What does it mean to lose one's faith?

[Buh4Bee]

Every few years, I go through a phase when I seriously doubt my faith and struggle with the point of my religion. I'm in one of these phases now. I have never lost my faith, but I have come pretty close a few times. What is this like for those who have had faith and lost it?

[Whifflingpin]

It's part of growing up, I think.

A piece of advice that seemed good to me at the time was, when you lose your faith, don't give up on the practices of your religion, as they will come to make sense in a new way.

[Virgil]

That's a great idea from Whiff. I was an atheist as a young man, but over time it all came back to me. Actually contrary to what's the norm, it was science itself that convinced me of God. Anyway, consider faith a process rather than a distinct yes or no. I think of it as a journey and the evolution of the soul.

[Buh4Bee]

I think it may happen before their is a great internal shift or personal development. This is when it has happened to me before. So yes, it is best to keep the rituals and routines. Unfortunately, prayer is a very hollow experience as I just can't hear anything in the present moment.

[OrphanPip]

I can't remember when I stopped believing. I'm certain I used to believe around 12 or 13, but by the time I was starting college at 16, I no longer did. I've carried on my parents' association with socialism and leftist politics, but I've abandoned the religious associations. In college I was exposed to the writings of Sartre, Heidegger, Camus, and Liberals like Mill and Bentham, those essentially solidified my skepticism. Of course, my B. Sci. in microbiology has influenced me as well, it's no coincidence that studies show biologist are the most likely group of scientist to be atheist. We look to other sources for understanding the wonder in life ;).

Edit: Oh ya, and being gay and associated with a group often at odds with major religious groups has made me especially antagonistic towards organized religion.

[blazeofglory]

I never lost it since I have not it. I like all people and do not want to judge them on the basis of faith. I know faith has divided humanity.

There are so many faiths and when one faith comes as an affront it becomes a great threat to humanity

[Whifflingpin]

"Unfortunately, prayer is a very hollow experience as I just can't hear anything in the present moment. "

When you hear most, unless you are a saint, is when you are talking to yourself.

Just keep talking to God. As and when God wills, there will be an answer. God is not, after all, a servant who is bound to serve you whenever you ring the bell.

[blazeofglory]

"Unfortunately, prayer is a very hollow experience as I just can't hear anything in the present moment. "

When you hear most, unless you are a saint, is when you are talking to yourself.

Just keep talking to God. As and when God wills, there will be an answer. God is not, after all, a servant who is bound to serve you whenever you ring the bell.

How can I keep on talking to God? God is soundless and heedless and is beyond my comprehension?

[Whifflingpin]

BlazeofGlory: "I never lost it since I have not it. I like all people and do not want to judge them on the basis of faith. I know faith has divided humanity.
There are so many faiths and when one faith comes as an affront it becomes a great threat to humanity"

That sounds rather like a sweeping judgement to me, deliberately or carelessly blaming those with a personal faith for all the ills caused by organised religions (and conveniently ignoring any benefits of organised religions.)

The "faith" this thread started with was a personal faith, of which there are as many as there are people. The personal faith is, for each individual, what makes the universe seem like a rational place rather than a chaos. It is what makes it worth while to get out of bed in the morning. The practices associated with the faith may range from getting out of bed, to engaging in charitable works or facing Mecca five times a day or celebrating solemn high mass, or meditation or massage.

Keeping up those practices means affirming that the world is a meaningful place, even if the meaning is not apparent. New meanings will appear in time, and then it may be time to modify the practices. Such changes will be made from a position of strength, not from weakness or despair.

[Whifflingpin]

"How can I keep on talking to God? God is soundless and heedless and is beyond my comprehension?"

I do not suggest that you, BlazeofGlory, keep talking to God. Talking to God is not, it appears, one of the practices of your faith. You said elsewhere, recently, "The one and only truth in nature is survival and that is your righteousness." So, to you, I would say, keep on doing that which is necessary to survive, even if, at times, you may doubt whether survival is worth while or sufficient.

However, if you are saying that because you do not talk to God then no-one else should, you are simply imposing your faith, whatever that is or is not, on everyone else.

[Buh4Bee]

The idea of losing one's faith is to turn from God or feel a lack of a need for God's presence on one's life. God is there to walk along side us and that is all. In other words, God says you don't have to live or suffer alone. Yes, God is infinite and we cannot comprehend him. This is why he is not there to answer a tinkling bell.

I don't think the lose of faith has to do with being uncomfortable in my own skin. I am quite versed in what I am and I accept my limitations. It is a final acceptance in the flaws of our beings as a small limited race. This means that life is finite and the time that is left is well defined and limited. The use of that time to fulfill God's purpose for my life is not necessarily my own, but how he guides and I don't always like that. I'd prefer to be a sloth and lay around all day.

I love Siddhartha by Herman Hesse by the way. This is the only book I have read by him.

[YesNo]

I'd prefer to be a sloth and lay around all day.


Then the problem is easy to solve. When you feel like laying around all day get up and do something for someone else. Do what you don't like to do.

That may not bring back your faith, whatever that is, but it will make you forget that you lost anything of value.

[Dodo25]

I lost any kind of faith when I was 16. Interestingly, I can't remember an exact instance where it happened, it was gradual. And I didn't miss anything at all, in fact, I felt rather relieved afterwards.

[Whifflingpin]

mmmmmmmh

[caesar]

I wanted freedom from faith, so I gave it up. I actually felt liberated. I first became an atheist, but then turned to agnosticism. Now, more than anything, I’m an existentialist.

[mtpspur]

I do not believe I have lost my faith BUT I have lost the joy of it. Fellowshiping with other Christians has always been a bit of a trail to me. I effectivle ceased attending regular worship at my church mostly because I never really felt needed or respected there fully aware of the pride this involves. Got very tired of the Hi How are You type of communicating without a REAL desire on the part of myself and others to go deeper. Now with all that said I am aware evry single day of being under God's patient watchful eye and I see in many little and big ways His interactions in my life. I really should be more grateful for His mercies but of late all I really am is incredibly BORED wiht everything. This is not spiritually healthy and I hope I ge past this. Nor dare I blame the current mood on the job or Steve dying (though that was a blow) but God shopuld never be held to blame for my failings and I hope at least I can be spared that hypocrisy. Not sure it this will help but merely to let you know Jersea oyu are far from being alone and somewhat adrift from time to time.

[Buh4Bee]

I was rereading through this thread and some many people shared insightful thoughts. Do some people who loose their faith wake up one morning and realize it is gone? Is it a choice or is it a slow gradual loss? I'm sure it's different depending on experience and personality.

[Alexander III]

I dont think loosing your faith is an issue, rather if it fades do not struggle to keep your faith, rather struggle to keep yourself and your good nature. St. augustine and mother theresa continually lost their fate, yet they did not panic nor despair for they found a foothold within themselves and the beauty of man and from there later regained there fate or at least developed a new more complex or simple faith which reflected the wisdom which the passing of time can only give.

[Mr. Bungle]

@topic: I've never been religious, so I don't know what it's like to lose one's faith but your question made me think of something Jimmy Carr once said in an interview:

"It's a very interesting thing - losing one's religion. It's a revolution for one, and it just changes everything completely. It's a process that people don't really talk about." (source) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la8rBTiL86g)

I guess it can be a very lonely process for people who are surrounded by family and friends who make it seem unacceptable to even think about alternatives to one's theistic beliefs.

[The Atheist]

Mother Theresa encapsulates it best in her private letters:


I call, I cling, I want — and there is no One to answer — no One on Whom I can cling — no, No One. — Alone ... Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith — I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart — & make me suffer untold agony.

So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them — because of the blasphemy — If there be God — please forgive me — When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven — there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. — I am told God loves me — and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.

[OrphanPip]

I was rereading through this thread and some many people shared insightful thoughts. Do some people who loose their faith wake up one morning and realize it is gone? Is it a choice or is it a slow gradual loss? I'm sure it's different depending on experience and personality.

I'm thinking it must have been gradual, because I can't pinpoint a point where I did believe and an immediate point where I stopped. And it was only ever a childish faith anyway, the same way a child believes in Santa.

[JuniperWoolf]

For me, religion and personal spirituality are two completely different things (literally not even associated, religion is to spirituality as pancakes are to Sirius).

I went to religious ceremonies when I was a little kid, my aunt used to bring me. It wasn't bad, they gave me snacks and then I stopped going when she stopped. I really started to dislike religion when a kid in my grade eight class showed up with a leather jacket that had "fags burn in hell" written on the back of it. The kid was a preacher's son, and that really turned me off (turned my gay hippie teacher off too, it wasn't pretty). That was the exact day that I can pinpoint where my little kid brain said "screw religion."

As for a personal connection to, I don't know, death and the unfathomable universe and my sense of self or whatever, there is no "faith." The pope has as much information on that front as a newborn baby, it's literally and by definition unknowable. Where exactly are we supposed to get knowledge of death? You have to die in order to know, and there's really no coming back from that and writing about it. Not knowing is uncomfortable for humans, but it's the only honest answer really.

[YesNo]

Where exactly are we supposed to get knowledge of death? You have to die in order to know, and there's really no coming back from that and writing about it. Not knowing is uncomfortable for humans, but it's the only honest answer really.
Unless near-death experiences provide some information, which I think they do.

[JuniperWoolf]

Unless near-death experiences provide some information, which I think they do.

I don't think so. You're not REALLY dead until your brain dies, and once that happens there's absolutely no revival possible.

[The Atheist]

I don't think so. You're not REALLY dead until your brain dies, and once that happens there's absolutely no revival possible.

That's a very good point about NDEs.

What is "near death"? Every case I've seen or heard of has involved lack of oxygen to the brain - a stopped heart.

Dead is dead, while "almost dead" has no relevance to the former.

[YesNo]

That's a very good point about NDEs.

What is "near death"? Every case I've seen or heard of has involved lack of oxygen to the brain - a stopped heart.

Dead is dead, while "almost dead" has no relevance to the former.

If near-death experiences aren't acceptable, you might consider people who claim they have been re-incarnated. There is certainly a death involved there.

In all of this one is looking for information, not trying to justify a belief system.

[ombre]

At many times I have felt I was loosing my faith, but through the process of trial and error I have many of times been reunited with my faith. Its just whenever we seem to be in a pitfall we turn to God and if we don't get an answer we just come to the conclusion that no one is there. Or we feel that, it is because of God that we are in these pitfalls and we ask ourselves, why would he let this happen to me. We are all under the influence we get what we deserve, but in reality this is certainly not the case. If I got what I deserved I wouldn't have this beautiful home to live in, a loving family, and I wouldn't have this happiness I do now.

It is through self realization and growth we come to our true faith

[The Atheist]

If near-death experiences aren't acceptable, you might consider people who claim they have been re-incarnated. There is certainly a death involved there.

Yes indeed! Fascinating subject as well. To date, the evidence suggests that every single instance is made up or mistaken, although people like Dean Radin and the "parapsychologists" are still looking.


In all of this one is looking for information, not trying to justify a belief system.

That's good - I have no belief system myself, other than reality existing. Information is the key to understanding.

[Alexander III]

I have no belief system myself, other than reality existing.


Now that's quite a leap of faith right there

[The Atheist]

Now that's quite a leap of faith right there

Some people do indeed feel that way, but since I see the only alternative to accepting reality being solipsism, I'm pretty comfortable with it.

If you know of another alternative, let me know.

[Armel P]

Now that's quite a leap of faith right there

Why is that? I'd say that with cogito ergo sum, Occam's razor, and the fact that man can cause influence in a predicatble manner it's not that great a leap at all.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think that he was being sarcastic.

[Armel P]

I think that he was being sarcastic.

That makes sense.

[MarkBastable]

But to get back to the original question, the answer is: all sorts of relief. It might help to think of it not as losing something, but as gaining everything.

[Jassy Melson]

Faith is the bedrock that keeps us going day to day. If that bedrock is disturbed or cracked open, then we are disturbed in our everyday affairs. Faith is a way of looking at the world. In a way, faith is a worldview. When one loses his or her faith, one's worldview is lost. This can be a very disturbing thing. The only way to regain one's faith is to build another worldview. This takes time. This is why we should not quickly judge anyone. They may be building another worldview. It is easy to make mistakes in building another worldview or regaining faith. The best way to tell if another is rebuilding his or her faith is to engage them in conversation. In the course of the conversation one can ask questions and learn where the person is in rebuilding or regaining his or her faith.

[Armel P]

Faith is the bedrock that keeps us going day to day. If that bedrock is disturbed or cracked open, then we are disturbed in our everyday affairs. Faith is a way of looking at the world. In a way, faith is a worldview. When one loses his or her faith, one's worldview is lost. This can be a very disturbing thing. The only way to regain one's faith is to build another worldview. This takes time. This is why we should not quickly judge anyone. They may be building another worldview. It is easy to make mistakes in building another worldview or regaining faith. The best way to tell if another is rebuilding his or her faith is to engage them in conversation. In the course of the conversation one can ask questions and learn where the person is in rebuilding or regaining his or her faith.

You're not suggesting, I hope, that having a natural world view is not a world view at all, right? It seems like you're saying that you need religion to have a world view and if you don't you're in some lost limbo state. Why can't it be just a different world view -- a natural world view in which the nature of the universe is revealed gradually by logic, reason, and the scientific method rather than what is esssentially design and decision by committee?

[Buh4Bee]

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think people are trying to understand what it means to have faith in God and then to stop having faith. I don't think people are questioning the validity of one world view verses another, just a specific way of looking at the world through faith.

[Armel P]

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think people are trying to understand what it means to have faith in God and then to stop having faith. I don't think people are questioning the validity of one world view verses another, just a specific way of looking at the world through faith.

"The only way to regain one's faith is to build another worldview."

To me that seems to imply that there is a unique connection between having faith and having a world view. Hence use of the word "lost" instead of "changed." I don't think one loses a world view; I think a persons world view changes. I'm confident that had I received a response to my question from Jassy Melson it would not have been with a "yes, that's precisely what I was saying." But I think that there is a skew in the words that are chosen to describe that change in one's view that gives the loss of faith a negative connotation.

[Armel P]

But maybe I'm not the right person to comment as I've never been a person of faith. I'm sorry if I over-stepped.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

But to get back to the original question, the answer is: all sorts of relief. It might help to think of it not as losing something, but as gaining everything.

Good point, this.

But, I have to ask, why do you need faith in God? Why do you need a religion that comes from a book written by men to have faith? Why not have faith in yourself, faith in your friends and family, or faith in the capability of humanity to do good?

[Armel P]

Good point, this.

But, I have to ask, why do you need faith in God? Why do you need a religion that comes from a book written by men to have faith? Why not have faith in yourself, faith in your friends and family, or faith in the capability of humanity to do good?

I suspect it is analogous to the sort of comfort a child receives from caring parents -- protection, stability, etc.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I suspect it is analogous to the sort of comfort a child receives from caring parents -- protection, stability, etc.

Sort of. Only, if a child does receive comfort from caring parents, there is no faith involved in that. Those parents existed without a doubt, and therefore needed no faith to substantiate their impact. In that sense, faith in yourself, friends and family, and/or humanity is more analogous because we know those exist. At the moment, I can't think of anything analogous to taking solace in something with no logical or physical evidence.

Now, I agree that a religion can provide protection, stability, and any other nice adjective, but to do this requires a belief in something that is unknowable, the very essence of religious faith. So, why not find faith in something known rather than unknown? Does this somehow make faith less powerful? Does how unbelievable something is factor into how affective faith is on someone's emotional being? In other words, is the person who believes in Jesus's faith any more powerful than the person who believes in oneself?

[Armel P]

Sort of. Only, if a child does receive comfort from caring parents, there is no faith involved in that. Those parents existed without a doubt, and therefore needed no faith to substantiate their impact. Now, I agree that a religion can provide protection, stability, and any other nice adjective, but to do this requires a belief in something that is unknowable. At the moment, I can't think of anything analogous to taking solace in something with no logical or physical evidence.

Right, but that belief that you speak of is much like giving the belief in question a factual status. You believe something is true regardless of how you came to that conclusion. And that belief in something as being true is enough to provide the same comfort that comes from a parent whom a child believes to be true.

As an aside, I don't actually believe that a child is mentally capable of having faith. Until one's mind developes to such a degree that it is able to recognize evidence versus the lack thereof, there really is no act of faith; just what one is told is and what one is told isn't.

[Paulclem]

Sort of. Only, if a child does receive comfort from caring parents, there is no faith involved in that. Those parents existed without a doubt, and therefore needed no faith to substantiate their impact. In that sense, faith in yourself, friends and family, and/or humanity is more analogous because we know those exist. At the moment, I can't think of anything analogous to taking solace in something with no logical or physical evidence.

Now, I agree that a religion can provide protection, stability, and any other nice adjective, but to do this requires a belief in something that is unknowable, the very essence of religious faith. So, why not find faith in something known rather than unknown? Does this somehow make faith less powerful? Does how unbelievable something is factor into how affective faith is on someone's emotional being? In other words, is the person who believes in Jesus's faith any more powerful than the person who believes in oneself?

I've just finished reading "Berlin" by Anthony Beevor - a leading historian on WW2, who tells of the fall of Berlin and the end of the Nazi regime. In it he notes that a leading German Communist was one of seven spared by the Gestapo in one of theri prisons. He had been kept with a Priest, and recalled how impressed he'd been with the Priest's fortitude through prayer during the long imprisonment, beatings and fear.

I think it is a mistake to presume that belief in God is something akin to believing a fairy story - looking for a protector etc. In some people it instills real fortitude and strength from the awareness of some knd of power.

Whether this is a power that emanated from God is a moot point, (my religion isn't theistic), but something gives people inner strength in the midst of dire circumstance - and what could be more dire than being a Priest in a Gestapo Prison? His worldview sustained him.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think it is a mistake to presume that belief in God is something akin to believing a fairy story - looking for a protector etc. In some people it instills real fortitude and strength from the awareness of some knd of power.

Whether this is a power that emanated from God is a moot point, (my religion isn't theistic), but something gives people inner strength in the midst of dire circumstance - and what could be more dire than being a Priest in a Gestapo Prison? His worldview sustained him.

And that's perfectly fine. I'm not against that at all. If your religion helps fulfill your life, more power to you. All I'm saying is that one does need religion to have that type of fulfillment. Many religious people seem to claim this, and it just isn't true.

[Paulclem]

There's fulfillment and there's fortitude. Clearly the atheistic communist in the prison survived too, and he must have had strength in his convictions. All I'm saying is that religion may give access to a fortifying strength too.

[Whifflingpin]

"In other words, is the person who believes in Jesus's faith any more powerful than the person who believes in oneself?"

Maybe the important difference is between believing in something internal and believing in something external.

The former might be like driving a car and believing that the speed of the car and the bends in the road actually describe the whole of the journey. The latter recognizes that the car's speed and the road's quirks are trivial compared to the spinning earth and infinitely trivial compared to the whirling universe.

Believing in something external, be it God or the inevitable triumph of the proletariat, does provide a stable background against which to measure one's own whatever-it-is

[Paulclem]

"In other words, is the person who believes in Jesus's faith any more powerful than the person who believes in oneself?"

Maybe the important difference is between believing in something internal and believing in something external.

The former might be like driving a car and believing that the speed of the car and the bends in the road actually describe the whole of the journey. The latter recognizes that the car's speed and the road's quirks are trivial compared to the spinning earth and infinitely trivial compared to the whirling universe.

Believing in something external, be it God or the inevitable triumph of the proletariat, does provide a stable background against which to measure one's own whatever-it-is

You could put it like that from a Christian, or other theistic perspective, and the communist one. The problem with the communist one is that it is reliant upon many people -a significant number of whom are very powerful but unreliable such as Stalin.

The Buddhist view, which is different again, is that there is inner strength that can be developed within a person following a particular path which develops this in a particular way.

I think you're right - worldview and context and faith in that does empoewer a person.

[The Atheist]

I think you're right - worldview and context and faith in that does empoewer a person.

Ain't it strange that if that were right, the giants of self-empowerment were all non-theists? Einstein, Russell, Hawking, Rutherford, Turing...

:D

[Paulclem]

That's true, although I had a broader sense of empowerment in mind such as in coping with adverse conditions and generally finding inner strength.

[Jassy Melson]

What I'm saying is to have a worldview demands faith. Faith is the underlying bedrock of the worldview. That worldview can be natural or unnatural, rational or supernatural. Faith is necessary to have a worldview, that is essentially all I'm saying.

[The Atheist]

That's true, although I had a broader sense of empowerment in mind such as in coping with adverse conditions and generally finding inner strength.

I was just playing with ya!

But I don't agree that faith will give greater empowerment as a general rule.


What I'm saying is to have a worldview demands faith. Faith is the underlying bedrock of the worldview. That worldview can be natural or unnatural, rational or supernatural. Faith is necessary to have a worldview, that is essentially all I'm saying.

Sorry, but I can't agree.

As I've said so many times, a naturalistic view requires no faith at all once we get beyond "reality exists" which I don't believe is a position of faith.

Faith is the bedrock of supernatural beliefs. The natural universe provides evidence.

[Jassy Melson]

"Reality exists" is a statement that demands faith. You cannot escape faith.

[The Atheist]

"Reality exists" is a statement that demands faith. You cannot escape faith.

Not even close.

There are only two choices - reality existing, or solipsism. No faith required, just a simple choice. You can indeed escape faith. I know theists like to suggest otherwise, but it's a fallacy and no amount of repetition will change that.

[Armel P]

"Reality exists" is a statement that demands faith. You cannot escape faith.

I can't help but feel that if everything is subject to faith, then the significance of the term faith is completely dissipated. The fact is we have logic, reason, and the scientific method as vehicles for what we consider factual discovery. Practically, faith is believing to be true what is outside of that realm of factual discovery.

a=a is not a faith based statement.

[The Atheist]

I can't help but feel that if everything is subject to faith, then the significance of the term faith is completely dissipated. The fact is we have logic, reason, and the scientific method as vehicles for what we consider factual discovery. Practically, faith is believing to be true what is outside of that realm of factual discovery.

a=a is not a faith based statement.

Bingo!

[Whifflingpin]

"The fact is we have logic, reason, and the scientific method as vehicles for what we consider factual discovery. Practically, faith is believing to be true what is outside of that realm of factual discovery."

The experience of most people is that a great part of our existence lies, or seems to lie, outside of the realm of logic, reason and the scientific method. "Faith" and "belief" mean, and have always meant, something different from "knowledge." That does not make them any less important in coping with the cosmos as we find it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I can't help but feel that if everything is subject to faith, then the significance of the term faith is completely dissipated. The fact is we have logic, reason, and the scientific method as vehicles for what we consider factual discovery. Practically, faith is believing to be true what is outside of that realm of factual discovery.

a=a is not a faith based statement.

Good point. If we have to have faith just to recognize that reality exists, faith isn't worth much.

[Ecurb]

Science is not math. A = A is a mathematical truth – it has nothing to do with science.

If science WERE based on logical inference, perhaps it would not rely on faith. However, it is not. The well-known “problem of induction” precludes logical inference of scientific “facts”. So a “reality-based world-view” requires a leap of faith. After all, most of us “believe our own eyes”, although we know that others who did so have been mistaken, and that we ourselves (or the rest of you, at any rate) have sometimes misperceived reality.

I’ll grant, of course, that we can differentiate between this kind of faith and that of the religious. However, the distinction is one of degree, not of kind. In addition, moral purpose requires faith. We cannot reason our way to what the world SHOULD be like (even if we could, which we cannot, reason our way to what the world IS like). Instead, we must imagine what it should be like, and act on faith that our imaginings are worthy of our actions.

By the way, from Paul’s famous letter to the Corinthians:


“Thou I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.”

I’m reminded of the line for two reasons: First, Paul was right! Scientists DO have faith in their worldview – and, yes, they CAN remove mountains. Second, it profiteth them nothing (except, of course, the money they get from it). Love remains a mystery to science (no sophomoric Darwinian drivel, please) – we look to the poet or the prophet for its meaning.

[Paulclem]

"Reality exists" is a statement that demands faith. You cannot escape faith.

Perhaps conviction is a better word. Faith is loaded, and is exclusive of those for who religion isn't necessary, or convincing. You can have conviction in a worldview - be that science or religion.

The other thing is that scientists don't deal with certainties, but a changing worldview. They have to be open to developments and discoveries. Faith seems to me to be a word associatd with a perceived certainty.

[Paulclem]

I was just playing with ya!

But I don't agree that faith will give greater empowerment as a general rule.



:lol:

I don't know about greater or lesser empowerment. It has certainly sustained people in extremis, as have convictions in political struggle etc.

[Armel P]

The experience of most people is that a great part of our existence lies, or seems to lie, outside of the realm of logic, reason and the scientific method.

You say "seems to lie" which I would be more inclined to agree with. But I will say that these experiences seem to lie outside of logic, reason, and the scientific method only because people begin by accepting faith as a viable source of understanding regarding the nature of the universe. None of my experience seems to lie outside of logic, reason, and the scientific method and that is necessarily because I do not make that concession.


"Faith" and "belief" mean, and have always meant, something different from "knowledge." That does not make them any less important in coping with the cosmos as we find it.

I agree with that description of faith which is why I disagreed with the idea of a worldview being dependent upon having faith.

As for coping... well, coping has no epistemological importance.

[Armel P]

Good point. If we have to have faith just to recognize that reality exists, faith isn't worth much.

Does one who has faith need to have faith that they have faith? :)

[Armel P]

Science is not math. A = A is a mathematical truth – it has nothing to do with science.

This is a straw man argument.

[Armel P]

The other thing is that scientists don't deal with certainties, but a changing worldview. They have to be open to developments and discoveries. Faith seems to me to be a word associatd with a perceived certainty.

I agree with this.

[Jassy Melson]

In other words, you've closed your mind about faith.

[Ecurb]

This is a straw man argument.


Don’t let Ray Bolger hear you say that!

You say,
….I will say that these experiences seem to lie outside of logic, reason, and the scientific method only because people begin by accepting faith as a viable source of understanding regarding the nature of the universe. None of my experience seems to lie outside of logic, reason, and the scientific method and that is necessarily because I do not make that concession.

However, don’t all experiences lie “outside of logic”? Isn’t logic a method for valid reasoning and correct inference? If it is, isn’t it “outside of” experience – indeed, a way of thinking about experience?

Perhaps you mean something else by “outside of logic”. Maybe you mean “illogical”, or "contradictory to normal logical inference". However, since I myself lack supernatural powers of inference, I can only base my response on what you write.

[Paulclem]

In other words, you've closed your mind about faith.

I was merely saying that conviction seems to fit the description of worldview rather than faith which is loaded by its associated with religion and seems to exclude other ways of thinking. If you're talking worldviews - scientific, religious, political - then it just seems a better way of describing.

[YesNo]

I was merely saying that conviction seems to fit the description of worldview rather than faith which is loaded by its associated with religion and seems to exclude other ways of thinking. If you're talking worldviews - scientific, religious, political - then it just seems a better way of describing.

I agree. Faith is a word that is too closely attached to specific statements of the Christian or other religion that adherents are expected to accept.

When one loses one's faith, it probably means that one doubts one or more of these critical statements and therefore cannot be considered part of that group anymore.

Perhaps when one talks about the loss of faith one should ask what specific statement is one doubting?

[Whifflingpin]

"coping has no epistemological importance."

Maybe not, but it has a lot more importance to most people than epistemology.

[Armel P]

Don’t let Ray Bolger hear you say that!

You say,

However, don’t all experiences lie “outside of logic”? Isn’t logic a method for valid reasoning and correct inference? If it is, isn’t it “outside of” experience – indeed, a way of thinking about experience?

Perhaps you mean something else by “outside of logic”. Maybe you mean “illogical”, or "contradictory to normal logical inference". However, since I myself lack supernatural powers of inference, I can only base my response on what you write.

I mean it in the way I believe it was meant within the quote I referred to.

[Jassy Melson]

This discussion is going in the direction of semantics, so it's time for me to bow out.

[Ecurb]

I mean it in the way I believe it was meant within the quote I referred to.

You are being needlessly obscure, Armel. How am I to know what you “believe”? In fact, it seems to me that whiffinglingpin’s post is clear, whereas yours is not. How can we discuss the matter if I don’t know what you mean? Whifflingpin says “a great part of our existence lies, or seems to lie, outside of the realm of logic, reason and the scientific method.” This makes sense. The “realm” of logic, reason and the scientific method refers, metaphorically, to a country, ruled by law, and “outside of” continues the metaphor. “Outside of logic”, however, is unclear, even meaningless.

Here’s another example. Armel says, “I can't help but feel that if everything is subject to faith, then the significance of the term faith is completely dissipated.” What does he mean? If Armel means to say, “If all knowledge requires a leap of faith….” why doesn’t he say it?

[Armel P]

This discussion is going in the direction of semantics, so it's time for me to bow out.

Agreed.


You are being needlessly obscure, Armel. How am I to know what you “believe”? In fact, it seems to me that whiffinglingpin’s post is clear, whereas yours is not. How can we discuss the matter if I don’t know what you mean? Whifflingpin says “a great part of our existence lies, or seems to lie, outside of the realm of logic, reason and the scientific method.” This makes sense. The “realm” of logic, reason and the scientific method refers, metaphorically, to a country, ruled by law, and “outside of” continues the metaphor. “Outside of logic”, however, is unclear, even meaningless.

I still don't believe I was unclear. If I was unlear it's because our existence seeming to lie outside of the realm of logic is unlear. I just don't believe that anything about our existence lies outside of the realm of logic. For practical purposes, logic is what our brains use to interpret stimuli and understand cause and effect. There is no reason to believe that our minds or existences are divided. You, we, are just animals, collections of molecules that are programmed to respond to things in certain ways. There doesn't have to be anything about one's existence or experience that defies logic as long as one accepts that a question without an answer is not an issue beyond the bounds of logic. It just is.


Here’s another example. Armel says, “I can't help but feel that if everything is subject to faith, then the significance of the term faith is completely dissipated.” What does he mean? If Armel means to say, “If all knowledge requires a leap of faith….” why doesn’t he say it?

I'm sorry but my quote there is exceptionally clear. You know what I'm saying. And if you don't, I suspect you are in the minority. Please don't confuse my desire to phrase my comments in a respectful way with being purposely or neglectfully obfuscatory.

[Ecurb]

First, this thread has been about semantics for some pages now. What is the nature of “faith”? Is “faith” essential to religious “knowledge”? Is it essential to other kinds of knowledge? These are questions that require semantic investigation into what we mean by “faith”.

"Reason" or “logic” cannot (many philosophers argue) serve as an ultimate justification for belief. That's because of what is known in philosophy as the "Regress Problem". Reason - depending as it does on inference from postulates to justify belief - inevitably depends on an infinite regression. After all, once you "justify" one belief, you must then "justify" the set of propositions by which you supported that belief, and so on, ad infinitum.

Some philosophers have proposed solutions to this problem: Foundationalism (accepting on faith the foundations of belief system), Coherentism (accepting propositions that "cohere" within the entire system of beliefs), and Infinitism (accepting that the regression is infinite, but arguing that this does not make it impossible, simply incomprehensible to humans). Nonetheless, the distinction between "reason" and "faith" is hardly a simple one, and to suggest that it is ignores centuries of philosophy.

G.K. Chesterton (the great Catholic apologist) recognized the circularity of logical reasoning: "You can only find truth with logic, when you have already found truth without it." In his essay "Possible Worlds," J.S. Haldane wrote that "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." It is when we "suppose" that our belief system is the only one "justified" by reason that we close our minds. Liberality of belief, like other forms of liberalism, depends on opening our minds to the probability that whatever we believe is wrong.

As Thomas Kuhn, the great Philosopher of Science once said, "The historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them." Christians and atheists alike create their own worlds by mediating their experience of the external world through the paradigm of their belief system.

[Armel P]

First, this thread has been about semantics for some pages now. What is the nature of “faith”? Is “faith” essential to religious “knowledge”? Is it essential to other kinds of knowledge? These are questions that require semantic investigation into what we mean by “faith”.

"Reason" or “logic” cannot (many philosophers argue) serve as an ultimate justification for belief. That's because of what is known in philosophy as the "Regress Problem". Reason - depending as it does on inference from postulates to justify belief - inevitably depends on an infinite regression. After all, once you "justify" one belief, you must then "justify" the set of propositions by which you supported that belief, and so on, ad infinitum.

Some philosophers have proposed solutions to this problem: Foundationalism (accepting on faith the foundations of belief system), Coherentism (accepting propositions that "cohere" within the entire system of beliefs), and Infinitism (accepting that the regression is infinite, but arguing that this does not make it impossible, simply incomprehensible to humans). Nonetheless, the distinction between "reason" and "faith" is hardly a simple one, and to suggest that it is ignores centuries of philosophy.

G.K. Chesterton (the great Catholic apologist) recognized the circularity of logical reasoning: "You can only find truth with logic, when you have already found truth without it." In his essay "Possible Worlds," J.S. Haldane wrote that "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." It is when we "suppose" that our belief system is the only one "justified" by reason that we close our minds. Liberality of belief, like other forms of liberalism, depends on opening our minds to the probability that whatever we believe is wrong.

As Thomas Kuhn, the great Philosopher of Science once said, "The historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them." Christians and atheists alike create their own worlds by mediating their experience of the external world through the paradigm of their belief system.

Your reply and these quotations are only serving to obscure the conversation. It's off topic. What ever flaws in logic are stated here or by any philosopher are completely irrelevant here because they don't justify an alternative. This is an issue of seeking the best possible method for understanding and began, I believe from a comment made by someone about needing faith to have a worldview. This is a common argument by faith-based individuals who seek to justify religious faith by deeming everything as faith-based and therefore equally plausible. The idea of belief in supernatural forces being reasonable because nothing is provable is not any justification. And when you try to make that sort of justification you immediately place your argument within the scope of logic. After that trying to discredit logic when it illustrates that it is not in your favor has no meaning. I've been aware of the idea of the cyclic nature of logic but it's an esotericism that has no place in this conversation.

[Paulclem]

This discussion is going in the direction of semantics, so it's time for me to bow out.

I thnk the point is valid. You can have the courage of convictions - and these might include religious, political or scientific. Coviction - from the word convince? This can include a scientific worldview based on evidence. Would it be so acceptable to say I have faith in this scientific worldview? It doesn't sound right to me.

[Ecurb]

I thnk the point is valid. You can have the courage of convictions - and these might include religious, political or scientific. Coviction - from the word convince? This can include a scientific worldview based on evidence. Would it be so acceptable to say I have faith in this scientific worldview? It doesn't sound right to me.

I'll grant that the word "faith" has religious connotations. However, what do you think of Kuhn's comment ("The historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them." )?

In a sense (although not in every sense) man makes his own world by creating lenses through which he views reality. The famous Sapir/Whorf hypothesis ("Language has a tyranny on thought") would be an example. If language affects how we think and how we see the world, so do other cultural factors (like religion, and like science). The world obviously has an impact on what we see -- but so does the lens.

[Paulclem]

I'll grant that the word "faith" has religious connotations. However, what do you think of Kuhn's comment ("The historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them." )?

In a sense (although not in every sense) man makes his own world by creating lenses through which he views reality. The famous Sapir/Whorf hypothesis ("Language has a tyranny on thought") would be an example. If language affects how we think and how we see the world, so do other cultural factors (like religion, and like science). The world obviously has an impact on what we see -- but so does the lens.

I agree. I think the changing nature of science and scientific worldviews means that faith is an even less appropriate word. i think scientists must be aware of this potential, or even inevitable, element of change, but conviction can have a proviso of "conviction about the evidence as far as we know" whereas faith doesn't seem to allow that.

I'm not familiar with Sapir/ Whorf - I'm not a scientist, but I concur with this view. It is how Buddhists see the world.

[Ecurb]

Edward Sapir was an anthropologist and Benjamin Whorf was a linguist. They hypothesized that differences in language have a dramatic impact on the way different native speakers see and think about the world. On a simple level, Inuits (with 23 words for snow) may actually see snow differently from us. On a more complex level, different languages have different tenses, etc. which may affect how we think about time.

Of course religion (and science) are similar to language in that both are cultural accretions that affect how we think.

Some modern research (Berlin and Kay's study on color terms, for example) casts doubt on the universality it Sapir/Whorf, and suggests that commonalities of human perception affect language more than the other way around.

[Buh4Bee]

One idea to consider is that faith does not depend on concepts from our world, but is a transcend experience from a relationship with God. Faith is a universal concept that can be understood across the globe.

[naphelge]

Every few years, I go through a phase when I seriously doubt my faith and struggle with the point of my religion. I'm in one of these phases now. I have never lost my faith, but I have come pretty close a few times. What is this like for those who have had faith and lost it?
I think it is a common problem with the concept of religions to become too comfortable to questions one's faith continually. I think when one is too comfortable to challenge their beliefs and applicability of what made sense in the past to the current situation, only then does one find themselves in a dangerous position of accepting ideas and concepts for simplicity rather than because they make sense.

I enjoy the convenience of a car in my life, but I never assume that just because the brakes were ok 6 months ago that they are still ok today without taking the effort to check them out. Most likely they are still ok, but nothing remains constant and so should be routinely challenged for current day relevancy.

I feel sort of lucky not to be tied to any single religion or school of thought, because I am constantly seeking out alternate ideals and perspectives. It is always a mind blowing experience to look back over the course of a year or two and realize just how radically my internal thinking changes over time because of new experiences gained that are added to my ever-changing pool of truth.

cheers,
nap

[Theunderground]

When some significant events happened in my life around six years ago i started to try to understand 'my faith' more as reality didnt seem to be corresponding to the written words of the 'holy book'. As i researched and reflected more i gradually came to the conclusion that my faith and religion were based on deception. The realisation was exhilirating and contained a bit of pain (from losing my addiction.) and some scrambling for a 'new world view'. But all along it felt right to be leaving all religion and eventually realising one doesnt need a vast dogmatic narrative to replace the old one. (i didnt want to exchange on falsehood for another,eg communism,science.)
Now today i feel great for having freed myself from dogmas and i know live my life very happily with my own passions,emotions and ideas. But the initial step away requires courage,and trust in yourself.

[Dodo25]

Edward Sapir was an anthropologist and Benjamin Whorf was a linguist. They hypothesized that differences in language have a dramatic impact on the way different native speakers see and think about the world. On a simple level, Inuits (with 23 words for snow) may actually see snow differently from us. On a more complex level, different languages have different tenses, etc. which may affect how we think about time.

Of course religion (and science) are similar to language in that both are cultural accretions that affect how we think.

Some modern research (Berlin and Kay's study on color terms, for example) casts doubt on the universality it Sapir/Whorf, and suggests that commonalities of human perception affect language more than the other way around.

True, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been largely discredited.


But all along it felt right to be leaving all religion and eventually realising one doesnt need a vast dogmatic narrative to replace the old one. (i didnt want to exchange on falsehood for another,eg communism,science.)

It kinda seems like you're implying that science is either false or dogmatic. It's neither.

[Theunderground]

Science CAN be false or dogmatic,just witness the history of scientific ideas.
Anyway natural science in no sense gives me food for thought on different ways to live. But science is good for making cups,i will give you that...

[Cody Scoles]

Some people do indeed feel that way, but since I see the only alternative to accepting reality being solipsism, I'm pretty comfortable with it.

If you know of another alternative, let me know.

While I also believe there is an objective reality for unrelated reasons, there is an alternative according to your belief system. That alternative is called "relativism," basically which alleges that reality is the consensus of all our consciousnesses and that the whole universe is really just something we are collectively imagining. That's the alternative proposed by people who actually want to go on believing that they are the center of everything and too special to be harmed.

However, our universe is real, and it's problems are very real. And things could get a lot realer really fast. Really.

[Xbalanque]

I think I lost faith when I was very young and I had to go to Sunday school once a week. As far as I can recall I felt the same general sense of alienation I got from my teachers at school and gradually lost faith from there until I sort of ran out and accepted the non-existence of a higher being.

About three years ago I took LSD - only twice, so please don't consider me a burnout lol - and experienced what felt like complete ego dissolution and death that was more akin to what was described as "divine" in some of the Buddhist literature I had previously read. I spent some time after that reading, meditating and idealizing "the void" and merging with "nothingness" before snapping out of it and realizing that I had been rejecting reality to gain a sense of comfort in my own mind. It was probably the most content and at bliss I had ever been, but I couldn't help but feel I was just deceiving myself into seeing the universe as being more meaningful and likable than it really was. It was like a much-needed vacation from reality, but as I continued to challenge the beliefs I had acquired they just deteriorated and I came to accept the world as I see it now; indifferent like I had learned from Buddhist tradition, but completely irrational in its relationship to humans.

So I started off not with a sense of faith, but more or less accepting what adults told me until I couldn't bare it. Then I had an absurd and chaotic encounter that vaguely resembled my limited knowledge of Buddhist thought. Now I just waver between denying any notions of God or Truth and then thinking, "it's possible, but we'll never know". Up until this point, since I can recall, my sense of fulfillment from life has existed independently from whether or not I'm able to trick myself into saying "yes" or "no" to belief. I've always had the same highs and lows; at times I wish I had faith while during others I wish I knew for certain that there is no Truth. Also, whether I say "yes" or "no" I can't evade that sense of deceit that comes along to challenge what I have become comfortable with.

To answer the question - "What does it mean to lose one's faith?" - more directly: Nothing at all.