3 ms·

> “faith” in the context of religion means to “believe absent evidence”. I think that's a bit simplistic. I was taught (in a Buddhist context) that "faith" sh

> “faith” in the context of religion means to “believe absent evidence”. I think that's a bit simplistic. I was taught (in a Buddhist context) that "faith" should be interpreted as a kind of confidence. To do meditation (beyond something like mindfulness), you need confidence that you aren't going to explode, or harm yourself. It's like that game of deliberately falling backward, with the confidence that your friends will catch you before you hit the ground. So you need confidence in your teacher and in the teaching. You gain that kind of confidence based on experience; you don't trust your friends (or your teacher) because you're supposed to; you trust them because they have shown themselves reliable in the past. You don't acquire confidence in a flash, as it were on the road to Damascus; it's something that develops. I don't know whether the Christian notion of faith jibes with this Buddhist interpretation. /me no longer a Buddhist, nor any kind of thing-ist.

slothtrop 3y ago
You could suggest we have a confidence interval for various things (e.g. 99% for gravity, 55% for whether x/y/z will happen or a president gets a second term), but in the capacity of Christianity the expression of faith demanded necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. The institutions (and what is conveyed in the Bible) don't want you to kinda sorta believe, they want you to believe by willfully eschewing all doubt. It's an action as much as a descriptor for belief. I never felt as though I could "choose" to believe anything, or not easily at any rate. I could choose not to explore certain data and be satisfied with ignorance (though I try not to) but if something is incongruent with the facts as I understand them, then I can't "faith" my way to believing it.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > the expression of faith demanded necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. OK. So in Buddhism (the way I was taught it), confidence or faith isn't something you express; you either have enough to achieve what you're trying to achieve, or you don't. And nobody demands it. But you're right, it's not an all-or-nothing deal. > necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. Indeed (although I'm not sure what "mild conviction" means; being convinced of something means you can see no room for doubt). For some kinds of meditation, e.g. some kinds of Tantric meditation, you need something that feels like certainty. It's not about falsifiable facts; it's about trusting, because you have to let go (like falling backwards). I don't know any evangelical Christians; I think that for them, expressing their faith is part of the deal, and it is expected (i.e. demanded). In that sort of context, I can imagine a pastor or community "demanding" that you hold beliefs that are false to fact, e.g. Young Earth. That's not what I understand by "confidence". Regarding trust and confidence, I just watched a two-part PBS documentary about Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre; it was an eye-opener. A lot of testimony from people who totally trusted this guy for a long time, despite (what looked to me like) his total charlatanism. He just wanted to be admired, apparently.

slothtrop 3y ago

You could suggest we have a confidence interval for various things (e.g. 99% for gravity, 55% for whether x/y/z will happen or a president gets a second term), but in the capacity of Christianity the expression of faith demanded necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. The institutions (and what is conveyed in the Bible) don't want you to kinda sorta believe, they want you to believe by willfully eschewing all doubt. It's an action as much as a descriptor for belief. I never felt as though I could "choose" to believe anything, or not easily at any rate. I could choose not to explore certain data and be satisfied with ignorance (though I try not to) but if something is incongruent with the facts as I understand them, then I can't "faith" my way to believing it.

denton-scratch 3y ago
> the expression of faith demanded necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. OK. So in Buddhism (the way I was taught it), confidence or faith isn't something you express; you either have enough to achieve what you're trying to achieve, or you don't. And nobody demands it. But you're right, it's not an all-or-nothing deal. > necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. Indeed (although I'm not sure what "mild conviction" means; being convinced of something means you can see no room for doubt). For some kinds of meditation, e.g. some kinds of Tantric meditation, you need something that feels like certainty. It's not about falsifiable facts; it's about trusting, because you have to let go (like falling backwards). I don't know any evangelical Christians; I think that for them, expressing their faith is part of the deal, and it is expected (i.e. demanded). In that sort of context, I can imagine a pastor or community "demanding" that you hold beliefs that are false to fact, e.g. Young Earth. That's not what I understand by "confidence". Regarding trust and confidence, I just watched a two-part PBS documentary about Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre; it was an eye-opener. A lot of testimony from people who totally trusted this guy for a long time, despite (what looked to me like) his total charlatanism. He just wanted to be admired, apparently.