Belief vs Faith (Philosophical Distinction)
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2022
- An explanation of the distinction between belief and several definitions of faith from various religious traditions including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.
Sponsors: NBA_Ruby, Antybodi, Federico Galvão, Mike Gloudemans, Andrew Sullivan, Eugene SY, Tyler James, Antoinemp1, Dennis Sexton, Joao Sa, Joshua Furman, Multitude, Ploney, Avatar, Diéssica, GhostlyYorick, Hendrick McDonald, horace chan, Will DeRousse, Star Gazer, Paul Linkogle, Julian Seidl, Doǧan Çetin, and Daniel West. Thanks for your support on Patreon! If you want to become a patron, follow this link: / carneades
Here are some videos you might enjoy:
The 100 Days of Logic ( • 100 Days of Logic (Full) )
History of Philosophy ( • Four Weeks of Famous P... )
Ancient Philosophers & Zeno’s Paradoxes ( • Schools of Ancient Gre... )
ExPhi Experimental Philosophy ( / @experimentalphilosoph... )
Map of Philosophy ( • The Map Of Philosophy )
More videos with Carneades ( / @carneadesofcyrene )
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/store/carneade...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more!
I think when considering someone whose embracing of certain ideas or attitudes we consider to be (merely) faith, it is more productive to view this as a special case of reasoning in which the set of premises is either incomplete or comprised of premises which are innaccurate or unusual or at least premises which are both deniable and unsupported by other premises.
That sound similar in some ways to Aquinas's definition, placing faith between fully justified beliefs and completely unjustified claims, as something that is reasoned, but has some flaw in the reasoning.
Great breakdown. I once had a discussion on this with a theist ( I'm an atheist) and they had just finished a theological bible studies course. Faith came up and I asked what the difference was between an evangelical refusing medical treatments and relying on prayer and someone running into a cafe strapped in semtex thinking they would have all those people as servants in some afterlife. Both had faith, as far as I then defined the word simply as " a strong belief". The debate went all over the place without any real definition we could both agree on but they seemed to think "faith" was a gift from god. their god to be specific. I pointed out that's what the bomber thought too. I have since come to the decision that "faith", in religious terms means something that cannot be objectively proven in the real world whereas my faith in my car's brakes, something very real by comparison, is proven every day.
I think more philosophically literate Christians use faith to mean "justified trust in"
Well, in Spanish we can say something like "have (some) faith!", telling someone to "believe" or to "trust" in the plan we have or in the actions we're gonna take. I've never heard English-speakers using alike expressions, but you can have an idea.
We actually have something similar in English. "Have a little faith!", though arguably this is less common than it was.
My respect and appreciation.
Thanks!
Here. Is my answer. We’re talking about taking action that has a risk of loss. It’s a continuum. But for any expected cost if my threshold is less than or equal to the Baye’s prediction, it is belief. If it is greater than Baye’s prediction, it is Faith. So there’s Baye’s equation and a loss function and a cost function and an activation function (which is the threshold). What do you think?
To me, belief is sort of a vector space, with one dimension for each of the mentioned interpretations of faith or belief, and each differing in strength for each proposition. That includes the concept that one should apportion belief in accordance with the available evidence, that is, you can model this concept in my model, but it accommodates all the mentioned attitudes and more.
I might be more or less convinced that something is true, I might rely to a stronger or lesser degree on its truth, and so on, and so forth.
There are some models of faith that model it as a sort of sub doxastic or non doxastic venture rather than a doxastic one. Could skeptics exhibit that kind of faith?
It would likely be rare. Skeptics are open to other kinds of propositional attitudes, so you might think a "hope" kind of faith is something that is open to a skeptic, though only if it did not require belief as well.
How do you define belief when there is no well-defined proposition? e.g. the proposition is vague, ambiguous, not framed rationally, but the person still believes that it is true. Is that really still a proposition, and if not, what is the definition of belief?
I'd say it qualifies - outside math, logic, or (maybe) science, every proposition is somewhat ambiguous, so it becomes a matter of degree. If it's too ambiguous, it's useless, but that doesn't mean you can't analyze it with the same tools.
Notes
Proclivities can't be question too
People have proclivities that they come into conflict with each other. (If two people want one think). There is no way to reaolve it. Only negociation but negotiacion is possible also with beliefes. But is violence always undesirable?
Belief can be easier to change than proclivities?
So. Is violence inevrible?
Hi, thank you for the video!
Watching your video, I was expecting that you will cover the C.S. Lewis definition of faith in his Mere Christianity book: "Faith [...] is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”
I thought this was one of the most popular definition in Christian theology. Have you considered it?
Best,
Paul
Ya this is the definition that I take. Seems to be the one that the Bible supports.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
Well the biblical definition of faith, comes from the Greek word Pistis which means to put trust or confidence in something or someone, if you defined faith is purely believing something about evidence, and then you are incredibly ignorant. Faith is to put trust in confidence in something or someone, again depending on how it’s being applied to something, it can be rational and it can be irrational it’s not necessarily irrational.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 yeah, I harped on that with people I know. Generally speaking faith biblically was to take as fact, but rarely is it depicted as blind. Normally it refers back to ones previous experiences of god and prescribes one test the promises of god to prove veracity. Or in other words, inductive reasoning with confirmation bias.
Faith is belief based in testimony, rather than in ones own personal experience or reasoning.
faith can be rationally justified or not depending on whether one has good reasons to believe in the honesty and sanity of a witness, as well as if one has reason to believe the witness has the relevant sort and degree of training, expertise, and/or competence, when and if such things are relevant to the claim in question.
Basically, the more reason one has to believe the trustworthiness the witness is on a matter, the more justified ones trust in their word, which just is belief.
In this way, faith is an extension of trust, namely when said trust is applied to belief in the claims of a person; so the ideas are related.
@@LOZandKHfreak Interesting! But can we not equally postulate the opposite? Namely, that trust is a mere extension of faith? In other words: what makes faith a kind of trust, instead of trust being a kind of faith? It seems true that every act of faith implies trust, as you said, but it also seems true that every act of trust implies faith.
I'm not convinced. People don't say they have faith in ghosts or leprechauns. Imo, faith is a kind a trust that is dangerous when you're the only one to act on it, and beneficial if the whole group believes it - because it showcases a reciprocal loyalty.
As a critical rationalist I think it's very important to distinguish two different varieties of the 'doxastic venture' form of 'faith': belief in the absence of reasons, and belief that is immune to reason. I think that it is impossible to ever have positive reason to believe exactly one specific thing (because of underdetermination of theory by evidence), but that one is warranted to believe anything that they don't have reason to disbelieve. However, one's beliefs must always be open to revision when presented with reason to discard them. (Which incidentally rules out any beliefs that could not possibly be disproven). So if you think that God exists, in some sense that is amenable to disproof, and no disproof is at hand, then you are warranted to have that belief. Someone who believes to the contrary is *also* warranted in their belief though. It's only when one of you wants to tell the other that you are right and they are wrong that you need to be able to show some kind of evidence *against* their belief. And it is only if they hold fast to their belief in spite of evidence against it that they are being irrational.
rad. an important distinction.
@@idedimi For an example, see the end of the Ham-Nye debate.
Or, you could not be a neckbeard and accept the Jungian perspective.
@@Adeptus_Mechanicus what's the Jungian perspective?
So, when I think of faith, and not blind faith (which I see as toxic), I think it should have these things:
- a belief in something that is not self-evident or provable through scientific means
- an open mind and a willingness to believe or reject a belief
- action, not just passive proclamations of trust or belief
- sincerity of hope and willingness to act
I understand the skepticism many feel towards beliefs that have no scientific proof, but in my experience religion and spiritual truths can be proved in experiments, but their results are not visible or measurable by scientific instruments.
Spiritual truths are like dark matter: they exist on a separate plane, in a dimension separate from our own, and not detectable by any tools made for this dimension, if that makes sense. But you can perform experiments the exact same way as you do with anything using the scientific method.
Take a religious claim as your hypothesis. Something simple and actionable. The one I tend to suggest is the God answers prayers. So, you open your mind and heart like a scientist, choose a decent amount of time, like 2 weeks, and pray everyday during that time. Wait for an answer.
Wonderful! I was just having arguments with atheists about this (I'm an atheist myself)
You're a great resource carneades!
Thanks so much!
Oh come oh ye faithful!
Bro modulate your volume. You're either yelling or whispering. Do you have your mic hooked up to an oscillating stand? 😚
You dare make me train…. I am lord freiza!
The violence/rationality dichotomy was a little weird
To me, faith and belief are separate. I have faith because I understand "God" to be the infinite being the universe comes from and is composed of (informed in part by taoism and panentheism). Matter and Energy are just appendages of the Divine.
In the same way that one cannot believe or disbelieve in the Wind, one cannot believe or disbelieve in God, only define or name it in different ways. To me, the Divine is the way the universe unfolds, the path the seashell takes as it falls to the seafloor. One might have a different perspective on the unfolding or the path, but one can't say they don't "believe" in it (well, they can, but it doesn't change the fact that the event is occurring).
Another way of putting it: a sculpture stands in an art gallery, and viewers observe it from different angles. One viewer says, "There is a Hand." Another viewer, on the other side, says, "There is no Hand." Regardless of perspective, the Sculpture still exists. Dogma and belief are akin to taking a 2D picture of a 3D sculpture. You can approximate the appearance of the sculpture by taking many pictures from many angles, but the best picture of the sculpture is the picture that Is the sculpture (hence, the Inarticulatability of the Divine).
True faith is a resilient way to cultivate peace and unconditional love. Dogma and belief are just dust.
Belief is a verb and requires evidence. Faith is a noun and Hebrews 11 says it is the substance (noun) of things hoped for of the evidence NOT seen.
Nice video, but, it left me believing that the word faith is as empty as the words 'supernatural' and 'possible'.
'possible' is an empty term to you?
The Biblical definition of faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.
Jesus is Lord God Almighty clothed in unsinful humanity and He is the author of eternal life to all who trust Him alone for salvation.
Jesus paid for all the sins of all the world at the cross (past, present, and future). That payment is put to your account when you have believed on Christ alone for salvation.
Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.
God immediately declares you justified and gives you everlasting life as a free gift.
Salvation is absolutely free, instant, and eternal, recieved solely by trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone, and is certainly not conditional upon service to God.
Service (discipleship) if you choose it can cost you everything if you go all out in serving God.
Our good works, repenting of sins, and obedience, are for temporal fellowship with God here on earth and for rewards in Heaven or a lack thereof and have absolutely nothing to do with salvation at all.
The only reason anyone will ever be in Heaven is solely by the perfect life, shed blood, death, burial, and resurrection, of Jesus Christ alone.
Anything added or subtracted from this is another gospel.
I know. I dont beleive or put faith in any crap. It is what it is and I know it so
For most philosophers, knowledge is defined as as type of belief (generally true justified belief), so for most philosophers, if you know something, then you believe it, because belief is a requisite precondition of knowledge. Faith, on the other hand is a distinct concept, that sometimes requires belief, but other times does not.
For me, faith means it’s original definition. The word comes from the Latin “fides,” which means trust and reliability. I have faith in God(Christian), but it’s a faith based upon evidence, not some blind faith that’s opposed to reason. I think that this is something a lot of Christians need to understand, that Christianity isn’t against reason and rationality but rather is rooted in it.
See that's the part i don't get. I can understand someone being Christian because they find it comforting, but I can't understand someone sitting, doing the research, really thinking through things logically, and still thinking that Christianity makes sense. I've done a lot of research into this. I mean if my soul is at stake I better be sure... I'd love to have a proper conversation with a real Christian that holds that view though and actually compare evidence. I just don't know anyone. All the Christians I know say their faith is based on a feeling and not evidence, except 1, but he's a child and I don't feel comfortable talking to him about it.
@@sneakylemon8513 At the risk of sounding prideful, I'd say reasonable Christains like @ianmcelmurry2882 are rare, but we exist. Just gotta keep looking.
I define faith as the thing people refer to when they are in a state of disjointed uncertainty and choose an answer to run with.
Interesting definition. People do seem to grab at unjustified claims when they are in a state of uncertainty. People seem uncomfortable with uncertainty and o grasp at unjustified belief.
For me faith is demonstrated with a virtue. It is not with/without any rationale you do not support faith with a requirement you cast at a progress. So actually beliefs go together with Muslim community how others do is not with/without salvation. You show ground for the rationale to be equal in beliefs you and your people.
Now I imagine trust but with Faith in my religion it is rather not true. You could have faith without religion. You could have religion without diety to be proven. It all circles to how much value you are put. Life is fragile. As with all religions I also say they are serve as guide as the good for a conscience who desires to seek.
I have still concern for Aquinas. There is no evidence in faith. Then there is no use of tangiblility with any religion. How could that answer meaning? To be with light of the Religion.
SALVATION 101
❤We are SAVED by GOD, by Doing His WILL, and BELIEVING In His SON.
❤Our SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST, told us How we are SAVED in Matt 7:21, John 6:40, John 3:16.
❤Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, But the one who Does the
WILL of My FATHER, who is in heaven.
❤John 6:40 MY FATHER’S WILL is that everyone who looks to the Son and BELIEVES in HIM shall have eternal life.
❤John 3:16: For GOD so Loved the World that HE Gave (Sacrificed to Die) HIS only SON so that Whoever
BELIEVES in HIM, shall not perish, but have ever lasting Life.
Faith: wanting something to be true, and so believing it (wishful thinking).
Sounds like something close to a combination of the hope definition I offer, where having faith is hoping that something is true, and the doxastic venture believing something without evidence.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene no it’s not faith is to put trust in confidence in something or someone, Faith comes from the Greek word Pistis, this is completely false.
Do you know the term faith comes from the Greek word Pistis right, which does not mean wishful thinking or to put blind trust in something without evidence, it means to put trust or confidence in something or someone or insurance, Faith fundamentally means putting trust or confidence in something or someone, again it can be believing something about evidence depending on how that person is using their faith, but it’s not necessarily within itself purely just believing something about evidence, and people also need to make a diss diction between Christian faith and non-Christian faith.
@@pleaseenteraname1103
In the case of Christianity, pistis is trust in God or Christ to deliver on the promise of resurrection to glory. Why believe that will happen? Ultimately, I think, it's because you really really want it to happen. Imagine how sad it would be to learn that there wasn't going to be any resurrection. Why did you think there was going to be a resurrection in the first place? Because it said so in an old book? Because your pastor told you so? What if those aren't right about that? Christians want to believe in the resurrection, and so they believe in it. Contrast this to a view that simply wants to believe what is true to the best of one's abilities, whatever that may be, however satisfying or unsatisfying that may be. Such a view would require good arguments or evidence to believe in such a fantastical claim as the future cataclysmic end of history and the resurrection of the dead, or the resurrection of Jesus. But there are no such arguments or evidence (I know what the professional apologists say and why it's deeply flawed.)
@@11kravitzn i’ll talk to you when you actually understand, christianity and Christian apologetic arguments. No Pistis isn’t uniquely just to the God of Christianity, there’s a different type of faith putting faith in God and putting faith in humans is different, very important distinction that you don’t seem to make.czcams.com/video/S0tyRvSIEH4/video.html.
Belief is of two kinds; justified (knowledge) and unjustified (faith).
That sounds like a doxastic venture definition. Though most philosophers require knowledge to not merely be justified belief, it must be justified true belief.
I would disagree with this, (although it is mostly just semantics) for me faith is based in rationality, not an antithesis to it.
@@ianmcelmurry2882 If it could be justified it would be science.
Faith cannot be "believe without reason" because nobody believes without reason. There can be no objective definite reason, but even "parents told me so, and I trust them" is a reason. It's not so different then "because prominent scientist on tv told me so" after all. Everybody at least thinks they have a reason, even if the reason is their emotional responce to a claim (like in most situation of accessing moral dilemas - even if vast majority of people decides what is wrong or right without objective, verifable proofs, we don't say "I have faith that x is wrong"; therefore this definition is a result of deluted atheism and desire to mock religious people), as a Catholic, faith is a bit of everything, it's believe in and trust in the diety, point of initial salvation, virtue that should be worked upon and hope in the future (not in proposition itself though).
All too often the religious hard core do not distinguish faith from literal fact. It seems that in many of these types of followers there is a lack of ability to grasp ambiguity and nuance. From the perspective of countless Truly Faithful I've interacted with here on YT over the years everything must be in stark black and white, which explains their fear that everything in the bible must be literal history or it's all wrong. Seems also to be a trait of many people as it can bee seen across beliefs being a predominant characteristic of the fringe elements.
Yeah no no no I completely disagree with that, it’s actually the atheists that give you this black-and-white definition of faith, most atheists define faith is purely believing something about evidence, which is completely untrue faith comes from the Greek word Pistis which means to put trust or confidence or assurance in something or someone, atheists are using the equivocation fallacy they’re taking a word that could have multiple different meanings depending on the context and restricting it to only one meeting, so dude you can’t look at this honestly and tell me that Christians or religious people are the ones misrepresenting the definition of faith, or that they have no grasp and there’s no nuance this is incredibly dishonest, tell me the Christians that define faith has only meaning one thing and don’t recognize that can mean different things depending on the context, oh yeah you can’t, you also can’t find any Greek scholarly sources that define Pistis as purely believing something about evidence. Faith means putting trust or confidence in something or someone, it depends on how you’re using it.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 But that's not what I said. The overuse of the straw man fallacy is also a hall mark of the Truly Faithful.
@@deepashtray5605 i’m not trying to intentionally misrepresent your position, if I did I apologize, can you clarify what you mean.
@@deepashtray5605 I mean I agree, but I disagree on which side is doing it.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 It seems that every group has elements which do that. All I am doing here is expressing my opinion based on the last 15 years of interactions with people who claim to be True Believers, regardless of the actual formal religion they follow. It's not entirely my own observation; there was a study several years ago that found people of a conservative mind set generally are prone to viewing the world in very stark black and white terms, as I say in my OC.
I lean hard toward demonstrable fact, and have little tolerance for anyone who claims their holy book grants them a divine jurisdiction to dictate who is and who is not allowed to exercise human rights.
I am not claiming nor do I have any intentions of trying to paint all faith based demographics as doing that. I am saying, from my own observations and interactions directly and indirectly with hard core religious people that they have a tendency to believe their holy book or the narrative of their particular faith is literal fact/history and seem to believe that if any part of it is contradicted by demonstrable facts then all of it must be rejected. Young Earth Creationists such as those who buy into AiG or the CRS are a classic example, and boy are they willing to change the facts to make sure their followers stay in the dark. Are there atheists who do this? Most likely their out there.
And speaking on a psychological level: Faith is actually beneficial according to studies.
Belief in bullshit is good for the losers that fear the reality of life.
The rest of us don't need a crutch, because we're not pansies.
You just want some weird fascist ethnostate, so you cherrypick all known data to find small studies that you think prove your worldview to be correct.
It'll be really funny when you realize you're a moron that never actually knew much of anything.
Not funny, actually. It would be an amazing bit of development if you ever are able to look outside your preferred delusions.
Faith: believing in something even though there is no reason to believe it.
No that's blind faith.
Faith = Trust
You trust your friend to keep his word about paying you back, not based on nothing, but based on your previous experiences with that person.
@@yunusahmed2940 previous experiences are evidence. Gravity worked yesterday, so I can reason that gravity will work today. All faith is blind.
@@InventiveHarvest
? Non sequitur
Literally faith is based on previous experiences. The Greek word for it is Pistis which means Trust. People don't have faith based on nothing, they have faith because they trust in people or things based on their relationship with that thing.
The same way you never bothered to fact check a history book or teacher because you trust/have faith in their authority. You don't have any evidence you can pull to immediately, but you have faith they're correct in what they're teaching.
@@yunusahmed2940 sounds more like induction than faith.
@@InventiveHarvest
The distinction being?
Ah you rationalists, you will never understand faith. Faith requires the giving up of control where as rationality is the mechanism of control itself.
You feel safe in your rational view. Everything in that world is known and comfortable. It is your world of pleasure.
But can you see something worth ignoring that pleasurable rational world for? Something worth believing in at the cost of understanding it?
I'll give you a hint: You've already been doing it dailey without noticing.
loooooooove how you've phrased this. break the brain, loosen the chains, return to unhewn block.
All the scriptures have been written by human beings and are based on human dictates.
I like to keep it simple regarding faith: I now belong to the Father, the Supreme Soul, and I recognise, accept and move along while considering myself to be a soul and I know the Father as He is. ....this kinda leaves out all the middle men 🥲