Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge

[Newbie]

I am curious as to how this idea, that belief is a choice, is taught and why it is accepted.

I'm more interested in how it was taught. I am pretty sure the Bible says it is a choice, but how did your pastors describe it to you? What convinced you?

[jimwalton]

I define faith as an assumption of truth based on the evidence (and faith is always based on evidence) that makes it reasonable to make that assumption. When I go to sit in a chair, I can't be 100% that it will hold me (chairs occasionally do break). But I've sat in this chair 100 times, my eyes tell me it looks the same, and so I plant my rear in it, believing and assuming it will hold me. It's the same when I turn the key to start my car (I have faith it will start), going to the store (I have faith it's still there), or thousands of other things in daily life. It's what the author of Hebrews claims in Heb. 11.1: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Belief is a certainty based on evidence, though because it is not seen it is subject to faith, just like the store in my previous example. A blind person cannot distinguish color, but color is a real thing, and its reality is unaffected by whether or not the blind person is able to appreciate them.

Christianity is based in evidences, not blind beliefs. That's why it's historical, and not philoso-theological like Hinduism, Buddhism, and even Islam. The earth is here as evidence of a creator. The existence of the Jews as a people group is evidence of God's work in history. The evidence of Jesus as a historical figure and in his death and resurrection is presented in affirmation of his deity. Faith in the Christian definition is distinctly evidentially based, and not just an "out there" kind of "well, you just hafta believe."

And so, because "belief" is really based in evidence and is an exercise in rational assessment, it's always a choice. That's how I understand it, and it's the evidence that convinced me.

[Spiffy]

You are using "faith" as "trust". Trust comes with personal experience as evidence. You have evidence that the chair will hold you up because it has before, so you trust that it will again.

> Heb.11.1: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

This quote directly states that faith is belief without evidence. You hope that what you believe is true even though you do not see the evidence.

> "And so, because belief is really based in evidence and is an exercise in rational assessment... "

According to the definition of faith there is no need for evidence. You believe even if you do not see.

> "... It's always a choice."

This is completely ludicrous. No matter how hard I tried to make myself believe something I could not just magically believe it. Belief is not a choice. No one chooses to be convinced of something. They just become convinced by what is presented to them if it is compelling enough. I could never believe that the sky is purple because I can see with my own eyes that it is blue. Even if everyone in the universe told me it magically changed to purple one day, but my eyes still showed blue I could not believe them. I could ACT as though I believed, but I never TRULY would.

[jimwalton]

> Trust comes with personal experience as evidence.

This is worth discussing, because I'm not sure there's a solid distinction here. If I go down to the store, confident that it will be there because I know the nature of reality and I have no reason to believe it won't be there (I haven't heard any explosions, seen any fires, heard any news reports, or aware of any earthquakes), I am making an assumption of truth (that the store will be there) based on enough evidence that makes it reasonable to make that assumption. Is the evidence the brick and mortar store that is still there, or my personal observation that it is still there? I'm not sure you can separate the two, because "evidence" implies a personal perception. It becomes evidentiary when it is processed as evidence by a rational mind.

> This quote (Heb. 11.1) directly states that faith is belief without evidence

I disagree. First of all, the verse doesn't define faith, but describes it. Both words that are used in the verse ("being sure of" and "certain of") are terms of substance, not trust. "Being sure of" is ὑπόστασις meaning "the substantial nature of a thing; essence; actual being; reality (in contrast to what merely seems to be)." The term was used for foundations of buildings and business contracts as the basis or guarantee of transactions. The second word is ἔλεγχος, meaning "Proof; conviction based on evidence." The idea is clearly that faith is a knowledge of the substantial nature and essence of reality based on evidences that are observable and subject to proof. That's why I define faith as I do, and live by faith the way I live.

You're making a distinction I'm not sure I understand, so I could use some clarification. You say I'm using "faith" as "trust," but you don't really define "belief" for me to distinguish the terms. You say, "No one chooses to be convinced of something," but haven't you ever seen something on TV or the Internet, or heard a story told by someone, and you say, "I don't believe that." I have. When I hear certain reports or certain evidences, sometimes I'm skeptical and choose not to believe. So I don't see where belief is like some indomitable force that overwhelms me with no choice. Some clarifying explanation would help before I "believe" what you are saying. You see what I mean? But again, how's that different from trust? I don't get it and I need your help.

Now, I agree that sometimes I hear things and believe them what seems to be automatically, instinctively, as if I didn't reflect, but I think it's because it makes so much sense to me I intuitively trust the evidence.

I also agree that it's very difficult to "force" myself to believe something that contradicts what I have already accepted as true, or that knocks me into such a state of disequilibrium that I can't process it in such a way as to accept it as truth. Your example of purple and blue sky makes perfect sense. It's an impossible task, but we know such things happen.

For instance, for millennia people thought the world was flat. Evidence starts emerging that maybe it's not. People slough it off as absurd. But more evidence pours in. Academics provide persuasive arguments. Even some friends become convinced and change their minds. Can it be so? Should I "believe" it? Is the evidence compelling enough that I should accept the disequilibrium as truth and change my worldview? I can see with own eyes that the earth is flat. Has it magically changed, or is the evidence now compelling me to a conclusion other than what my eyes tell me is true, my mind knows to be reasonable, and has been established by evidence as the new essence of reality?

Here's where I need feedback from you.

[Spiffy]

Sorry. I guess I meant "confidence" in the chair holding you up, not "trust". Confidence is physical evidence. I'm so used to saying trust that I forgot confidence existed. I can see why it's confusing. I have a spectrum of belief of my own and I realize, since I've slept on all of this, that it can be confusing if it's not laid out before discussion. "Trust" is when you are contemplating personality without interaction. Such as, trusting a cop based on uniform. You trust that he/she does the right thing from day to day. You trust that they would come to your house for emergencies if you called even though you might not have personal experience with calling the cops. Much like you put trust in other drivers to not purposely crash into you on your way to your destination.

"Confidence" is gained with personal experience and physical evidence. So you've interacted with this store before. You know that buildings don't get up and walk away randomly and they usually don't get knocked down without warning unless something went wrong, and that does not usually happen. If you have the authority you could look up blue prints, or even actually go on Google maps and see it before you go there. You can touch the building and interact with people in the building if that's what it's for. This is why you have confidence. If you were sitting at home you could say with 99% confidence that that building is still there. (although you could be wrong for some reason. Maybe a plane crashed into it or something, but it's not likely and beside the point.)

So by my definitions you cannot really have trust in objects because there is no personality to contemplate, just the physical evidence which can be a bit more compelling.

Also, now I'm not really up for debating the quote about faith because I already did with someone else. All I have to say on that matter is that in the bible they use that description but then use faith in different ways as well. For example, as a spiritual cleansing mechanism. I posted the passage somewhere. Oh wait it's still saved in my phone so I'll paste it here.

Acts 15:8-9 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

I don't see how this faith is the same as trust really. But the point is in the bible faith can be interpreted in different ways which is very confusing and has led to much confusion of definitions. I guess all we can do is define our terms before debating.

As for watching TV and choosing not to believe. You do not actively choose. You are just unwillingly not convinced because what is being presented to you is not nearly convincing enough to change your view of things. You are not willingly convinced of something.

If you believe that God exists convince yourself he doesn't. If you believe that God doesn't exist convince yourself that he does. You cannot just simply choose to start believing the respected opposite of what you started with by sheer will. You can act as if you believe, but you would not actually believe, would you? I could never just say to myself, "Yup, I believe that God exists now. Cool." And also ACTUALLY believe that he does just because I decided I would start believing. I can only go so far as to act like I believe.

[jimwalton]

Thank you for your clarifying definitions and friendly conversation. I agree with you that all of these terms take on various nuances and well as a variety of facets of meaning, and so have to be defined, even from conversation to conversation. For instance, sometimes in the Bible "faith" means "trust." Sometimes it means "the body of tenets to which we subscribe", and at other times it can mean "belief." The context tells us what's going on, but just because it uses the word "faith," we can't necessarily assume.

In Acts 15.9, the idea of faith is in contrast to works. Salvation is through a relationship with Jesus, not by being good or being religious.

As far as actively or inactively choosing, I respectfully disagree with you. My conscience and will are not robotically subject to the input stream, but I evaluate based on context, experience, and evidence to consciously make choices. I get willingly convinced of things all the time, in contrast to what you're saying. Suppose I see an infomercial on TV, and they extol all the virtues of their product. Well, it's an infomercial, and I might go on the web to get more evidence and customer reviews, and I might decide, "Hm, maybe there's something to this," and then I pursue it further, and maybe in the end I'm convinced. I'm convinced because my will gathered information, evaluated reliability, and I chose, then, to believe it.

But I can't do such things by sheer power of the will. I find that I choose to believe based on convincing evidence. I wouldn't just start to believe in God or stop believing in God on whims, but on being convinced. It's an act of the will as a function of convincing evidence.

[Kitty Kat]

You concede my point then. What convinces you is not a matter of will. What you believe in based on current evidence is not a matter of choice at this moment. You can choose to do more research or find that your evidence is faulty or less convincing than than you once thought, but a current belief is impossible to change without a change in evidence or a standard of evidence.

[jimwalton]

Unless I misunderstand, we're back to the original post. Yes, belief is a choice, as I've agreed from the beginning. Faith is an assumption of truth based on evidence to make the assumption reasonable. What I believe is actually a choice that I make based on the compelling evidence, and belief doesn't change unless evidence warrants it. Am I missing something?