The value of Faith

If faith is the evidence of things that appear not, then faith is the assent of the intellect to that which is believed. The intellect chooses to have faith voluntarily. Faith is not blind but is rather a choice. It is a judgment that assents to the truth of the proposition even though the intellect recognizes the limits of reason and evidence. Faith bridges the gap where there is some aspect of uncertainty because of the limits of science or logic. For Thomas Aquinas, faith is an act of the will where uncertainty becomes certain knowledge. A Jedi might replace will with imagination recognizing the limits of reason (or science) and perception can be extended through the application of other forms of cognition.

One problem with positing the opposition between faith (a spiritual attitude) and reason (knowledge founded upon physical evidence) is in its dualist assumptions. If we reject dualism then how can we discuss the issue of different criteria for determining truth? Perhaps there is no one thing that is truth, but rather there are different kinds of knowing? One kind of knowledge is founded upon certainty (the truth) of reproducible and predictable experimental results that can be described in mathematical language. Another kind of knowledge is mythic. And this is, for us here on this online community of professed Jedi, a religious faith that the true nature of reality, and so also that of human beings, is found, for example, in the myth of the hero or the Force. Our faith is a kind of knowledge that is founded upon our experience of our own consciousness that there is a power that determines and constitutes our being and thinking that transcends the limits of our factual existence, our ability to articulate in language, logic or mathematics, and also, our rational explanation of phenomena (i.e. science). Myths reveal truths that are grasped, discerned or understood in a different way than that of science. Myth is one way of knowing, and also of living, science is another.

When one speaks of 'truth' as a scientist one is being sentimental. Science is for fact, cold hard data, not for determining the meaning of the facts. Science is an ideal and the practice is to broaden the field of available facts. Truth is for poets. Truth is not factual, it is a meaning, and meaning comes only from human consciousness, which science is unable to factualize. Some people, therefore, have zero confidence in truth because it is not an objectively verifiable fact. The truth is, 'There is no truth;' but that is the truth. The answer is, 'There is no answer;' but that is the answer. I think one of the most enlightening moments in my life came while I was listening to an interview with Joseph Campbell and he said, 'People think they want to know the meaning of life. What they really want is the experience of being alive.' I think that is another wonderful aspect and value of faith, it is springboard into the experience of being alive.

Excellent insights, Targeran. All science is rational but not all reason is scientific. One path of reason searches for objective truth while others seek, for example, wisdom or happiness. Science is but one of the kinds of knowledge that a Jedi (might) employ in life, along with sense perception, practical experience, art, myth, virtue ethics, etc. Aristotle reminds us that there is truth and falsity not only in thought but also in being. A human being is true when her life, in its relations to others and herself, expresses and exhibits its real nature. For me, that real nature is our embodiment.

"Granted by reasoning we understand our knowledge as different from its object and thus as relative and subjective, the relation of knowledge and object cannot be relative also. Thus as a kind of being, as a mode of human existence, our knowledge is true to the extent in which it adequately expresses its essential relation to its objects - a relation by which knowledge itself is determined. This conclusion holds for the knowledge of the world, of oneself, and of God. It is in imagination that man's relation to himself finds expression. Thus there can be no knowledge which does not contain an element of imagination" (Philosophical Understanding and Religious Truth by Erich Frank, Oxford University Press, 1966, page 99ff).

Khaos wrote:

I'm not sure we're ever going to agree on what constitutes solid evidence.

Certainly not at TOTJO.

No one can even agree on the words they are using here more than half the time.

Attempting to communicate here is next to impossible if you are in disagreement with someone else.

Either there is the agree to disagree approach, which isnt communication.

Or a retreat into subjectivity as if that in itself is an answer, or evidence.

Isn't that the way of words? Communication at best is less than accurate. You try and try but people: think, believe, know and define things differently. If you think about how unique each personality is it's amazing we do a well as we don. :lol:

Okay, so could an Admin change the title of this thread to "Science and Faith" or something?

I was hoping not, and have actually tried to steer the conversation several times onto the value of faith, and the value I can see in it. I have even gone so far as to discuss the pros/cons of not having a bit.

However if I discuss the value, of which I only find one pro, and its not even a pro for me, meaning I am placing little to know value in it, then the argument strays to that I must have it.

Science is then presented as a faith( by people who seem to have very little knowledge or interest in it no less), etc,etc.

However I do not want to argue science and faith, but faith and its value, and even the value of not having it.

I stand by my thought process that as a security blanket it has value, but nothing above that.

Right.

The value of Faith can be anywhere on the number line. It can be anything from extremely harmful, to benevolent, to very helpful. It depends on the faith.

Khaos wrote: I was hoping not, and have actually tried to steer the conversation several times onto the value of faith, and the value I can see in it.

I agree with you, Khaos. It is possible to discuss the value of faith without claiming to either "have" faith or be able to define it scientifically.

Knights have charged into battle and died as a demonstration of their faith. As a king, this would make the faith of my knights very valuable to me whether I shared their faith myself or not. If my goal as king is to conquer and I can motivate my knights to do so by invoking their faith, I would do so.

Others use faith as a crutch when they are presented with overwhelming circumstances. I can scientifically explain how cancer caused my father's death to my mother, but she does not want to hear that explanation. She chooses to lean on her faith and believe that God had a greater purpose for him in Heaven and decided to take him sooner than we would have wished. I don't share this faith in her God, but it brings her peace and that makes her faith valuable to me.

Neither of these situations would actually require me to have any faith of my own, and yet faith is still valuable.

rugadd wrote: Okay, so could an Admin change the title of this thread to "Science and Faith" or something?

Change the name to suit the thread or keep the name and thread is what it is. I don't see need a need to change the title...start a new thread.

ooopppsssee you're the OP so it's your thread and your call.