Talking That Faith Jive

What I like about faith is it ‘jives’ with my reality of the world I live in.

Faith is one aspect of my character that choose not to give up on someone even though others can write that person off. Maybe some people hold this kind of grace out for me as well? If so, thanks.

Nothing on this planet is certain (in someones life). I think we wish it all was scripted and written out, we would have our certainty. Thats not what we have but this uncertainty allows for us to learn and become more aware. We are never the same person from day to day and year to year, maybe that’s a good thing?

Our knowledge is limited (one person in a sea of people) and we use faith all the time to ‘fill in the gaps’. But not filling in those gaps leaves us in a state of flux, a kind of uncertainty that makes us uncomfortable, even can drive us crazy. It humbles me to know I don’t know it all and I need everyone else around me to help fill in the pieces I am lacking in, I have faith we can make the best outcome with the pieces of info we have been given.

God is a mystery. Not human, no voice, no face, no figure, no appearances, etc. It’s plausible to not believe because what is their to believe? Its also plausible to believe since it’s supposed to be mysterious. Wouldn’t it be weird to know something about someone called God and have them figured out? Wouldn’t we then be gods as well?

I’m just saying faith makes sense in many ways in the world we live in – and it’s a very acceptable way to help view the world through the lense you call life.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Talking That Faith Jive

  1. If you replace the highly nebulous (and even unfathomable) term ‘god’ with Oogity Boogity, I think it becomes pretty obvious how this belief fails in any meaningful way to provide any plausible benefits… other than attributing cherry picked benefits to oogity boogity.

  2. Your argument suggest that gaps in knowledge can be filled in with “pieces of info.” Of course this makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is that “pieces of info” are related in any way to beliefs about oogity boogity. You assume they are because you propose that these beliefs help us view the world. But many specific beliefs about oogity boogity actually hinder the successful transmission of pieces of info and nowhere is this hindrance more obvious than the ongoing battle between the knowledge provided by understanding evolution and the empty beliefs that informs creationism. What we have produced is a factually incorrect view of the world – creationism – that you claim is “a very acceptable way to help view the world through the lens you call life.” I beg to differ. What you are suggesting is that direct hindrance of knowledge is not only helpful but adds value to making sense of the world. I think this reveals a glaring contradiction in your own thinking that undermines your argument about collecting “pieces of info” through faith-based beliefs, which leads me to the conclusion that these two notions/perspectives/world views – faith and knowledge – are in fact incompatible. And that’s a problem to be overcome and not a benefit to be rendered.

  3. “Wouldn’t it be weird to know something about someone called God and have them figured out? Wouldn’t we then be gods as well?” I like it. Great blog.

  4. “If you replace the highly nebulous (and even unfathomable) term ‘god’ with Oogity Boogity” (tildeb)

    Simplistic view of ‘God’ or ‘Christian faith’. Does oogity boogity have some form of template called scriptures associated with it? This changes the dynamic in many ways and takes it from something nebulous to something more concrete and etched in human history.

    • How does it change ‘the template’ or its ‘dynamic’ and remove the essence of oogity boogity into one of trustworthy information? Remember, you claimed faith-based beliefs provide ‘pieces of info’. And I think the number of factual errors in scripture reveal just how unlikely a trustworthy source scripture is for these faith-based ‘pieces of info’. The central tenet of faith in some creative interventionist purposeful agency remains oogity boogity… just in written form. I see no change the quality of this information nor any alteration to its dynamic as a force for providing pseudo-answers that are unknowable.

  5. “What you are suggesting is that direct hindrance of knowledge is not only helpful but adds value to making sense of the world” (tildeb)

    This is purely assumptive on your part and in fact is attributing things to me that I did not say.

    The thing I am talking about is faith – which we all use, all the time, everyday, in everyway imaginable. Not solely about faith in God, but faith nonetheless.

    Fact is your assumptions about the work in science is also a step of faith, since not all the ‘facts’ are in concerning many scientific endeavours on this planet. Things will change tildeb, things will change. Then you will whistle a new tune when the facts lean in new directions, revealing that right now (present) you have a level of faith in the scientific process being right or factual in the present tense.

    That’s my point. We all have a level of trust factor we use in this lifetime, and to not use it correctly is detrimental to the human condition (ie: can cause serious phobias in people). I would almost say a human life cannot be worth anything without trust; trust is part of the term ‘faith’.

    Do you know why you trust something so much? I mean, obviously repetition gives merit – but even trust can be broken to test our own levels of faith in a process we think works. Happens all the time, everyday, in everyway…take a look around you.

    • Now you’re being disingenuous when you equate the kind of confidence we have in knowledge with the confidence we have in faith-based assertions. These simply are not equivalent.

      Surely one of the key questions we have to inform our trust is How do we know if that is so? If one answers with anything other than good reasons, then the confidence level has to be low. So what makes a good reason? A good reason starts with a sound epistemological method, one that tests the reason for its veracity, one that accounts for all the available evidence, one that works repeatedly well, produces consistent results, and hopefully yields practical applications that would not work if the reasons were bad ones.

      When we apply confidence to good reasons because these reasons stand up to scrutiny and are found to be sound, we are no longer talking about faith-based assertions. We have left those way back at the beginning of our inquiry. And the key word here is faith, meant in the religious sense of belief in the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This is not confidence and trust because of evidence and good reasons but in lieu of them.

      This is a standard canard of the theist: that about the same level of trust can be leveled towards knowledge from a sound epistemology as assertions based on no such epistemology because new information changes our knowledge. But is this true and how do we know?

      Well, what the canard always fails to mention is that knowledge is rarely overturned; rather it is deepened by better reasons, more comprehensive explanations. Plus, I know of few people involved in knowledge who ascribe certainty to these conclusions. In other words, there is almost some wiggle room to pronounce that at this time to the best of our current knowledge, such and such appears to be the case. In comparison, faith-based statements are just as likely to be presented as an objective truth as an assertion with high confidence based not on anything testable but as a precondition for the faith statement itself. This is a different kettle of fish in terms of good reasons for confidence than one built from the bottom up on evidence of why something deserves a higher degree of confidence than some an alternative.

      So let’s keep the terms consistent. Knowledge as we know it is not built on faith in the religious sense but contrary and opposed to exactly that.

  6. “I see no change the quality of this information nor any alteration to its dynamic as a force for providing pseudo-answers that are unknowable” (tildeb)

    Perhaps, after all religion is just a philosophical way of viewing the world (so to speak).

    However, it depends is everything mentioned is oogity boogity (which I am guessing has no basis whatsoever but that it was ‘said’). Creation is not something that is completely ruled out as well, since we are also determining the beginning of the universe and there is no solid 1 way the universe had to have started…again we are testing an idea no human was alive to witness (which will make some of the dynamics in that physics guesswork).

    The difference scripture makes is a ‘tradition’ – passed along and down to others to find their paths in life…some of this will be quite wise information. Some of it will have to change as well, as times change and economics and countries as well. Nonetheless, scripture is a written form with traditions that can be based in historical analysis…which is the case with Christianity and Judaism (even Islam and Mormonism).

    So its not just oogity boogity (sounds very random to me) but something that may have very well stood some measure of the test of time making it valuable.

  7. Pingback: Priority 2: Faith in Self | An American Point of View

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s