About faith


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Often we discuss faith - I would like to pursue a thought about faith. We understand that faith is something that can be exercised when there is no evidence. But what I have become to question is the kind of “faith” that denies and defies evidence.

Please understand - I am not talking about the opinion of “experts” as evidence but rather things that can be demonstrated by any or all of us. Of course most of these observable truths are considered scientific truths. In essence I do not believe that by faith we are to stand in the sun at new day and think through faith we can declare it night.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite scripture about faith is, at first glance, the "generic" one that doesn't seem to say much. But, with a close reading and word break down, it says much.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

When you read this verse it seems to give the impression that "faith is something not real or tangible, something you can't put your finger on."

In actuality, this verse is stating quite the opposite. Look at the word break down:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for

It doesn't say "faith is something you hope for, that you can't see." It says "faith is the substance; faith is something real." What is the substance of what you hope for? I would aks the obvious, "what do you do to bring about your hopes?" If you do nothing to bring about your hopes, then you can be confident that you will always just hope, never achieving. As you take steps to accomplish things that lead you to your hope, then you have some substance of your hope.

This is why I like the example of farming. Does a farmer set out to plow a field just to plow a field? What is hope in plowing a field? Obviously, so that he can harvest a crop. WHat if he does nothing to bring about his hope? Then, obviously, it will always just be a hope.

The same for the second part of the verse:

the evidence of things not seen

Again, it doesn't say "faith is not seen," it says "faith is the evidence" of your hope.

What is the evidence of your hope?

See above.

Eternal Life is the hope of every Christian. What do we do to bring about that hope?

That is the true nature of faith (in Christ).

At some point in time that faith (exercised in Christ) will be evident. There will be signs of your faith. If so, there is no faith, because by it's very definition there must be evidence. It may defy evidence at first (maybe it always does at first), but evidence will come.

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gopecon

While faith is an operating power in much of what we do, I don't believe that it can ever be used just for fun. It's not the force, where we can move objects for kicks. There has to be a righteous purpose for the mountains to move. I don't believe that we can just change reality through faith. Is this what you are talking about, or are you talking more about belief (like those who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, despite scientific evidence to the contrary).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short I will summerize - faith moves forward even when there is not enough knowledge. I think we redefine faith when we think that faith is despite knowledge that does not fit what we think ought to be our faith.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought of it thusly,

Faith is needed when there is no sure knowledge, when there is no evidence. The Wright brothers exercised faith when they set out to build their airplane. Edison exercised faith when he encapsulated carbonized bamboo in a sealed glass globe and energized it. But it isn't faith that guides the engineers at Boeing it is knowledge.

Hence for me as evidence is revealed it should support the faith that I have had. True principles need not shy away from scientific inquiry. If they are true they will stand, if they are false they will not.

I also don't buy into the fact that we make our testimonies stronger by shielding them. We make muscles, plants, steel, and testimonies strong by testing them in the fires of adversity.

-RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gopecon

"I also don't buy into the fact that we make our testimonies stronger by shielding them. We make muscles, plants, steel, and testimonies strong by testing them in the fires of adversity." RMGuy

While I agree with the basic premise of this statement, we do need to be careful as to what type of adversity we subject ourselves to. Wallowing in the filth spewed by enemies of the Church generally does little good, and it can do much harm. By analogy there are a lot of things that we can do to make our physical body stronger, and to test the limits of that strength. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but we have been counseled to avoid unnecessary risks. Some things move beyond testing strength and into testing fate - which is not good. I think this is somewhat parallel to testing our testimonies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Often we discuss faith - I would like to pursue a thought about faith. We understand that faith is something that can be exercised when there is no evidence. But what I have become to question is the kind of “faith” that denies and defies evidence.

Please understand - I am not talking about the opinion of “experts” as evidence but rather things that can be demonstrated by any or all of us. Of course most of these observable truths are considered scientific truths. In essence I do not believe that by faith we are to stand in the sun at new day and think through faith we can declare it night.

The Traveler

Then that evidence is false evidence or falsely presented. I think one has to look at it that way. We see this a lot in the field of medicine. Sometimes drug companies put out papers and studies showing one drug is superior to another in the same class. Even though they might be double blinded, controlled studies, one always has to look at the source of the evidence and how it is presented.

I used to teach nursing classes about this and one example I used is the fact that melatonin is released by the pituitary gland and part of the sleep-wake cycle. But it is falsely represented by advertisers in saying that by taking melatonin it "has been proven, scientifically that it will help you sleep" because what they fail to say is that melatonin is not absorbed in the body as melatonin. It gets broken down into amino acids and does not cross the blood brain barrier. So by giving a "proven" fact in a falsely presented manner or leaving out some of the truth they convince people to buy their product that really doesn't act in the way they are suggesting. Satan is the master of this, he gives a partial truth and twists it a little to still sound right but ends up leading people in the wrong direction.

Really, though, the principle of the gospel is faith in Jesus Christ. I think we sometimes leave out the "in Jesus Christ" part and just talk about faith alone. But really the principle of the gospel is to have faith in Jesus Christ. If one knows the words came from Jesus Christ, I would have faith in that over any other "evidence" presented.

Edited by Seminarysnoozer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I also don't buy into the fact that we make our testimonies stronger by shielding them. We make muscles, plants, steel, and testimonies strong by testing them in the fires of adversity." RMGuy

While I agree with the basic premise of this statement, we do need to be careful as to what type of adversity we subject ourselves to. Wallowing in the filth spewed by enemies of the Church generally does little good, and it can do much harm. By analogy there are a lot of things that we can do to make our physical body stronger, and to test the limits of that strength. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but we have been counseled to avoid unnecessary risks. Some things move beyond testing strength and into testing fate - which is not good. I think this is somewhat parallel to testing our testimonies.

I hadn't thought about it quite those same terms before Gopecon, but those are some excellent points, and I think a very good parallel.

-RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Often we discuss faith - I would like to pursue a thought about faith. We understand that faith is something that can be exercised when there is no evidence. But what I have become to question is the kind of “faith” that denies and defies evidence.

I would hold that the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not require us to believe anything that is not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I would add an example. Let us say that in our conversations someone commented that because of their “faith” that they believe the scriptures over science. That may at the offset sound noble but please allow me to present an example of scripture verses science. In Genesis chapter 1 we are presented with a scriptural account of the creation. In particular take a look at verses 9-13 that describe what was done on the 2nd day. Please note the statement in verse 11 about fruit trees yielding fruit.

Now consider verses 14 through 19 (day 3). Here the scripture define the means of providing light and energy to the earth in order that there could be day and night as well as seasons. It is quite obvious that this is in reference to the sun, moon and stars we see above us.

It is most apparent in science that prior to any fruit tree yielding fruit as we can observe growing around us that without the sun providing light and the warmth in seasons fruit trees will not yield fruit.

Please understand I am not trashing scriptures - I am suggesting that faith in seemingly simple interpretations of scripture (or other “spiritual things) despite the evidence and understanding of science (or truth) will lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of very important principles of definite truth.

There is no reason to ever fear or reject truth. There is always reason to increasing our understanding and knowledge of things - through genuine faith that a compassionate and loving G-d intends that we understand and know the truth.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point traveler. I've always wondered how long it took Noah to get two of all the 116,500 known species of snails together for the trip on the ark, and how he got to the arctic for the polar bears, or the amazon for the anacondas. I've wondered how we found them all, when with 7 billion people on the planet we are still discovering new species every day. :-)

-RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point traveler. I've always wondered how long it took Noah to get two of all the 116,500 known species of snails together for the trip on the ark, and how he got to the arctic for the polar bears, or the amazon for the anacondas. I've wondered how we found them all, when with 7 billion people on the planet we are still discovering new species every day. :-)

-RM

Another good point - if we consider just the known species of worms only - the dimensions given of the Ark in scripture would not be sufficient.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is most apparent in science that prior to any fruit tree yielding fruit as we can observe growing around us that without the sun providing light and the warmth in seasons fruit trees will not yield fruit.

There are possible logical explanations for this. On day 1 God created "light." What He didn't do is create a generating and sustaining source of it nearby the earth, which He had to create later. The trees could have been sustained by this other source of light until the sun took over.

Even still, it could simply have been that the light and glory that emmanated from His Person sustained life until He set things in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I would add an example. Let us say that in our conversations someone commented that because of their “faith” that they believe the scriptures over science. That may at the offset sound noble but please allow me to present an example of scripture verses science. In Genesis chapter 1 we are presented with a scriptural account of the creation. In particular take a look at verses 9-13 that describe what was done on the 2nd day. Please note the statement in verse 11 about fruit trees yielding fruit.

Now consider verses 14 through 19 (day 3). Here the scripture define the means of providing light and energy to the earth in order that there could be day and night as well as seasons. It is quite obvious that this is in reference to the sun, moon and stars we see above us.

It is most apparent in science that prior to any fruit tree yielding fruit as we can observe growing around us that without the sun providing light and the warmth in seasons fruit trees will not yield fruit.

Please understand I am not trashing scriptures - I am suggesting that faith in seemingly simple interpretations of scripture (or other “spiritual things) despite the evidence and understanding of science (or truth) will lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of very important principles of definite truth.

There is no reason to ever fear or reject truth. There is always reason to increasing our understanding and knowledge of things - through genuine faith that a compassionate and loving G-d intends that we understand and know the truth.

The Traveler

I think there is always going to be a problem when you take something that is metaphoric and compare it to something literal.

If I tell you my husband is "hot" and one day you run into him and pull out a thermometer and check his temperature, you are not going to say, 'what you said was a lie, because he has a normal temperature, he is not hot'.

To try and take the creation story in Genesis, piece by piece as a literal description of what happened I think is wrong and is not the intended message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what I have become to question is the kind of “faith” that denies and defies evidence.

Faith doesn't deny or defy evidence. It simply puts the relationship in question before the evidence. Thus it is not a dichotomy, but rather a list of priorities.

Hence, if you are a husband and you come home from work and find another man sitting at the dinner table with your wife, you enact faith (a choice) to set your immediate questions aside until you have all the facts. You don't attempt to glean these facts immediately with demands, you allow her to explain when she is able, and the explanation will likely come as a matter of course within the ensuing conversation. ("Hi honey. This is my cousin Pete from Pennsylvania. He's here for the funeral.")

That is the expression of faith. It relies on the fruits of the Spirit: patience, charity, long suffering, humility, Etc. This course requires that you have a spine. In fact, the survival of all relationships depend on the participants having the backbone to "live the question" for varying amounts of time. In this effort, evidence is not denied or defied. It is set aside until it can be properly engaged because it is not the priority. The relationship is the priority.

So it is in our relationship with God. Questions must be lived, and they include the veracity of scripture, the controversy surrounding Joseph Smith, Priesthood bans, taboo polygamy, Mountain Meadows, Failed banks, Salamander letters, OT & BOM genocides, Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Nephi slaying Laban, et al. We must live these questions faithfully until the time is right for both parties in the relationship to participate in a dialog of explanation.

Faith can only be understood and discussed in terms of relationships because all of the technology (veils, seer stones, scriptures, temples) and techniques (reverence, respect, ordinance protocol) of these relationships that we are in with God rely on it to be enacted.

Faith does not exist outside of a relationship between two individuals. If you are giving yourself to an idol, process or apparatus that is an end in and of itself then you are engaging in a relationship that is necessarily finite, and thus mechanically dogmatic.

If you want any relationship to be destroyed you utilize doubt, which begins with questions. Respect and reverence for the relationship, in this case, are eschewed in favor of demands. ("Who the hell is this guy?") Doubt is useful in finite processes (like secular science, shipping, and finance), but is an inadequate tool/technique with regards to the things of God because none of the questions of God can be answered on our terms (Descartes' notion of doubt). They must be answered on his terms (Christ's example of faith).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share