Belief and Pretending. (Again)

[Jax Agnesson]

My very first topic on Theo was about the nature of faith. Was it, I wondered, a greatly-extended version of the 'suspension of disbelief' we all practise whilst reading a good story or watching a gripping drama. (I actually blubbed all the way theough 'Truly Madly Deeply'. Doesn't mean I believe in ghosts.)

Every now and again, a cleric comes out and says something like THIS, and I think back to that same question.

What is religious belief?

[Alex Guggenheim]

Religious belief is no different than believing anything else, either you believe it or you do not. Clearly this "Reverend" does not believe the truth of God.

[Jax Agnesson]

I'm not sure about this, Alex. Lots of people do respond to the question in that way, but some are more circumspect. 'Faith' as a kind of 'faithfulness' (ie 'loyalty') is cited by some people.

Taking 'belief' as a measure of trust in information, I believe what my Phillips' World Atlas says about Azerbaijan, though I've never been there myself. Faith is this context comes down to estimating the reliability of sources. But when 'faiths' diverge (sometimes very bitterly) over different readings of the same source, clearly something else is going on. It's not just a clear-eyed estimate of technical reliability, is it?

I'm thinking of the Rev Ian Paisley's ranting at the Pope when His Holiness visited Liverpool a couple of decades back. The Rev Paisley used terms like 'Antichrist' and Heretic' and (IIRC, though I may have imagined this bit ) 'Whore of Babylon'.

Surely the Rev Paisley and HH have access to exactly the same Scriptures, have read them with the same degree of attention and care, have prayed devoutly to the same God for guidance, etc.

This is not the same as two physicists name-calling about string-theory or summat. This is Hell and Damnation stuff. This leads to mass slaughters quite regularly. What is it about faith, that can instil such terrible certainties in several different directions at once, with regard to interpretations of the same evidence?

Alex Guggenheim said:

Religious belief is no different than believing anything else, either you believe it or you do not. Clearly this "Reverend" does not believe the truth of God.

[E. A. Long]

Hi Jax,

My initial response to Bishop Holloway was sadness. Why spend your whole life in a religious farce? 

I wish I could define religious belief, but I cannot. I know what my experience of Christian belief (faith) is. It is my state of mind, heart, and spirit that has the utter conviction that the Bible and Jesus Christ are the revelation of a loving, compassionate Creator Father. It is the assurance that these things (and many more) are more true and more certain than some things I see with my own eyes. My belief and my relationship with Jesus Christ are more real to me and more important to me than anything or anyone. Not to overuse a "proof text" but it really is my evidence of things not seen (Heb. 11:1). 

The article says of Bishop Holloway, "He said he reached the conclusion that 'there may be no God in the universe, but let’s live as though there is, and even if we are wrong it will be a glorious way to be proved mistaken.' ” According to Paul, if we are wrong about the resurrection (and, consequently about Christ as a whole), we are of all men most miserable. And if Holloway does not believe, he is not saved and will die in his sin. Morality (living as if there were a God) does not save us. So, he faces a lose-lose situation. 

[Francis Drake]

Jax

Interesting topic. Unfortunately I could not connect to your link. However.-

Your question mixes religious belief systems with faith in God. These are two different things.

Religion is largely about the rule books man creates as a cover for God. Sadly most of those rule books have little to do with the God they suppose to represent.

Men are not just fleshly bodies with an intellect within. We are all also spirit beings, and it is only with our internal spirit man, that we can connect with God. We can not see spiritual things with our natural fleshly senses. 

When God made Adam, he gave him a free choice, but warned him what would happen if he chose to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Death would result. However we must never forget that there was another tree in the Garden, the Tree of Life. 

These two trees represent the choice, of either Adam himself ruling the planet, alone, with the sole aid of his intellectual knowledge, versus Adam choosing to let God reign supreme with Adam as Viceroy. A study of Genesis will show this. For the latter to occur, Adam should have eaten of the Tree of Life, which represents God's living wisdom.

When Adam rebelled, he chose to place his intellectual man as superior, and overruling, his spirit man. This is where we are today as a result of Adam. We find it hard to be led by the Spirit of God because we are so used to being led by our brainpower. Our spirit is continually suppressed. This is why we invent religions, to make God suit our image, and give us a system we can handle and control with our natural senses, and natural mind.

Nevertheless, we all still have a spirit man deep inside of each one of us. It is this man and this man alone which bears witness to the presence of a God, who is Spirit. We only hear the voice or the prompting of God with our spirit man. Heeding that prompting is what faith is about.

Paul, in Hebrews, quoting David's psalms says repeatedly, "today, if you WILL hear his voice, harden not your hearts". Softening our hearts is the only way we can ever become sensitive to the beckoning, inner prompting of God. Pride against God just makes us deaf to the Spirit's whisper.

This is why Jesus said to the disciples that unless they came as a little child, they would never see or enter the kingdom of heaven. This is because a child has little difficulty with comprehending spiritual things, his intellect has not matured sufficiently to overpower his spirit. A child has a far greater spiritual awareness than an adult, sadly it is soon schooled out of him. 

We each have Adam's decision to make again and again, every day. Are we ruled by our intellect or are we ruled by our spirit. Being ruled by the spirit does not mean that we are unintelligent. It just means that we can identify when both are speaking and which one be given lead. 

For many this is exemplified in acts of conscience, when the normal rule of law or intellect is refused, because we recognise that another voice is speaking within us. Sadly those who hate God know that to gain control of a society, the first things they have to subvert is conscience.

The more I choose to heed that inner voice, that quiet whispering of the spirit, the clearer it becomes. That voice has even saved my life on occasion.

So Jax, I believe you are absolutely right when you say that faith is a "suspension of disbelief". For me,  that is as clear a description as any I have heard. Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

• Edit   1 minute left to edit your comment.  

Jax

Interesting topic. Unfortunately I could not connect to your link. However.-

Your question mixes religious belief systems with faith in God. These are two different things.

Religion is largely about the rule books man creates as a cover for God. Sadly most of those rule books have little to do with the God they suppose to represent.

Men are not just fleshly bodies with an intellect within. We are all also spirit beings, and it is only with our internal spirit man, that we can connect with God. We can not see spiritual things with our natural fleshly senses. 

When God made Adam, he gave him a free choice, but warned him what would happen if he chose to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Death would result. However we must never forget that there was another tree in the Garden, the Tree of Life. 

These two trees represent the choice, of either Adam himself ruling the planet, alone, with the sole aid of his intellectual knowledge, versus Adam choosing to let God reign supreme with Adam as Viceroy. A study of Genesis will show this. For the latter to occur, Adam should have eaten of the Tree of Life, which represents God's living wisdom.

When Adam rebelled, he chose to place his intellectual man as superior, and overruling, his spirit man. This is where we are today as a result of Adam. We find it hard to be led by the Spirit of God because we are so used to being led by our brainpower. Our spirit is continually suppressed. This is why we invent religions, to make God suit our image, and give us a system we can handle and control with our natural senses, and natural mind.

Nevertheless, we all still have a spirit man deep inside of each one of us. It is this man and this man alone which bears witness to the presence of a God, who is Spirit. We only hear the voice or the prompting of God with our spirit man. Heeding that prompting is what faith is about.

Paul, in Hebrews, quoting David's psalms says repeatedly, "today, if you WILL hear his voice, harden not your hearts". Softening our hearts is the only way we can ever become sensitive to the beckoning, inner prompting of God. Pride against God just makes us deaf to the Spirit's whisper.

This is why Jesus said to the disciples that unless they came as a little child, they would never see or enter the kingdom of heaven. This is because a child has little difficulty with comprehending spiritual things, his intellect has not matured sufficiently to overpower his spirit. A child has a far greater spiritual awareness than an adult, sadly it is soon schooled out of him. 

We each have Adam's decision to make again and again, every day. Are we ruled by our intellect or are we ruled by our spirit. Being ruled by the spirit does not mean that we are unintelligent. It just means that we can identify when both are speaking and which one be given lead. 

For many this is exemplified in acts of conscience, when the normal rule of law or intellect is refused, because we recognise that another voice is speaking within us. Sadly those who hate God know that to gain control of a society, the first things they have to subvert is conscience.

The more I choose to heed that inner voice, that quiet whispering of the spirit, the clearer it becomes. That voice has even saved my life on occasion.

So Jax, I believe you are absolutely right when you say that faith is a "suspension of disbelief". For me,  that is as clear a description as any I have heard. Thanks.

[Raquel]

Anyone who says, “mean-minded wee sods” gets an automatic gold star in my book.  But everything before and after is sad, really. 

**

Religious belief certainly isn't hoping and acting.  That's something more akin to practicing the motions of a dance without any music.  Have you ever seen someone play the air guitar?  Something vital is missing and it's very apparent to those who are familiar with it. 

So what is it, then?  It is the reason why we agreed to marry that person and not that person.  It is knowing and then living out that knowing in zeal.  And if that zeal dies down a bit, it's praying that it will return and trusting that God will answer.  It's faithful when doubt hovers unwelcome.  It's separate from both feelings and logic but incredibly intertwined with them both. 

Isn't 'suspension of disbelief' a Tolkien quote?  Maybe he grabbed it from elsewhere but, I believe it's in his essay written about writing fantasy.  He was talking about how a good story propels a reader to continue believing.  This is not that.  This is Reality.  All else is smoke and mirrors.

[Francis Drake]

I don't know what happened to my reply last night. I could read it online after I posted it, and now there is a blank space with just my name there? This is most frustrating as it took me some while to carefully compose it. Do others have this happen?

[Jax Agnesson]

Raquel said:

Anyone who says, “mean-minded wee sods” gets an automatic gold star in my book. 

And mine!

But everything before and after is sad, really. 

**

Religious belief certainly isn't hoping and acting.  That's something more akin to practicing the motions of a dance without any music.  Have you ever seen someone play the air guitar?  Something vital is missing and it's very apparent to those who are familiar with it. 

So what is it, then?  It is the reason why we agreed to marry that person and not that person.  It is knowing and then living out that knowing in zeal.  And if that zeal dies down a bit, it's praying that it will return and trusting that God will answer.  It's faithful when doubt hovers unwelcome.  It's separate from both feelings and logic but incredibly intertwined with them both. 

Thanks for this, Raquel. Your description of faith is quite beautiful, and I think it does answer, (from your  personal perspective, at least) my question about the difference between religious belief and mundane 'beliefs'.

For example; suppose someone asks me the name of the Prime Minister of Turkey. I might answer, very confidently, 'Recep Tayyip Erdoğan'. If the person then asks 'But didn't Turkey have an election last year?' I might then doubt my previous belief.  I will say 'Oh. did they? In that case, I'm not sure'.

And until I get a chance to check it out, 'I'm not sure' will be my position on that question. There will be nowhere in my mind or heart any desire or inclination to hang on to the belief that Mr Erdogan is still in post. If the idea in my mind is wrong, it should be abandoned.

But suppose I feel a passionate political or ethical support for Erdogan's 'Justice and Development' party?

Well, in that case I would continue fervently to hope that he is still in office, but I wouldn't continue to believe that he is. I would just be in a great hurry to check the actual position. And, until I can check my facts, there will be no inclination to tell people something I personally think might not be true. If anyone else asks me that same question, my answer will be 'I'm not sure'.

Religious faith, OTOH, does seem to include  this sense of commitment to the 'truth' of a particular account, even in those times when you don't feel sure whether that account is actually true or not.

Is this the point where 'faith' shows itself to be 'faithfulness'? After such moments of doubt, how does one go about 'checking ones facts', or the equivalent of that?

[Bit Brush]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Heb 11:1. If you analyze the statement, faith is evidence of the existence of the unseen. The unseen is real. It is substance. That thing our hope hangs on. It goes unseen by natural man and is mocked by him. 2 Peter 2:12 states that "...these...speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;"

[joanne guarnieri]

From a previous conversation on Theologica, these are the critical elements of any belief, including religious,

 

1) The content of belief

2) The strength of a belief

3) The centrality of a belief

4) The plausibility structure of the culture in which the belief is held

 

Jax did an admirable job of describing the first two elements.  The third element is what people often run into in religious beliefs.  The fourth element has a great deal to do with whether a belief can even be entertained.

[Jax Agnesson]

Bit Brush said:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Heb 11:1. If you analyze the statement, faith is evidence of the existence of the unseen.

 Bit Brush; You invite me to "analyze the statement' 'faith is evidence of the existence of the unseen'".

Very well, I'll try. Afterwards, I would like to compare your statement to the one from which you have derived it; viz  

'. . .faith is the evidence of things unseen'.

It strikes me immediately that there is a sharp difference betwween the two statements.

Heb 11.1 seems to exhort faith precisely because there can be no evidence in spiritual matters.

You seems to present your reworking as if it meant to be evidence.

But this doesn't really meet its purpose, IMO.

According to you, 'faith is evidence of the existence of the unseen'.

Well, ok, in a completely obvious way, that's true.

The fact that people believe things, whilst their mental processes are invisible, is indeed strong evidence that 'unseen things' (mental processes, in this case) do indeed exist.

'Cogito ergo sum' and all that.

But surely you didn't go to all the trouble of typing out this sentence just to make a really obvious point?

I am assuming your statement has rather more intended meaning than that. 

Perhaps your are referring to belief in microbes, and magnetic fields, and quarks. All of them invisible to the human eye. But it is precisely the distinction between this kind of mundane 'belief', and religious faith, that is being explored here.

I wonder if perhaps your attempt to restate the phrase in Heb 11.1 missed out the vitally important definite article unintentionally.

"Faith is the evidence of things unseen' seems to me to mean something much more specific. To me this statement seems to say that, whereas material things can be examined through material evidence, in the case of 'the unseen' (matters of the heart, or of the spirit) we cannot have material evidence, and we must have 'faith' instead.

Rather than a trite statement of the obvious, this is a bold challenge; where evidence is not applicable, one must have faith. A bold challenge indeed, in terms of a spiritual worldview, but definitely unusable in an 'evidentialist' context. 

[joanne guarnieri]

If a research scientist were to privately come to this realization, "I arrived at a way of living within the scientific community and the professorship, almost as an existential gamble, that if there isn’t anything in this, there is a certain beauty and courage in living as if it were true,” and continued to publish papers with what they believed were false conclusions (as Bishop Holloway did, preaching one homily after another), they would lose all credibility in the scientific community, once they were exposed.

 

They would not be an inspiration, nor a delight, for "scientists, non-scientists and ex-scientists" alike.  Their example would be avoided at all costs.

 

That's the first thought that struck me as I read this article.

 

It seems that for Bishop Holloway, belief in God is not central to his world view, only to his job, and somehow he managed to live with himself representing, teaching and promoting something that he felt was untrue, just.... rather lovely.

 

Doesn't that feel sort of deceitful to you all?

[E. A. Long]

That has to be frustrating. Yes, it has happened once or twice to me, but not recently. I am not an expert at computers, so I cannot tell you why.

Francis Drake said:

I don't know what happened to my reply last night. I could read it online after I posted it, and now there is a blank space with just my name there? This is most frustrating as it took me some while to carefully compose it. Do others have this happen?