Thread: Is faith a gift from God? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028918
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
There is a striking moment in the movie Angels and Demons where Tom Hanks is asked whether he believes in God. .
This is the transcript:
quote:
Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: Christianity's most sacred codices are in that archive. Given your recent entanglement with the church, there is a question I'd like to ask you first, here, in the office of His Holiness.
Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: . Do you believe in God, sir?
Robert Langdon: Father, I simply believe that religion...
Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: I did not ask if you believe what man says about God. I asked if you believe in God.
Robert Langdon: I'm an academic. My mind tells me I will never understand God.
Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: And your heart?
Robert Langdon: Tells me I'm not meant to. Faith is a gift that I have yet to receive.
Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: Be delicate with our treasures.
The noun definition of faith in the Greek is pistis and the commentary appears to agree with Tom Hanks (Langdon) - faith is a gift from God.
What does this mean and how is this gift mediated? Is a direct encounter (God speaks into the soul of someone) or is it as some Protestants believe that God is mediated via preaching?
Anyone know what the Catholic vehicle might be? Partaking of the sacraments? But you'd need baptism first then and what brings you to that point?
Or is it the opinion of others that faith comes from belonging to a community first and Grace is mediated that way?
If the gift of faith is not mediated directly by God but through others (via preaching or sacraments or community), where does that leave the person that lacks faith (trust) that have not received the gift from those other ways?
I don't see why God cannot speak directly to the soul of a person. Perhaps the only barrier is receptivity? But then I guess you have to ask what aids receptivity. That too is supposed to be a grace from God (contra Pelagius?).
Thorny issue. Curious about your thoughts.
[ 06. March 2015, 09:49: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Hard to make a comment without referring to my hatred of Dan Brown.. but with considerable effort..
Faith seemed to be something prized by Jesus in the gospels, and yet at the same time something he rewarded in those who had very small amounts of it.
I don't see much evidence of him rewarding anyone with the 'gift of faith'.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
'Faith' has two meanings. It can mean a belief that someone or something exists, or it can mean that someone or something is reliable.
If I say, "I have faith in you.", I am not saying I think you exist. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't be talking to you. It means that I believe you will do what I expect you to, whatever that is.
Moo
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
'Faith' has two meanings. It can mean a belief that someone or something exists, or it can mean that someone or something is reliable.
If I say, "I have faith in you.", I am not saying I think you exist. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't be talking to you. It means that I believe you will do what I expect you to, whatever that is.
Moo
Aye, but the one meaning is dependent on the other. If I don't believe you exist, then I can't trust that you'll do anything.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
One thing I find interesting here in Latin America, is that faith itself is sometimes presented as a creative, relational, life-giving force. So, rather than faith being a gift of God, I often think that He Himself is present in faith.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What does this mean and how is this gift mediated? Is a direct encounter (God speaks into the soul of someone) or is it as some Protestants believe that God is mediated via preaching?
Anyone know what the Catholic vehicle might be? Partaking of the sacraments? But you'd need baptism first then and what brings you to that point?
Or is it the opinion of others that faith comes from belonging to a community first and Grace is mediated that way?
If the gift of faith is not mediated directly by God but through others (via preaching or sacraments or community), where does that leave the person that lacks faith (trust) that have not received the gift from those other ways?
I don't see why God cannot speak directly to the soul of a person. Perhaps the only barrier is receptivity? But then I guess you have to ask what aids receptivity. That too is supposed to be a grace from God (contra Pelagius?).
Thorny issue. Curious about your thoughts.
All of the above methods, and more, are vehicles for God's gift of faith imv, something which is not a one-off event but an ongoing blessing that we receive as we live with Christ in our lives.
The first steps toward faith are ours. We must seek before we will find, knock before the door will be opened, open our minds and hearts and pray to Christ Jesus, ready to follow his lead and with a desire to know God. The means and timing of revelation is God's. As we open the gift and recognise it for what it is, the deposit of faith is embedded into our hearts, often with an extraordinary sense of peace.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I think the reference to faith as "a gift I have yet to receive" simply shows a misunderstanding of faith. Faith is a choice.
A cinematic illustration: in the third of the Indiana Jones films, Jones takes a "leap of faith" in a very literal sense. It is very much something he chooses to do.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
We must seek before we will find, knock before the door will be opened, open our minds and hearts and pray to Christ Jesus
<sideissue> I love the way this verse is constantly misquoted. The passage is from Revelation and is directed at the church, not unbelievers. Anyway </sideissue>
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I was quoting from the gospels, the words of Jesus as in Matt. 7:7.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
<crosspost, too slow in typing this up...>
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
We must seek before we will find, knock before the door will be opened, open our minds and hearts and pray to Christ Jesus
<sideissue> I love the way this verse is constantly misquoted. The passage is from Revelation and is directed at the church, not unbelievers. Anyway </sideissue>
I think you are mistaken...
quote:
Mt 7:6-10 (RSV-CE)
"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you. "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him![
All this was spoken to the great crowds at the Sermon of the Mount (cf. Mt 4:25-5:1, 8:1). The parallel passage in Lk 11:9-10 is not (clearly) located among great crowds, but is in the gospels (not Revelation) and there is no indication that this saying is limited to the Church there. Rev 3:20-21, which is what I guess you have in mind, rather has Christ come knocking!
[ 06. March 2015, 18:05: Message edited by: IngoB ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
I believe in Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and in conservative Reformed Christianity, at least, faith in God is indeed given through grace.
I am not sure about the Arminian tradition - I suspect it varies - nor about the Eastern Orthodox position.
Basically this is one of those places where the predestiantion / Pelagian controversies come up.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
The general understanding in Orthodoxy is that God is not a thing or precept to be proven, but a person with whom you can have a relationship.
Therefore, when we talk about having faith in God, we mean what you'd mean when you talked about having faith in your spouse, or in your best friend. We'd think it odd if you talked about wanting to have more faith in your spouse, if we learned that, by that, you meant that you wanted to be more thoroughly convinced of your spouse's existence. Faith in your spouse isn't a question of whether your spouse exists or not; it's a question of what kind of relationship you have with your spouse. And it's the same when you're talking about God.
Even the question, "Is faith a gift from God?" seems odd from this point of view. Faith isn't a thing you can have. It's not something that can be possessed or given. It's something that develops between people in the course of a relationship.
That's true of friends, and spouses, and God.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I find myself moving toward the relationship concept of faith. However the first person to initiate that relationship is God.
Even those who would claim a person has to decide to believe in God will have to admit they would not be able to make that decision without hearing/experiencing the Word first.
As Luther said,
I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Since what she said was really keen
I here agree with Josephine.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
CM, please stop posting in Purgatory in doggerel.
/hosting
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Okay. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Basically this is one of those places where the predestiantion / Pelagian controversies come up.
I fear you are correct.
The question is whether the first step is ours or Gods. Can a person ask, seek and knock as Raptor eye says, make a choice as HCH says, or develop a relationship with God (as Josephine says) without God initiating the first step?
Gramps49 thinks not.
I was under the impression Pelagius says the first step can be and should be ours (human freedom) but apparently his idea (at least according to Augustine of Hippo's interpretation of Pelagius) was rejected by the council of Ephesus in 431.
Leaves us in a rather odd place for 2015 methinks. If the initiator is God directly ( or indirectly ), then God is either not initiating the relationship with lots of the western world or we (as the indirect mechanism) have failed in our responsibility or ability to do so.
Where does that leave us in 2015?
Perhaps we shouldn't worry about the secularisation of western society. Perhaps we should just be as faithful as we can in our little necks of the woods. Perhaps we should desperately try harder. But desperation isn't a great place to come from in sharing the peace of God which passes all understanding and it also seems to precludes the idea that God is already acting and can and does initiate alone.
I dunno. Tis weird.
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on
:
The story I heard would seem to indicate that faith is more of an imposition than a gift - in the sense that it cannot be refused or rejected. Further, that it imposed on randomly selected individuals, with no consideration given to their character, what they have done, what they will do....or even whether they would like to know God. Being "totally depraved", they couldn't make that choice anyway - and faith will be arbitrarily delivered to them, should they find themselves to be among the lucky contestants drawn out of the divine hat.
They will "persevere" in their relationship with God (if such it can be called) if only because they are incapable of doing otherwise. They can no more walk away from God, than those who aren't forced to believe can walk towards him.
All of those unluckier contestants will suffer eternal damnation - because they are sinners who do not have saving faith. God could have made the sacrifice of Christ effective for them as well, but that blessing is reserved for that small number of people who (for whatever reason) are "chosen". It's called "limited atonement". This irreversible, double-predestination - where the great majority of the human race will suffer unimaginably forever, is what I believe is known as a loving God exercising his "sovereign pleasure".
Some have unkindly suggested that this belief-system portrays God as a monster, with absolutely no right to claim to be loving. Personally, I disagree. It doesn't portray God at all....it only tells us some people don't think through their doctrine to its logical conclusions.
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
I think almost everyone is born with some religious response. (Not absoutely everyone - some of my best friends, etc)
Just as almost everyone is born with some artistic or musical response.
You develope from there; more-so or less-so, with effort and focus or just drifting along.
That said some people are just born to it (art and music are easier to point to examples of this but I think it goes for religion too)
Personally for my own self/soul- I think religion must be in my brain-wiring and function. I always felt like that even as a little child before I knew anything about brains or biology let alone neuro-theology
[ 07. March 2015, 15:04: Message edited by: Galilit ]
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Is there a diff between "faith" and "saving faith"? Like James (the apostle) says, demons have a faith in God that won't help them at the judgement.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Faith is not a possession that we can choose to exercise or use.
Nobody can choose to become a Christian.
It is all of grace - in Wesleyanism, prevenient grace - which enables a person to exercise faith.
Faith is a gift of grace.
Otherwise it would be a 'work', something I do to contribute to my salvation. We are 'saved by grace through faith, which is not of yourself, it is the gift of God, lest anyone should boast.'
If faith is not a gift but is 'ours' then we could boast that we had more than someone else, or despair that we were not as faith-ful as our neighbour.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Faith is not a possession that we can choose to exercise or use.
Nobody can choose to become a Christian.
It is all of grace - in Wesleyanism, prevenient grace - which enables a person to exercise faith.
Faith is a gift of grace.
Otherwise it would be a 'work', something I do to contribute to my salvation. We are 'saved by grace through faith, which is not of yourself, it is the gift of God, lest anyone should boast.'
If faith is not a gift but is 'ours' then we could boast that we had more than someone else, or despair that we were not as faith-ful as our neighbour.
Nobody can choose to become a Christian, but everyone can choose to follow Christ. Do they then become a Christian?
We might know some who seem to be more faithful than us, and some who have less faith than us, n'est pas? (Isn't that so?)
Yes, faith is a gift from God. Yes, God has given humankind gifts over time so that we have received the good news of Christ, and by our own free will we have responded to this good news. In that way, God's action in reaching out to us does come first. Many don't respond though, and yet they have been given the news too.
In this responsive sense, what we do contributes to our salvation. It is not a 'work' that gives us brownie points, however.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
We bring nothing whatever to our salvation.
"Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to thy cross I cling;
Naked, come to thee for dress,
Helpless, look to thee for grace..."
You cannot just choose to follow Christ, but you can choose to respond to grace.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
We disagree here, Mudfrog. I think that everyone can choose to follow Christ, and also to respond to grace. We bring nothing but our willingness. We give ourselves as we cling to the cross.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
One thing I find interesting here in Latin America, is that faith itself is sometimes presented as a creative, relational, life-giving force. So, rather than faith being a gift of God, I often think that He Himself is present in faith.
Yes - and one that it is possible to aspire to, but to do the real deal is not so easy - either it is present or it is not. My experience is that it's an onion. Some people seem naturally capable of dropping into it immediately and others not. Which is one thing that leads me to believe that we really do reincarnate and each of us is on a very personal journey and each is at a particular stage in our evolution back to being fully "connected to" God. I can honestly say that I intellectually believe that there is a God, but translating that intellectual position .... I have watched other people in this process, and I'm sure that Grace is part of it. We are predestined AND are capable of stepping outside and beyond that (or also falling at the hurdles) AND it is up to us to choose at certain critical junctures AND we can have a lot of help if we ask for it.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Something that always bugs me is the Disneyfication of faith:
You just have to have faith and trust and a little bit of pixie dust and you can fly, you can fly, you can fly...!
When I hear people talk about having faith, or using their faith, it always seems to be a quality, an inner strength, a pick-yourself-up-dust-yourself-off-and-start-all-over-again kind of thing. Just believe in yourself. Have faith and everything will work out for the best. Look deep within you, we all have the strength and faith to go on...
Just believe!
But no one ever says have faith in God!
No one ever says, 'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.'
It's because they don't know that faith is not possible in a heart that is 'dead in trespasses and sins'. Faith can no more be a decision of the unredeemed heart than walking out of his tomb was a decision that Lazarus made.
Faith comes when Christ says, 'Come out!'
It's the same with prayer.
I hate it when people talk about the power of prayer; How 'prayer changes things'.
No. There is the power of God. God changes things. Prayer is merely the God given gift, the God given invitation to 'present our requests to God.'
These things have no power in and of themselves.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
What Mudfrog has just said.
[ 08. March 2015, 06:14: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Faith is a gift of grace.
Otherwise it would be a 'work', something I do to contribute to my salvation. We are 'saved by grace through faith, which is not of yourself, it is the gift of God, lest anyone should boast.'
So, God does the choosing?
We have no part except to respond?
If that is the case, what are God's criteria for who is chosen to be given this gift and who isn't?
[ 08. March 2015, 07:30: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Fascinating discussion; I was very taken with the Luther quote, about my own reason and strength being inadequate, to initiate faith. But as Evensong points out, this has startling consequences in relation to modern skepticism. Presumably, you could say that God is still initiating, but people are deaf and blind. Or that God is moving in other ways, which may be unwelcome news to some Christians.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
So is faith a gift from God, and then when faith disappears, God has taken it away. Deliberately??
My faith used to be strong and vibrant. Now, as I have got very much older, and far more scientifically knowledgeable about the cosmos, universe etc. my faith has disappeared apart from a tiny speck in the far distance.
Did God take it away? I certainly didn't throw it away.
Any answers?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's because they don't know that faith is not possible in a heart that is 'dead in trespasses and sins'.
Funny thing is, Pelagius would seem to agree. Apparently he taught human beings had a choice because of the slack moral standards amongst so many Christians.
quote:
Pelagianism, also called Pelagian Heresy, a 5th-century Christian heresy taught by Pelagius and his followers that stressed the essential goodness of human nature and the freedom of the human will. Pelagius was concerned about the slack moral standards among Christians, and he hoped to improve their conduct by his teachings. Rejecting the arguments of those who claimed that they sinned because of human weakness, he insisted that God made human beings free to choose between good and evil and that sin is a voluntary act committed by a person against God’s law
Brittanica
To say there is nothing WE can do to follow Christ seems to imply slack moral standards is fine with God. Hardly biblical.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, I have given up being a Christian, although not an atheist. Have I engineered that, or am I following God's signposts?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Nicodemia and quetzl . Very tricky. If its all up to God, then it makes sense that it's God's fault we lose faith. There has to be some involvement on our part.
There is a quote I read from God in the Dark by Os Guiness that might perhaps provide one idea of an answer:
quote:
“Sometimes when I listen to people who say they have lost their faith, I am far less surprised than they expect. If their view of God is what they say, then it is only surprising that they did not reject it much earlier.
Other people have a concept of God so fundamentally false that it would be better for them to doubt than to remain devout. The more devout they are, the uglier their faith will become since it is based on a lie. Doubt in such a case is not only highly understandable, it is even a mark of spiritual and intellectual sensitivity to error, for their picture is not of God but an idol. ”
― Os Guinness, God in the Dark
Some people think the rise of Atheism is a good purge for such a reason. I think it's sad. But hey, maybe it's all part of the plan. Things do ebb and flow naturally after all.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Simone Weil - atheism is the necessary purification of religion.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I can't find the quote - it may be that Josephine can (if she is still looking in) - but I think St John Chrysostom made an observation about the dynamic relationship between the human will and the work of the Holy Spirit which I found helpful. Something along these lines (shorn of the Golden Tongue of course).
"When recognising the weakness of our own wills, we nevertheless seek to move away from temptation, then the Spirit of God is alongside immediately, strengthening the weakness of our wills."
Using the relationship metaphor again, parents help children to walk straight, to stand up straight, since when they start they cannot do those things very well, if at all, on their own. There is a mutual trust involved in that, which seems to me to speak to all sorts of faith and salvation issues. "May my will for ever be ever more Your own". It takes some travelling in the terrain of faith to recognise the significance of that "may".
Here's an excerpt from a Catholic prayer along these lines.
quote:
Place my weak heart in Your own Divine Heart, continually under Your protection and guidance, so that I may persevere in doing good and in fleeing evil until my last breath.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
According to the Wiki article, the early church father's believed in free will before Augustine. Fascinating!
quote:
Church Fathers on free will[edit]
All of the Church Fathers before Augustine taught that humans have the power of free will and the choice over good and evil.
Justin Martyr said that "every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice and virtue. For he can do nothing praiseworthy, if he had not the power of turning either way".[18]
Theophilus (c.180) said, “If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power of himself.”[19]
Irenaeus said, “But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff.”[19]
Clement of Alexandria (c.195) said, “We...have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.”[20]
§
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Thatks for the Quotations, Evensong - I seem to have ended up being a Pelagian!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
According to the Wiki article, the early church father's believed in free will before Augustine. Fascinating!
quote:
Church Fathers on free will[edit]
All of the Church Fathers before Augustine taught that humans have the power of free will and the choice over good and evil.
Justin Martyr said that "every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice and virtue. For he can do nothing praiseworthy, if he had not the power of turning either way".[18]
Theophilus (c.180) said, “If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power of himself.”[19]
Irenaeus said, “But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff.”[19]
Clement of Alexandria (c.195) said, “We...have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.”[20]
§
I just find Luther's words above more convincing; but I know that arguments about choice tend to run into the sand. My own sense is that I have little choice in what I believe; of course, I could act 'as if'. But then I tend to see the unconscious as very influential. 'We are ruled by unknown and ungovernable forces,' (somebody or other, Groddeck actually.)
[ 08. March 2015, 15:55: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I think Luther's words are good. It is indeed the Holy Spirit that sanctifies and changes us. I once heard a faith analogy that I liked : "faith is a train that you choose to get on. Then it takes you on.". (or something like that - not a direct quote). This wouldn't work with the predestination argument however.
I think we do have a choice what we believe to an extent. It's what we surround ourselves with. It's what we attend to. It's what we make important. It's how we choose to discipline ourselves. Perhaps exercise is an analogy. We can choose to exercise because of the benefits it gives us.
As for the subconscious - now there's an interesting tangent! I think our subconscious is also filled with what we choose to fill it with to an extent. But one of the questions I have about the subconscious is what relation it has to the soul. Is there an overlap?. I reckon there must be.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think Luther's words are good. It is indeed the Holy Spirit that sanctifies and changes us. I once heard a faith analogy that I liked : "faith is a train that you choose to get on. Then it takes you on.". (or something like that - not a direct quote). This wouldn't work with the predestination argument however.
I had no idea there were trains in 15th century Wittenburg. But I'm happy you discovered that the early Fathers weren't Calvinists. On our side of the Adriatic, of course, we've known that for nigh unto 2000 years.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think Luther's words are good. It is indeed the Holy Spirit that sanctifies and changes us. I once heard a faith analogy that I liked : "faith is a train that you choose to get on. Then it takes you on.". (or something like that - not a direct quote). This wouldn't work with the predestination argument however.
Only if you think the faith that counts is ours.
Jengie
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think Luther's words are good. It is indeed the Holy Spirit that sanctifies and changes us. I once heard a faith analogy that I liked : "faith is a train that you choose to get on. Then it takes you on.". (or something like that - not a direct quote). This wouldn't work with the predestination argument however.
I think we do have a choice what we believe to an extent. It's what we surround ourselves with. It's what we attend to. It's what we make important. It's how we choose to discipline ourselves. Perhaps exercise is an analogy. We can choose to exercise because of the benefits it gives us.
As for the subconscious - now there's an interesting tangent! I think our subconscious is also filled with what we choose to fill it with to an extent. But one of the questions I have about the subconscious is what relation it has to the soul. Is there an overlap?. I reckon there must be.
I had a Zen teacher, who used to say that you could get close to the palace of truth, but you can't get inside by your own efforts. This seems quite close to some Christian ideas. I think in Zen you would actually say that your efforts form an obstacle, which bars the way. One of the jokes was that it's time to stop trying - how hard can that be?
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
Minor comment: I believe that before the invention of the railroad, the term "train" might have been used for a train of wagons, a caravan, a military procession, etc.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Salvation is like going up a ski slope on a rope tow. The rope pulls you up the hill, but you have to hang on.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I like that - we have to exercise faith, build up our faith, work out our salvation. Faith is an active thing and must be continued and obedient. It's not a passive thing but it is beyond us to originate.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Joinining in with the mini Luther love in, I read today (totally by accident) that the jolly doc saw faith in three dimensions. There's notitia which is just recognising a proposition. Then comes assensus accepting the validity of the proposition, which takes us to what really makes a difference fiducia - active trust in whatever or whoever you are having faith in.
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
In classical Christian understanding, "faith" is:
(1) Knowledge (of God) …
(2) Assent (to God) …
(3) Trust (in God) …
"Faith"
isn't "blind";
it isn't about "the gaps";
it isn't "anti-science" or "against logic";
it isn't "contrary to, or lacking in, 'evidence'";
it isn't about what happens to "an atheist in a foxhole";
it isn't "ginned up" by force of will ...
[ 14. March 2015, 20:59: Message edited by: Teilhard ]
Posted by Jude (# 3033) on
:
What I believe is this:
God gives the gift of grace, the ability to believe, to everyone. However, it's up to us to accept that gift. It's a parcel, wrapped up so that we can't see the gift inside. We have to take it on trust.
As for those who don't accept it - are they the ones who "listen and listen but don't hear"?
I believe that God keeps on offering the gift, right up to death, when maybe we are more in a position to accept it.
God's gift of grace and salvation is for everyone - otherwise Jesus's sacrifice was a pyrrhic victory, which really won't do for Almighty God.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Salvation is like going up a ski slope on a rope tow. The rope pulls you up the hill, but you have to hang on.
I thought the punchline there was going to be something like tearing up hundred dollar bills in a cold shower.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
but I know that arguments about choice tend to run into the sand. My own sense is that I have little choice in what I believe; of course, I could act 'as if'. But then I tend to see the unconscious as very influential. 'We are ruled by unknown and ungovernable forces,' (somebody or other, Groddeck actually.)
It is interesting that one can have exactly the same discussion about the illusion of free choice in a deterministic model of human behaviour from a completely materialist perspective. I think the heart of it is deciding what it means to be a conscious being. Is this process of thinking and choosing actually an illusion we have and in fact what we do is predetermined by genes and external environment? I have always wondered who it is that perceives this illusion if all it really is is an illusion.
One can on the other hand say "I think therefore I am", and I think that consciousness and free choice are implied by that statement.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
but I know that arguments about choice tend to run into the sand. My own sense is that I have little choice in what I believe; of course, I could act 'as if'. But then I tend to see the unconscious as very influential. 'We are ruled by unknown and ungovernable forces,' (somebody or other, Groddeck actually.)
It is interesting that one can have exactly the same discussion about the illusion of free choice in a deterministic model of human behaviour from a completely materialist perspective. I think the heart of it is deciding what it means to be a conscious being. Is this process of thinking and choosing actually an illusion we have and in fact what we do is predetermined by genes and external environment? I have always wondered who it is that perceives this illusion if all it really is is an illusion.
One can on the other hand say "I think therefore I am", and I think that consciousness and free choice are implied by that statement.
Having said that, determinism is being pulverized in science, as far as I can see. But even then, non-determinism doesn't get you to free will.
I think often the solutions are pragmatic rather than intellectual. I mean, we have to assume free will, in order to have a justice system, and I suppose, to have personal relationships. I can't really say to my wife that I was forced to be with her! And I can't believe it either.
I don't see it as a decision really, but there we are. Well, here I am, apparently. But I have been interested in some aspects of Eastern religions, where the self is a bit like Banquo's ghost, sort of floating around, but is it really? As they say in Zen, who is speaking?
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Having said that, determinism is being pulverized in science, as far as I can see. But even then, non-determinism doesn't get you to free will.
I think often the solutions are pragmatic rather than intellectual. I mean, we have to assume free will, in order to have a justice system, and I suppose, to have personal relationships. I can't really say to my wife that I was forced to be with her! And I can't believe it either.
How can anyone disprove determinism of the human mind? It took a really clever and precise experiment to do that for sub-atomic particles with a handful of possible outcomes; how would you do the equivalent for a person making a decision?
On the other hand, free will theoretically could be disproven, but that could take a few eons. In the meantime, how is anything different between free will being an illusion vs. being real? You could say that as long as it seems like we have free will, then we actually do have it.
[ 19. March 2015, 02:52: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
To me the idea of an illusion of free will is related to the question of whether we are really conscious. If consciousness is an illusion then who is perceiving the illusion? And how can they perceive an illusion without being conscious?
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
In what sense is ‘faith’ or ‘what I believe’ different from confidence in anything anticipated in the future? Confidence will vary in degree according to evidence from the past. Maybe a different word should be used - only I can’t think of it.
If it is the same thing then it is pretty obvious that God could give faith through answered prayer. Maybe that was what Paul was talking about when he said faith was a gift.
I think the kind of faith that we are discussing is that which has “no shred of evidence to support it” as Fool says.
It seems to be the kind that Jesus prized most e.g. “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” (John 20:29)
What is special about this kind?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Having said that, determinism is being pulverized in science, as far as I can see. But even then, non-determinism doesn't get you to free will.
I think often the solutions are pragmatic rather than intellectual. I mean, we have to assume free will, in order to have a justice system, and I suppose, to have personal relationships. I can't really say to my wife that I was forced to be with her! And I can't believe it either.
How can anyone disprove determinism of the human mind? It took a really clever and precise experiment to do that for sub-atomic particles with a handful of possible outcomes; how would you do the equivalent for a person making a decision?
On the other hand, free will theoretically could be disproven, but that could take a few eons. In the meantime, how is anything different between free will being an illusion vs. being real? You could say that as long as it seems like we have free will, then we actually do have it.
I thought that that had been done - I mean showing that our conscious 'decision' comes after the neurological activity. But yes, there's no point in making long philosophical arguments about it; we have to live as if there is free will.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But yes, there's no point in making long philosophical arguments about it.
Like that's ever stopped us before.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Salvation is like going up a ski slope on a rope tow. The rope pulls you up the hill, but you have to hang on.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I thought the punchline there was going to be something like tearing up hundred dollar bills in a cold shower.
Got it now - just like going up a ski slope on a rope tow. You hang on because someone said it was a good idea and you believed them, only to find yourself plummeting downhill at rapid acceleration, end up cold and wet if you're lucky or injured if you're not, and then struggle to understand why people do this voluntarily and declare it a joyful experience.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that that had been done - I mean showing that our conscious 'decision' comes after the neurological activity.
I'm always amazed at the idea that that experiment shows anything about free will vs. determinism.
Posted by JeremiahTheProphet (# 18366) on
:
To me faith in God is not an abstract concept but a relationship of trust that grows and develops.
The bible seems to describe it in many ways
1] A mustard seed that has to be planted and grows
2] A creative substance that brings something hoped for into reality
3] A way of pleasing God
etc etc
All of which are relational and experiential.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that that had been done - I mean showing that our conscious 'decision' comes after the neurological activity.
I'm always amazed at the idea that that experiment shows anything about free will vs. determinism.
I don't think it's about that. It's saying that you become aware of a decision after the relevant brain activity - in a sense it's not a new idea, since the unconscious has been discussed since the 19th century. I think the issue of determinism is a separate issue; especially as chunks of science are non-deterministic. For example, it's possible that the brain operates non-deterministically.
Thus, I think you can retain the idea of making a choice; on the other hand, the notion of the agent seems imponderable.
[ 19. March 2015, 22:32: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
That makes sense - thanks.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Having said that, determinism is being pulverized in science, as far as I can see.
Hardly. Most of science is not affected at all by the current theory that quantum processes are fundamentally stochastic. And even in quantum theory almost the entire mathematical apparatus is deterministic, it's just deterministic about probability densities. The Schrödinger equation, for example, is obviously deterministic. It's what you do with the evolved wave functions that brings in the stochastic element.
The difference is a bit like playing backgammon instead of chess. And just like the better backgammon player beats the weaker f they just play enough games, so the quantum randomness gets buried by the statistics over large number of particles in nature. If physics has been dominated by quantum phenomena, then because physicists have gone looking for them, not because somehow our entire world has become random.
Finally, "stochastic" is no more free than "deterministic". To seek free will in quantum physics is a priori to deny free will.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quetzalcoatl did have "But even then, non-determinism doesn't get you to free will." as the very next sentence.
In my own area of biological science determinism vs stochastic refers to strategies for mathematical models and wouldn't ring any bells about anything, leave alone pulverization. I think it probably just represents how the rules that we use to predict outcomes change as we jump scales and contexts in the universe.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Evensong, the Church of England baptismal liturgy at the Presentation of the Candidates says:
quote:
Faith is the gift of God to his people.
In baptism the Lord is adding to our number
those whom he is calling.
People of God, will you welcome these children/candidates
and uphold them in their new life in Christ?
There's more than one way of reading that sentence in terms of how and when the gift of faith is conferred by God and whether what is conferred is corporate or individual, but - according to our liturgy - the fact that faith is the gift of God is unequivocal.
[ 20. March 2015, 11:16: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Having said that, determinism is being pulverized in science, as far as I can see.
Hardly. Most of science is not affected at all by the current theory that quantum processes are fundamentally stochastic. And even in quantum theory almost the entire mathematical apparatus is deterministic, it's just deterministic about probability densities. The Schrödinger equation, for example, is obviously deterministic. It's what you do with the evolved wave functions that brings in the stochastic element.
The difference is a bit like playing backgammon instead of chess. And just like the better backgammon player beats the weaker f they just play enough games, so the quantum randomness gets buried by the statistics over large number of particles in nature. If physics has been dominated by quantum phenomena, then because physicists have gone looking for them, not because somehow our entire world has become random.
Finally, "stochastic" is no more free than "deterministic". To seek free will in quantum physics is a priori to deny free will.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
- brilliantly explained
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Nice book worth reading - Life on the Edge (Quantum Biology) by Jim Al Khalili.
I wouldn't use "stochastic" to describe the quantum wave function, because that still implies there are lots of individual particles with a certain distribution. The point about the wave function is that the effect may be in many places, and it can ALSO be in all of them. There is no large scale analogue that we can look at and use to comprehend this quantum world. And it is hardly true that we only find quantum effects because "we go looking for them" - the Jim Al Khalili book is particularly interesting because it shows that without quantum mechanics, biology is impossible. We have to acknowledge quantum tunnelling (the equivalent of a bicycle passing through a wall so that it can be on a road the other side of the wall) MUST take place - otherwise we would not exist. This only occurs because the quantum wave function is not a particle until it is "measured" - so as a "wave" (maybe best thought of as a radio transmission) it is not affected by obstacles.
I'm sure it is possible that free will and quantum states have nothing at all to do with each other, but at the moment the search for a biological seat of consciousness inevitably ends up looking at quantum states, and then the way that free will works (or not) seems remarkably similar to the quantum fields that are being looked at.
From this pov, Faith and Belief end up being fields of coherence which allow "things to happen" - if the field of coherence is strong enough, then there are very few limits to what may or may not happen. Whether this is just a convenient analogy or whether QM is at least part of the "mechanism" of faith - I don't think it really matters.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Sounds more like magic to me.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
well, yes ,it does. With a sufficiently coherent field, you could exist in several places at once.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
well, yes ,it does. With a sufficiently coherent field, you could exist in several places at once.
Do explain how this would work...
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Well, given sufficient coherence, the wave would not collapse - not just the wave for a few particles, but for the whole body. There would not be just proton tunnelling for e.g. enzymes - the whole organism would participate in tunnelling.
I think that would require the whole person to exist as a bose-einstein condensate (rather than having lots of little islands of self-coherence constantly coming and going and remaining largely incoherent relative to each other).
This is probably irrelevant to the OP, but you did ask.
[ 23. March 2015, 20:50: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
According to the Wiki article, the early church father's believed in free will before Augustine. Fascinating!
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But I'm happy you discovered that the early Fathers weren't Calvinists. On our side of the Adriatic, of course, we've known that for nigh unto 2000 years.
This serves to illustrate how far Augustine and Calvin have taken Western Christianity along the wrong road from its origins. While salvation is by pure grace in that it can never be deserved, we must at least co-operate with the process. If that's Pelagian or at least semi-Pelagian, I'm happy to own up to it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I think that would require the whole person to exist as a bose-einstein condensate
All I know about Bose-Einstein condensates is that they are near absolute zero states that wouldn't be very good for a person to exist in one place let alone several places.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
They don't have to be near-zero. Ths point is that there is a laser-like coherence of particles. Such a state in microtubules was proposed by Zohar in the 1980's as a possible seat of consciousness and it's still by far the best contender.
One surprising recent discovery is that living organisms contain pockets of coherence capable of sustaining quantum effects - e.g. DNA could not faithfully replicate unless that replication was ordered by quantum coherence - if it were purely chamical there would be many orders of magnitude more errors, due to thermodynamic effects.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
It sounds like words out of place pasted together to me. There are microtubules in every human cell. Does consciousness reside in every cell?
[ 25. March 2015, 15:30: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I prefer my salads made from vegetables rather than words.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It sounds like words out of place pasted together to me. There are microtubules in every human cell. Does consciousness reside in every cell?
That is the inference. Yes. Interesting research by Buehler well worth looking at - he presents all the data on this website for inspection.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
The simple inference obtained from the fact that a tap on the head can render one unconscious but a tap on the elbow can't ought to cure that misconception.
The link is pseudo-scientific nonsense without a methodical presentation of experimental data or peer review.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
you have looked at the Bibliography, I presume?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I've looked at a few references. None of the ones I looked at that had reviewed experimental data offered support for the seat of consciousness in microtubules idea.
Why are you so keen to reference these guys on the edges of science rather than the mainstream work in every area from autism, physics, consciousness or vaccines?
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
well, the topic here is "Is faith a gift from God?"
But actually, it should have been "Is faith in God a gift from God?" because faith in God has been partly supplanted by a faith in science - or more specifically, a faith in the current mainstream scientific consensus. I have to laugh - that's rather like having faith in a committee. And there is a lot of good quality science out there that questions and undermines the current consensus. Faith in human ingenuity is a dangerous thing.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Less dangerous than faith in any random idea on the internet that looks interesting.
There is plenty of good science that challenges the current consensus but one has to have a method for identifying it.
Posted by Fool (# 18359) on
:
Isn't the question a somewhat self patting back? As there are no gods then faith (or anything else) cannot be a gift from them.
Faith (in the religious context) is the continued belief in things you were indoctrinated with as a child particularly in the face of evidence that they are untrue.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
Isn't the question a somewhat self patting back? As there are no gods then faith (or anything else) cannot be a gift from them.
Faith (in the religious context) is the continued belief in things you were indoctrinated with as a child particularly in the face of evidence that they are untrue.
Bollox. Too many unexamined assumptions there. I grew up in an atheist family, and got interested in religion.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
Isn't the question a somewhat self patting back? As there are no gods then faith (or anything else) cannot be a gift from them.
Faith (in the religious context) is the continued belief in things you were indoctrinated with as a child particularly in the face of evidence that they are untrue.
a) you seem to be determined to inflate One God with many Gods - a position that I'm not sure many people on here will gel with
b) you have made a statement of faith ("there are no Gods") - which rather contradicts your position
c) I agree with the "Bollox" because I also was raised as an atheist, and realised quite soon that the description of the world was incomplete and inadequate.
d) evidence - please what is your evidence other than your faith that your opinion is correct?
Posted by Fool (# 18359) on
:
We may be in flogging a dead horse territory here but I'm sure you're pretty well aware that we can't prove a negative and that the absence of faith is not a faith.
You cannot prove the the flying spaghetti monster is not real, you cannot prove that the Book of Mormon is nonsense or that the q'oran is wrong or any of the other world religions or that David Koresh was not a legitimate prophet yet I'm willing to bet that you be happy to say that they are wrong. Yet they all have as much proof and legitimacy as your belief.
Its not really up to non believers to prove anything. Its believers who are asserting something but whenever they are asked to say why they believe they can't or won't give a straight answer.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
The absence of faith is indeed not a faith. The belief that no faith is possible, or that there can be no reasonable belief in God is a faith, since it is founded on a (logically unproveable) negative statement.
As for me, my answer is in two parts: first there is credible historical evidence which makes it possible to believe, reasonably, that Jesus died on the cross and was raised to life again (this also, btw, adds to the widely acknowledged authority of his teachings and gives credibility to his 'wilder' claims); secondly, the account of the nature of being human in the world which flows from Christian faith seems to me to make sense.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evensong, the Church of England baptismal liturgy at the Presentation of the Candidates says:
quote:
Faith is the gift of God to his people.
In baptism the Lord is adding to our number
those whom he is calling.
People of God, will you welcome these children/candidates
and uphold them in their new life in Christ?
There's more than one way of reading that sentence in terms of how and when the gift of faith is conferred by God and whether what is conferred is corporate or individual, but - according to our liturgy - the fact that faith is the gift of God is unequivocal.
Missed this. Been off the ship for a bit.
Could you elaborate on some of the ways of reading it daronmedway?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0