Does faith or belief need evidence to exist?

Here’s a question for ya my Temple. As Jeddist and as members in our Temple- does evidence HAVE to play a part in faith or belief for you ? Is evidence needed for you to believe ?


Edit: as pertaining to the Force and our own practices and religions.

What is a "Jeddist"? Is there a new kind of ideology, based on "Jedd"? "Jedd-ism", as it were?


Anyway, at the risk of speaking out of line for possibly not being what ever a "Jeddist" is supposed to be, and to keep it brief: No, evidence is what we present when challenged to explain why we believe a thing when we have it. Faith is the reason we claim when we don't.

I think that for belief evidence can play a role, insofar as the belief in question is within the scope of an evidence-based inquiry. That would be, for instance, any claim about how the world within and around us works, or what is or isn't "part of it" in that functional sense. However, no amount of evidence can help me decide whether or not I find the claim "The circular path C has zero corners." believable, because that claim is not subject to any evidence-based inquiry. Faith however is just an assertion of the belief itself. Of the three languages I speak only one has even different words for "faith" and "belief", so when someone tells me they believe something on faith, I cannot help but hear that they believe it literally because they believe it and for no reason else to speak of. For me, that is not something that can warrant beliefs, whether they concern claims one would seek evidence for or not.

Faith is a choice to accept something based on no evidence.
Belief is not a choice, its a state of mind that can be based on evidence or not.

As such, both faith and belief are subject to being wrong but at least belief based on some sort of evidence carries the stronger case for being viable. So that is where I try to operate.

What is is called when you believe it as an assumption? Like, one never really put any thought into it, never labeled it a belief or faith. The type of thing you would go to your grave assuming if no one ever said anything about it?

I have faith
But I also question and learn which sometimes strengthens my faith and occasionally weakens one part which I then rethink.
I do seek evidence, even if its just personal
Not sure if that means anything because at times I couldn't prove without doubt something may work
Like I believe I have a connection to nature
Yet I couldnt prove it wasnt all in my mind
That probably doesnt answer you well

They all will answer me well. Smiley face. I truly wanna see how we as a temple think and act and know and how we all see things. I know we are not all the same on many levels but do our practices contradict or does the actual contradiction come from us and not the deeds themselves. That a million other questions I got for the Temple - how do we do it really ? How do we live this Jedi path or one who calls themself a Jeddist. A Jedi - A Jeddist - a Force believer a Force practitioner a believer in the Force... how ever what ever you call it ... is it real ? How do and what parts? How does it apply to us all?


Edit
Being pastor it’s one of those things I think I would love to understand better : how the temple believes and thinks and how they actually apply their faith or practice or ideas. Just me. If ya don’t ya don’t if you do ... I would truly like to know - not argue. I wanna hear your side. What’s faith and belief like to you ?

Unlike Christianity or Islam, that try to both describe the nature of the universe and dictate ethical behavior, Jediism does not go too deeply into making any assertions that are about the nature of the world, and focuses more on how to act in it (orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy).

And even then, orthopraxy is offered as a guide, with questioning of the Doctrine encouraged through an exploration that focuses on rationality and emotional intelligence rather than blind belief.

Thus, I do not see what role “belief” plays in Jediism, except maybe the initial premise that we are at some base level connected, and value life in its many manifestations and that thus we find it desirable to help protect it rather than crush it.

It's the evidence of things "unseen"..

Like when you know a person to be dependable, or to be kind hearted.. you have faith in them to be who you know them to be.. if a stranger were to ask why you deal with that person in certain ways. It be because of your faith in who they are.. at least that's how I think about it.. I'd take someone's serious faith seriously, because there's always a reason behind it..

Manu wrote: Unlike Christianity or Islam, that try to both describe the nature of the universe and dictate ethical behavior, Jediism does not go too deeply into making any assertions that are about the nature of the world, and focuses more on how to act in it (orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy).

And even then, orthopraxy is offered as a guide, with questioning of the Doctrine encouraged through an exploration that focuses on rationality and emotional intelligence rather than blind belief.

Thus, I do not see what role “belief” plays in Jediism, except maybe the initial premise that we are at some base level connected, and value life in its many manifestations and that thus we find it desirable to help protect it rather than crush it.

How do you act correctly in the world without knowing the nature of it? That seems counterintuitive..

Depends what we mean by "act correctly", doesn't it. Surely, the full nature of the world is not something any of us know, right? And yet, we are stuck with it, and with acting in it, for better or for worse. Perhaps then there is a case to be made for acting in ways that "work", ways that produce the outcomes we expect and wish for, and avoid actions that have an empirically good chance at producing outcomes we wish against. It's not perfect, by any means, but it's the only thing we have shy of some sort of miraculous revelation some of us claim falsely to be having...

I don't think we can act incorrectly, personally.

"But Rugadd, doesn't that mean I could be a mass murderer?"

Yes, it does. We have mass murderers We know they exist. You could be one.

Maybe Faith is the one thing preventing you from diving into that.

That aside, claiming anything happens that shouldn't is foolishness, or arrogance at worst.

Uzima Moto wrote: How do you act correctly in the world without knowing the nature of it? That seems counterintuitive..

Take Buddhism as an example.

You start with the observation that there is suffering. You continue with the assertion that suffering is caused by attachment to impermanent things. Thus, to be free of suffering, you have to become unattached to impermanent things. The Eightfold path is the “how to”.

Buddhism does not need to go into details of who created the world, when or why, what happens after death, if there are or aren’t gods, etc. to be able to make the observation it did.

Similarly, if a Jedi were to make the observation: life is interconnected in a complex but ineludible way (dubbed the Force) and follow up with the assertion that what happens to life in one place/time/locus has a direct or indirect effect on the whole, then it can conclude “let’s value each manifestation of the Force as sacred”. The values that spring forth then would support that: knowledge, to understand this connection better; peace, to ensure thriving of many by cooperation; harmony, to seek a balance between organisms and environments; the acknowledgment of cyclical life processes as part of how the system “works”... etc.

rugadd wrote: I don't think we can act incorrectly, personally.

An action is correct or incorrect based on how it matches up with the original intent of the individual (or the society at large, in a bigger scale). Which is why killing someone at war is not considered “incorrect action”.

Manu wrote:

rugadd wrote: I don't think we can act incorrectly, personally.

An action is correct or incorrect based on how it matches up with the original intent of the individual (or the society at large, in a bigger scale). Which is why killing someone at war is not considered “incorrect action”.

So then what is incorrect action? Is protesting the act of killing someone in a war incorrect action?

“Kyrin” wrote: So then what is incorrect action? Is protesting the act of killing someone in a war incorrect action?

No. “Correct or incorrect” is individually defined, that’s what I meant.

Manu wrote:

“Kyrin” wrote: So then what is incorrect action? Is protesting the act of killing someone in a war incorrect action?

No. “Correct or incorrect” is individually defined, that’s what I meant.

So in that case I'm wondering if you consider incorrect action just a matter of a personal guilt feeling?

VixensVengeance wrote:

Manu wrote:

“Kyrin” wrote: So then what is incorrect action? Is protesting the act of killing someone in a war incorrect action?

No. “Correct or incorrect” is individually defined, that’s what I meant.

So in that case I'm wondering if you consider incorrect action just a matter of a personal guilt feeling?

No. I consider incorrect action a matter of measuring actual results vs. intended results.

I think your going to have to be more specific. What it sounds like you are saying is something like if I go to paint a painting and I intend it to look like a masterpiece but it comes out actually looking like a finger paint that is incorrect action.

IMHO, faith = hope + belief

When we want something to be true or to happen... we "hope". When we give ourselves reasons to think that it is true or that it will happen... we "believe". When we combine these things it becomes faith and it often blinds us to reality because it creates a bias around what we want to be true. Faith doesn't mean it is or isn't true. It is worthless in making something true or false. It merely describes our emotional connection to that idea and how much we are willing to work or fight for it. Based on our effort, the thing we have faith in has a chance of becoming real, becoming true, not by it coming into existence of its own accord, but by our hands, even combined hands of all the "faithful" building or making that thing a reality. Human beings seem to work best when guided by faith. However, this working together is kind of like building the tower of Babel. There is simply no necessity of right or wrong when it comes to the ability of humans to work effectively together. Faith is more so assumed to be a good quality even though the faith of Christians, Muslims, and Jews can all threaten each other's existence.

...or so they "hope".

Manu wrote:

rugadd wrote: I don't think we can act incorrectly, personally.

An action is correct or incorrect based on how it matches up with the original intent of the individual (or the society at large, in a bigger scale). Which is why killing someone at war is not considered “incorrect action”.

but the morality of society isn't static. As the need for wars wanes we begin seeing war as an evil. Therefore killing people in war is also an evil, but considered a necessary evil when war cannot be avoided. If a war is unjust then killing is also unjust and "incorrect". However, the soldier doesn't have much choice.