted from articles. Editors are given the chance to back up their claims with reliable sources. So please replace the paragraph in the article and either add {{Fact}} templates or help us find reliable sources. Thank you again for this opportunity!
- — .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`. 03:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite with citations
Rather than insert the rewritten paragraph here along with the citations I found, please visit my Sandbox to analyze the rewrite. If there are no objections, in a few days the rewrite with citations will be reinstated into the article per WP:Preserve to preserve the information.
— .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`. 11:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- The rewrite is WP:SYN. None of your sources directly support the science-is-based on faith claim. Rather they are sources for theories which you say are based on faith. 1Z (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- On the contrary, each and every source goes into great detail about each subject it cites. And when the sources are read with understanding, one walks away from the reading with the knowledge that, while there is certainly evidence for the existence of the subject, there are always pieces of axiomatic, a priori knowledge that must be "taken for granted" in order to believe the evidence. There is synthesis, yes, but it is not the type described by WP:SYN, it is not a type of synthesis that goes against Wikipedia policy.
-
- So I have to wonder, since the bald truth of the matter is that pretty much everything anybody believes is based upon some degree or article of faith, does your continued protest stem from your own POV? or can you provide sources that the rewritten paragraph is incorrect? I have provided ample sources to back up the claims made in the rewritten paragraph. If you can provide reliable sources that your opinion is more than your own original research, then this also can be considered.
- — .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`. 04:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
