The difference between religion and faith

flatout

In my previous post (which has been deleted and I haven't been told why) I have been accused of being religious. Which came to me as a surprise since I have clearly criticized religious. I am anti-religion and a true believer in God. Maybe you think these things don't mix, but they do.

Prophets are not religious, but they have faith. Religion is only formed after prophets die to stay in their spotlight.

Religion is an act of fear. Faith is act of liberation. Prophets are not following dogmas. They are essentially defying all the society rules to favour their truthfulness to the experience they are having.

In the Quraan it says and I say this as not a word-to-word translation, "They said we have faith. Say not we have faith. Say we are religious until faith enters through your hearts."

Atheism could be based on a new dogma and religion because whenever you start repeating quotes without working your heart, you know you are being dogmatic, religious and essentially trying to play it safe. Atheism could also be based on faith too.

Faith is not based on tribalism while religion is based on tribalism. Faith makes you true to yourself while tribalism means that you have to do all it takes to be good enough for your tribe because you recognise your tribe as the source of your power. Faith however recognise that if you always remain true to yourself, you can form your own tribe with your own rules which is usually what people with faith end up having.

Faith doesn't necessarily translate to God. Faith is fighting for whatever you believe in which could also mean the non-existence of God. If you have true faith, you should fight for it.

All I am saying is: religion and faith are totally different things. And faith could be related to something different than God all together: like the existence of aliens or animal and environment issues.

Faith is our interpretation of the life experience we are having and it is based on the mind and heart working together. Religion is based on text. Faith uses text to interpret the experience. Religion uses text to interpret the experience.

Vera Mont

Faith is our interpretation of the life experience we are having and it is based on the mind and heart working together. — Raef Kandil

Though not equally hard, I imagine. Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence.

Religion is based on text. — Raef Kandil

Not, it isn't. Religion is a formal system of tenets and practices with a supernatural entity or concept as its core. There may be texts supporting it, and these text may precede the formal organization or be produced within the organization. It is based on a shared or imposed philosophical view.

Faith uses text to interpret the experience. — Raef Kandil

No it doesn't. Experience-based faith needs no interpretation, but faith and subjective experiences may be chronicled and their interpretation may later becomes religious text.

And then?

180 Proof

All I am saying is: religion and faith are totally different things. — Raef Kandil

I suppose "religion" is the institutionalization of fetish-making/regulating/prohibiting (i.e. enforced dogma) whereas 'faith" is personal fetish-using (i.e. make-believe) such that the latter does not require the former – what you call "liberation", Raef – but the former very much depends on the latter.

flatout

@180 Proof it is true that religion is based on fear. So, in a fear culture as you said that terrorizes its people and imposes heavy punishments, you are likely to find more religious people. Which is why faith comes as a very valuable commodity in these cultures. People cherish and wait for the "super hero" to liberate them.

But things are not always black and white. People just don't fear punishment and in a liberal society, people can still fear things like failure. This is how big companies fail. Big companies have their reputation, their face and much more likely to fall than startups. Because when they get afraid, they tend to do more conservative, dogmatic and arguably religious choices that can guarantee their failure. This is how Kodak fell. They didn't want to risk their reputation and they wanted to do things the way they knew will bring them success. So, they failed to compete with iphones as they thought that was not their perfect formula for success. I think they would have appreciated a person with faith that could lead their change.

flatout

And then?

@Vera Mont, I agree with everything you said although I think there are different ways of saying the same thing. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "And then"? I just wrote this because I thought it was interesting. If you didn't think it was interesting, why did you bother writing all of these comments?

flatout

By the way, my first post did not get deleted. I just thought it got deleted.

T Clark

Religion is an act of fear. Faith is act of liberation. Prophets are not following dogmas. They are essentially defying all the society rules to favour their truthfulness to the experience they are having. — Raef Kandil

This is certainly not true. I know a lot of religious people who are not afraid. For many, belief in God in the company of others who feel the same is a way to focus their attention outside of themselves, to give themselves to their community, to surrender their will, and to trust in the world.

Faith is our interpretation of the life experience we are having and it is based on the mind and heart working together. — Raef Kandil

I do agree with this.

T Clark

Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence. — Vera Mont

I don't think that's true. I've been spending a lot of time thinking about how we know things recently. I've gotten in several discussions here on the forum where we disagreed on the role of reason and intuition. My claim is that most of what we know and how we make decisions is not based on reason but on the totality of our experience and learning. I guess this is something like the correspondence theory of truth except we don't compare our beliefs with the world but with a model of the world we carry around with us. This is something I experience very directly.

My understanding of knowledge is based on my experience as an engineer for 30 years. In that role I had to pay attention to what I knew and how I knew it. I came to recognize my initial understanding of a problem came from a mostly unconscious processing of the information I have studied, my understanding of my professional body of knowledge, and my general knowledge of life. In short, it was ultimately founded on an empirical but not rational basis. For me, reason comes along afterward, when I have to verify, justify, communicate what I've learned and figure out what to do with and about it. In summary - reason can analyze, but it can't synthesize. Reason doesn't get good ideas, it evaluates ideas that come from somewhere else.

And yes, I think faith is just another name for intuition and religious faith is intuition for people who carry around a different model of the world than we do.

Wayfarer

An important point that is largely lost in Western cultural discourse is the principle of self-realization in the philosophical or spiritual sense.

Suffice to say that Asian culture has maintained the connection between philosophical insight and praxis - you see that very clearly in Tibetan Buddhism but it's also true of other Asian Buddhist schools, such as Zen and Tendai. It comprises an insight into and realization of the unity of being and knowing - to put it in rather Aristotelian terms. But this insight can't be captured or described in terms of propositional knowledge as it is something that has to be realized in actual life (and actualised in the figure of the sage or spiritual master). The crucial error in Western culture was to attempt to reduce it to propositional knowledge on par with (but inferior to) empirical or natural science.

Karen Armstrong has traced those developments in her book The Case for God (which is not a text of religious apologetics although of course a lot of people won't be able to see it any other way). See her OP, Metaphysical Mistake.

Vera Mont

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "And then"? — Raef Kandil

I wondered what it is you want to discuss regarding faith and religion.

T Clark

An important point that is largely lost in Western cultural discourse is the principle of self-realization in the philosophical or spiritual sense. — Wayfarer

Good post and thanks for the link. I don't think anything you described contradicts what I wrote about in my previous post.

Wayfarer

↪T Clark

me neither :up:

Wayfarer

There are many deeply stereotyped ideas about religion which mainly originate in ecclesiastical dogma about what you are obliged to believe. I think this the issue the OP is trying to elaborate.

Vera Mont

And yes, I think faith is just another name for intuition and religious faith is intuition for people who carry around a different model of the world than we do. — T Clark

Why would intuition need another name? Particular one that is usually taken to mean something quite different from what we usually mean by intuition, instinct, hunches or gut feelings?
Intuition is usually taken to mean a tentative or provisional conclusion drawn from incomplete or discontinuous evidence because precedents and patterns we recognize suggest what the picture should be. It's a conclusion arrived-at by jumping over the gaps. It's very useful as an indicator for fresh lines of inquiry, or pointing to aspects of a problem have not been sufficiently investigated.

Faith may well be based on a different model of the world, but it provides its owner with a certainty that precludes any further inquiry or room for doubt. An incontestable conclusion.

This is why, when our intuition, guesstimate or hunch turns out to be wrong, we eat a little crow and keep trucking. When we lose our faith, our whole model of the world and confidence in ourself crumbles.

Wayfarer

↪Vera Mont

Because it involves a factor variously designated salvation, release, mokṣa, or liberation. Whereas there’s nothing in the current concept of naturalism that corresponds to that.

An incontestable conclusion. — Vera Mont

That incidentally is fideism.

Wayfarer

All I am saying is: religion and faith are totally different things — Raef Kandil

They’re not totally different although I do see the distinction you are wanting to make. Here’s another outlink (I have many!) which distinguishes religion from dharma

http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion

180 Proof

↪Wayfarer

Contra Karen Armstrong's revisionary insistance that Christianity is not a fundamentally creedal soteriology, consider

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. — Galatians 2:16, KJV

(Emphasis is mine.)

Here's a further exigesis: https://caseyjaywork.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/184/

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. — Romans 3:28, KJV

(Emphasis is mine.)

⁸For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

⁹Not of works, lest any man should boast. — Ephesians 2:8-9, KJV

(Emphasis is mine.)

Besides these excerpts from Paul's letters (c48, 57, 62 CE), there is the Protestant theological doctrine of Sola fide that is grounded in both Pauline scriptures as well as Patristic and Scholastic apologia. Not "an accident of history", or modernity. As much as I respect Karen Armstrong's writings on religion, I find their revisionary departures from scholarship undermine her credibility as a scholar (who pretends not to be latter day apologist). A former Catholic nun, Ms. Armstrong apparently ignores or dismisses the doctrinal substance of Protestant and pre-Catholic Christianity as if the devil in the historical details do not still matter.

Metamorphosis

↪Raef Kandil

it seems like you're redefining words and engaged more in creative writing than philosophy. Not that there's anything wrong with that... and it makes for some interesting sort of college dorm room musing. But the words you're using have accepted definitions and attempting to redefining them in your own way is not going to become the norm for society... so how does it really get us anywhere?

It's like people who redefine God as love. And then they say well then of course God exists. But obviously most people use the idea of God to mean more than just love... Anyway that's my two cents.

Benj96

Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence. — Vera Mont

I have faith that this chair will support my weight. Empirical evidence - my weight, the load bearing structure of the chair, its strength, its object permanance (stability as a chair) , the ability of me to sit down. All of which can be measured, quantized, calculated to make a prediction that if I do sit down it will likely support my weight.

Thus "faith" as applied to an expectation/trust/belief in an outcome, can be supported by empirical evidence.

Let's not confuse "faith" in things with only religion alone. Faith = trust. You can have faith in any belief. It may or may not stand up to ridicule/scrutiny.

flatout

This is certainly not true. I know a lot of religious people who are not afraid. For many, belief in God in the company of others who feel the same is a way to focus their attention outside of themselves, to give themselves to their community, to surrender their will, and to trust in the world

@T Clark, what you are saying is that they need the support system to trust the world. Which pre-assumes, they are essentially afraid of the world so they are "gathering up" and seeking warmth in religion and the support of God who favours their tribe. Without that, they would be too fearful to live. I do believe religion is fear-driven.

flatout

Why would intuition need another name? Particular one that is usually taken to mean something quite different from what we usually mean by intuition, instinct, hunches or gut feelings?
Intuition is usually taken to mean a tentative or provisional conclusion drawn from incomplete or discontinuous evidence because precedents and patterns we recognize suggest what the picture should be. It's a conclusion arrived-at by jumping over the gaps. It's very useful as an indicator for fresh lines of inquiry, or pointing to aspects of a problem have not been sufficiently investigated.

Faith may well be based on a different model of the world, but it provides its owner with a certainty that precludes any further inquiry or room for doubt. An incontestable conclusion.

This is why, when our intuition, guesstimate or hunch turns out to be wrong, we eat a little crow and keep trucking. When we lose our faith, our whole model of the world and confidence in ourself crumbles.

@Vera Mont, well said

flatout

@Wayfarer, thank you for the excellent read and thoughts. The links you shared described what I wanted to say with far more clarity, terminology and precision.

That incidentally is fideism.

The phrase pulled out of its context, may mean fidelism: a word I am not entirely familiar with. But I think what @Vera Mont meant was: faith is not based on empiricism. It invokes actions that does not need to be validated by anyone which I think is right. Faith or what gets referred in the article you shared as Dharma, does not need validation. And it cannot be explained either. So, I tend to agree with @Vera Mont

flatout

it seems like you're redefining words and engaged more in creative writing than philosophy. Not that there's anything wrong with that... and it makes for some interesting sort of college dorm room musing. But the words you're using have accepted definitions and attempting to redefining them in your own way is not going to become the norm for society... so how does it really get us anywhere?

It's like people who redefine God as love. And then they say well then of course God exists. But obviously most people use the idea of God to mean more than just love... Anyway that's my two cents

@Metamorphosis, I am not really sure that I should be really concerned with words. Words' purpose is to define meanings. I can tell you I love you when I really hate you. Long-tem actions will prove me wrong. So, I think that I shouldn't limit myself with words.

Having said that, I do agree with you, there is an issue and I didn't describe my thoughts in the most accurate terms. Like after reading the article that @Wayfarer' shared with me, I tend to think that Dharma is the word I should have used rather than faith. I am not trying to flip word definitions. This is not my target.

My real target is to express real concerns I have and I don't think that my lack of the right vocabulary should stop me. Because, if with my limited vocabulary, you can still understand what I am trying to say. I think that this is all words are attempted to do.

Art48

I am anti-religion and a true believer in God. Maybe you think these things don't mix, but they do. — Raef Kandil

They do. Religion tells enormous lies about God, like wiping out the entire world (minus Noah & Co) with a flood, or that God impregnated a woman who was not his wife. Religion often uses God's existence for its own benefit rather than leading people to God, which is why religion is often wealthy and has much political power.

Tom Storm

Thus "faith" as applied to an expectation/trust/belief in an outcome, can be supported by empirical evidence.

Let's not confuse "faith" in things with only religion alone. Faith = trust. You can have faith in any belief. It may or may not stand up to ridicule/scrutiny. — Benj96

For me faith is belief without good evidence. I would rarely use the word outside of religious context. I do not have faith that a chair will accommodate my weight or that a plane I fly in will not crash. I would call this having a reasonable expectation. As you have pointed out, these are things for which there is evidence, which is not how faith in the religious context works. As per Hebrews 11: Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. I don't have faith in any beliefs, I hold beliefs with degrees of confidence.

The real problem with faith is that that it is possible to justify anything using an appeal to faith, from the Christian apartheid of South Africa, to anti-gay activists who hold their bigotries on faith.

T Clark

This is why, when our intuition, guesstimate or hunch turns out to be wrong, we eat a little crow and keep trucking. When we lose our faith, our whole model of the world and confidence in ourself crumbles. — Vera Mont

You've ignored the substance of my comment and focused on a language disagreement.

T Clark

what you are saying is that they need the support system to trust the world. — Raef Kandil

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Vera Mont

Because it involves a factor variously designated salvation, release, mokṣa, or liberation. Whereas there’s nothing in the current concept of naturalism that corresponds to that. — Wayfarer

I don't know what "why" this answers, and don't recall asking. I commented generally on the characteristics of religion, as organized systems of practice relating to the supernatural. Unconditional belief and faith are not essential to one's identification with a religion; even the pastors pick and choose from the holy text. Regardless of the specific nature of the stick and carrot it offers, every religion has its rituals and a central theme, adhered to by its congregants.

That incidentally is fideism. — Wayfarer

AKA faith.

I have faith that this chair will support my weight. — Benj96

That is not faith; that is a belief formed through previous experience. It may prove to be incorrect in a given case, but the pattern will continue to hold for most examples. If one chair collapses, you'll test the next one before you sit in it. If the next ten hold up, you'll probably stop testing. If the next three collapse, you'll stop believing.
The first time he promises to repay the $10 you lend it to him, because he is your friend and has been generally truthful in your acquaintance, so you trust him. If he doesn't repay you, you're a bit reluctant to lend him any more. If he keeps up a pattern of borrowing and not repaying, you'll stop trusting him entirely.

But the faithful religionist keeps praying even after fifty prayers go unanswered. Keeps buying candles, even though the saint never grants his wish. Keeps calling on God's mercy, even when he's sitting on the dung-heap, bereft of all his family and goods, covered in boils.
And sometimes people have unjustified faith in other people or institutions - usually through the same wishful thinking that supports religious faith: the wife who rejects evidence that her husband is cheating; the mother who can't accept that her son robbed a liquor store; the American who just knows the constitution will safeguard the democratic process, the Canadian who is sure the police wouldn't arrest an innocent man.

Faith does not equal trust does not equal belief. Each word has a specific meaning.

Vera Mont

You've ignored the substance of my comment and focused on a language disagreement. — T Clark

That was the crux of the matter to which I was responding. I'll go back now and try to answer what I missed.

My claim is that most of what we know and how we make decisions is not based on reason but on the totality of our experience and learning. I guess this is something like the correspondence theory of truth except we don't compare our beliefs with the world but with a model of the world we carry around with us. — T Clark

What is that internal model built from, if not experience and learning of real facts, things and events in the real world? At some points during that construction, reason must have been involved in assessing which bits to keep and discard, which bits go where in the model. The sustained belief emerges from testing that internal model with the real world over time. If it doesn't correspond closely enough, your motors won't run and your chairs will collapse.

I came to recognize my initial understanding of a problem came from a mostly unconscious processing of the information I have studied, my understanding of my professional body of knowledge, and my general knowledge of life. In short, it was ultimately founded on an empirical but not rational basis. — T Clark

I don't see this is as a contradiction to

Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence. — Vera Mont

Ø implies everything

Are you saying faith is not necessarily religious, or that it is necessarily not religious?

The way you structure your post makes it hard to know what is your definition of faith, and what is your description of faith; the latter being the traits which follow from your definition.

Now, if you define faith as belief that comes from a set of acceptable sources, and if you define religious belief as belief that is necessarily rooted on at least one unacceptable source, then you are by your own definitions correct. How well your definitions reflect the usage of those words in the English language is a different matter, and whether or not appealing to that is countering your view really depends on what claim you are making. When it comes to the redefining of words, there are two kinds of claims you can make:

1. Given these definitions, P is true.
2. These definitions best represent how people use these words.

If the latter, then we'd have to do a corpus analysis. If the former, then you need to be more clear. That is, precisely state what faith is, and precisely state what religious belief is. Then, from there, you can go on to argue for different consequences of those definitions.

Here's the kicker:

If you define faith as belief that comes from certain acceptable sources, how then do you determine whether a belief is faith or non-faith? Can you really know the full extent of the sources that feed into your beliefs? If so, do you then deny the existence of the sub-conscious?

BC

I am anti-religion and a true believer in God. Maybe you think these things don't mix, but they do. — Raef Kandil

Yes, they can mix. "Religion" is a container of faith, ritual, doctrines, texts, god(s), real property, roles, and all the other components. The container is built after the prophet, the messiah, the god... have spoken and acted, and after the people have heard, believed, a followed. "Religion" is not the heart of the matter -- it's the container. As such, it's important. It holds things together.

Prophets are not religious, but they have faith. — Raef Kandil

"Religious" and "the prophets" seem compatible to me--not that prophet MUST be religious, but he could be. They certainly have faith -- else, why would they prophecy?

Religion is an act of fear. Faith is act of liberation. Prophets are not following dogmas. They are essentially defying all the society rules to favour their truthfulness to the experience they are having. — Raef Kandil

I like your description of prophecy. Religion certainly can be fear-based (among other emotional drivers) but it doesn't have to be. And faith MAY be an act of liberation, but it depends on which store faith is placed.

In other words, it's hard to generalize about all faith, all prophecy, all scripture, all religion, etc.

The difference between religion and faith

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions