Is faith the same thing as not thinking?

Sometimes. Using faith to reach conclusions means there is a gap in thinking. Using faith to reach goals is just having a can-do spirit. Faith is just optimism. Sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes it's a short-sighted thing. People shouldn't use faith in place of "I don't know."

I don't think it's exactly the same thing. I think it's more like.. denial. It works for some people, but the only reason it works for them is because they make it work.

Yep

In certain cases, yes.

Would that not be blind faith?

No, faith requires people to compartmentalize their thinking. Those with faith simply do not apply all aspects of thinking, such as logic, towards their faith. It's not the same as "not thinking".

Faith is the same thing as thinking

Perhaps not exactly the same but faith is too frequently used as an excuse for not thinking.

No..not even remotely the same.

Not at all. Faith is not needing proof for the things you think about.

No. Faith is more like acknowledging that physical evidence either fails to support or contradicts something, but believing it anyway. Many people who base their belief systems on faith rather than evidence have struggled with that. Most of the great theologians have written about it extensively. I don't know of any knowledgeable religious people who have not thought about what the real essence of faith is, that it is something that has to be chosen and that it requires a leap to be made from the available evidence to the belief in question - those are the ones that I can truly respect. Of course, there are other religious people who will talk a lot about faith, but I don't think that they really understand what it means, because they will also argue until the cows come home that there is enough evidence supporting their beliefs that faith doesn't have to be a leap at all.

NB: I've used religion as an example here, but the same applies to all beliefs based on faith, religious or not.

No. Faith doesn't always have to be blind trust. It can be built of experience and precognition. Is this Wicksy?

Ack! I knew it! Wicksy, you are looking for God so heartrendingly. I hope with all My heart that you find him.

Yes, pretty much by definition.

Not necessarily a bad thing though. For instance, you don't think too much about that bridge you're driving on everyday. You just have faith that it won't collapse. You assume that you will wake up tomorrow and that your car will start, or that your electricity will work when you flip the switch. Not much thinking to take into account all the variables. Its not even possible for the human brain to digest all that information. Its what economists call rational ignorance.

It's similar; but I wouldn't go so far as to say congruent.

Yes, if claiming to be part of "Team Atheist", waving your Dawkins flag and letting him do your thinking for you is the same as "not thinking"

Not remotely. It's realizing when something lies beyond your ability to know by thinking. Or, it can be a favored choice to believe when confronted with doubt.

Thinking has nothing to do with it, but rather the absence of knowing.

On a more sublime level, it can mean knowing on one level (intuitively) but not on another (rationally or evidenced).

I think for it to be actual faith it has to be genuinely believed in though, and not just hopeful thinking.

I think a distinction exists between faith, and taking for granted. That the bridge will be there, same as any other day, is just taking for granted. That the bridge is a good solid bridge and will survive the storm, without any knowledge of bridge engineering, that is faith.

Faith is the 'feeling' that something is true, independent of any knowledge. Taking for granted is more just a habit of a rational base-line, or a reasonable calculation of odds.

If one uses the phrase 'Odds are that..' it's not faith.
If one uses the phrase 'Something tells me that..' it is faith.

Faith is when one's reason for belief comes from beyond the domain of their knowledge or intellect. The bridge being there as always may be beyond one's knowledge, but it is not beyond their intellect. Faith is still not 'not thinking' though for two reasons: One may have thought anyhow in parallel with their faith; 'not thinking' alone does not result in any particular belief.

Neither though is faith a whimsy of passion. (Here, some major theologians are in disagreement). A belief resultant from desire or longing is not a substantiated belief. Something can not 'become' true simply because one wants it to be true.

Neither can a faith be true simply due to ones own ego sense of what the proper order of reality must be. To believe in something because nothing else would make sense is still not genuine faith. Even to believe in something because it would make the most sense is still not faith. The subject matter may be unseen order of nature, but such faith is still a calculation of odds about that unseen order, leaving room for doubt.

Genuine faith is 'knowing' without a worldly cause for knowing.

If one takes a mortal leap of faith of a sort which counts on them believing, hope or odds are not enough, one believes because for some unknowable reason they actually know.

No

No, there is a thought process attached to faith. It may not be an obvious thought that manipulates brain patterns or consumes every brain cell, but on a deeper level there is a thought there.

Yes.

Interesting, certainly logical. Does this also mean you think there's no such actual thing as intuition?

Intuition is very real. Faith in an intuitive thought means you are thinking about the thought. An intuitive thought without thinking about it is followed by action.

No it's not the same thing. What an absurd idea.

I've no idea what that last sentence means.

The first one though catches me by surprise.

It's difficult to sort this out with vocabulary. Let's say you have faith that the hero will save the day, even though a pure physical analysis should suggest otherwise.

It seem so to me that by your way of thinking, faith is some rational thought process which tells you to believe your intuitive vision that the hero will prevail; where in my mind this would work by intuition itself entirely being the thought (or faith) that things will be so (whereupon one's rational thought might argue with their faith).

If that's true of your model, wouldn't all rational thought processes and faith just be synonymous, other than perhaps intuition being the subject matter one trusts?

Faith is a 'belief system, one which requires thoughts and emotions, and a foundation to base it on.
Using your example (let's see if we can get the words to work on the screen here...)

> Let's say you have faith that the hero will save the day, even though a pure physical analysis should suggest otherwise
Hero's are hero's. They have already been established as having a pattern of above and beyond super human strength. Otherwise, if it was really just Clark Kent no one would have faith that he could lift the train of orphans off the broken track. Superman, however, has already created a belief system in which we are pretty darn sure, we have faith he will save the day again. Just let him step out for a beer and a cigarette just once, and not see the baby carraige roll in front of the semi and see how many will continue to have faith he is our hero.

If you mean a hero like a clerk at a bakery jumping in front of a bus to save someone, who could possibly have had any faith that the clerk would become a hero?
Someone with intuition of course. Going back to what you said...
>where in my mind this would work by intuition itself entirely being the thought (or faith) that things will be so (whereupon one's rational thought might argue with their faith).

I don't really see someone arguing with their belief system that they had worked hard to create/imitate. This would be an opportunity to implode. Checking oneself often to see if their belief system is needing a tune-up, or maybe even an overhaul is a better way rather than arguing with oneself is most likely what most do.

A belief system has a foundation on which walls are built.
> It seem so to me that by your way of thinking, faith is some rational thought process which tells you to believe your intuitive vision that the hero will prevail;
When you say what you thought I said, it does seem difficult. I'll try it this way . Faith is (yes) a rational thought process (belief system). Here is what I was saying. Intuition and faith are two complete seperate entities. If I have faith in something, than I won't need intuititive thought or an intuition. I have to think about it. Is it really Superman, or is it just a clown in a red and blue suit? It is! Than the hero will prevail...wait! It's just a clown!?!? That scenario shakes the foundation, oh crap, we are so screwed...but wait!! the clown did it YAYY!! Now if I had had an intuitive thought about Superman, or maybe the clown, or just the fact the orhans would be saved doesn't really matter. I would only use that information to know how many cookies to bring to the rescue party.

If I relyed on my intuition... say maybe turning left instead of right on my way to the store. Rational thought tells me going right is going to take me longer, or be more costly. Intuition is me just going with it and not arguing.
"Faith" that it would be perfect is my belief system.

So, yes, I guess that is how I roll. In the past, during a former belief system, intuitive thought was argued with and battled sometimes, which than caused me to fine tune, over haul and get a better built belief system, consistantly changing with the universe, one tuned to my motor. I can toss in the key and roll. My foundation is there.
> If that's true of your model, wouldn't all rational thought processes and faith just be synonymous,
Two seperate things. A rational thought process is figuring something out. Faith is checking in and seing what action to take. To take a Christian as an example, they ask What Would Jesus Do? I don't ask what Jesus would do, I know what Jesus would do, I don't base my life on what he would do, I base it on what I would do and what I have learned. I ask what is best for the universe at this time in this moment. Faith is a system, relying on facts, proof and how much and far into it you beleive to be true.
I said > An intuitive thought without thinking about it is followed by action.
My example of turning right instead of left explains that. If I had faith that I did the correct thing and if I have faith that it will be for the better and if I have faith that the extra money and the extra time was all worth it and if I had faith that the sun will shine even if it is cloudy...that just seems like a bunch more work.
An intuitive thought is just rolling with it. I suppose you could have faith you were right, I can't imagine not having faith you did the right thing, but using it as the workhorse seems like more work.
I guess faith to me is not the best choice of words. Faith to me seems like balsa wood and a word like 'confidence' would be oak.
> other than perhaps intuition being the subject matter one trusts?
Well of course silly.

'A faith' is a system. 'Faith' is something someone could have on a whim about anything. ..by 'hero' I meant anyone coming to save the day, not necessarily someone with an established reputation. One could have faith in Clark Kent just because their was something in his eyes that told you he'd come through somehow.

"who could possibly have had any faith that the clerk would become a hero?" - Someone who had some faith (which I still consider to be something different and greater than intuition). Intuition is more specific and situational. Faith would be more along the lines that 'someone' will become the hero, not necessarily Clark.

"I don't really see someone arguing with their belief system that they had worked hard to create/imitate. This would be an opportunity to implode. Checking oneself often to see if their belief system is needing a tune-up, or maybe even an overhaul is a better way rather than arguing with oneself is most likely what most do. "
- We are obviously talking about different definitions of faith. Substituting 'intuition', one could have a feeling (like déja-vu) that they will catch a ride to the party soon, even though there hasn't been a car on the road all night. Intuition says ride, logic says no ride, thus arguing with them self. Faith would be more along the lines that they will make it to the party 'somehow', without a clue how it might even be possible.
- There is yet another difference though between intuition and faith, which makes your point about not arguing become valid, and that is that 'intuition' is more along the lines of psychic foreknowledge of what will happen anyhow. 'Faith' on the other hand requires belief. If you argue with yourself, have doubts, the faith fails.

I still can't tell if we have similar beliefs. Too different a use of terminology. I get a lot of totally improbable stuff done on faith alone. I suppose it's something between intuition and sorcery, but it requires faith, although I too would more often use the term 'confidence'. 'Confidence' that the door of a closed office building will be unlocked so my date and I can watch fireworks from the roof. 'Confidence' that I can get whatever dice roll I want. I add 'intuition' into the mix, because it feels more like the power of intuition which tells me whether or not I'm in that state where my natural thoughts and desires are actually in tune with the universe or not. ..or to rephrase, intuition reports back in advance that my will will not be done, or maybe even that something else will be done.

It sounds to me like you have the same skeptical distaste for 'Systems of faith' which I attributed to religious beliefs not based on past directly-perceived evidence. It has occurred to me though since this survey arrived (specifically regarding belief in God) that it may not merely indicate blind trust in authorities or logic about cosmology, but may for some come down to intuition, but not intuition of any objective matter, nor of a concept, but merely an intuitive sense of a felt presence.

I used to think my cosmological beliefs were based mostly on scientific observation of the supernatural, not faith, and that still remains true, but having the experiences themselves in the first place did in fact require something which could be called faith. I still think the majority of people who claim to have faith merely have a blind belief though. I'm sure they're the ones who quickly get offensive if you question their beliefs at all.

I dunno, is an atheist the same thing as an douchebag?
Seriously, though, faith, abused as that word is, is all about sticking to your convictions regardless of your circumstance. That's a noble thing. I know people use it a lot in reference to articles of belief, like "I have faith that Noah put every animal on the ark." That's just ignorance, which I know is what the questioner is referring to. Maybe the best answer is "sometimes."

Right, after I wrote that, I was thinking there could be so many ways to interpret faith. I wuold guess that faith is a personal matter, almost like a personal reality. 5 people watch an accident and when you ask them wht happened, you get 7 different stories. Perception and faith, or how one percieves the faith they have can truly only belong to oneself. I thought about faith from every angle I could, for a few days, and I saw several different definitions and explanations. I had trouble myself explaing my belief and what faith is to me by looking at it from too many angles rather than my own.
It's personal.
How's that?

Likely even perception of senses is personal. Someone else's sensation of the rainbow, blue to red, might be what I'd call hard to squishy.

But yeah, it's mostly a matter of definition. I read a fat encyclopedia of the paranormal and have experienced nearly half of it at least in some glimpse, but between that and finding more than one spiritual plane, some of which corresponded to existing descriptions, some which didn't, I'm of the belief that there's way more going on than anyone knows about, and I can't use even a vast range of personal experience to necessarily estimate what someone else experiences or it's validity.

Indeed. "Been there, done that, got the 7-D t-shirt"

Huh. Where did you go to get the t-shirt? I missed that one. {I shouldn't have turned down that 'ancestors of the cannibals' tour.}

A friend of mine is a trip. When you listen to the words coming out, you have to step down, move over a few notches and than come up till you get what she is saying. She talks pulling words from about every etherical level imaginable. When I don't understand what she is saying, I just figure I haven't been to that place yet.

Oh, by the way, that comment was hilarious

..or you simply aren't in synch at the moment. Someone describing the soda bottling process could be a lecture on transmigration, depending on where you're at.

I still have at least one friend like that, an English PhD. I've met others who will simply take you way far away before you snap out of it and come back down. I hear tale I'm like that myself. Most every friend comments that I put them in a trance during visits.

I think the qualities of that trance are generally escape from time, and heightened perception and creativity, with a bit of being able to see into distant realms i.e. prehistory.

If you enjoy that sort of humor, or Vonnegut, P.K.Dick, or Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, you'd probably enjoy my daughter's online novel 'My Dear Supervillain' http://www.kiwichanstudios.com/mds/index.html.
It's my favorite fiction, angsty drama in a bubbly comic like reality.

What fun, quite impressive. youth has so much...youth to give.

No of course not, they are totally different.

What is faith for? What good does it do?