quote: There are two kinds of faith. One of them functions ordinarily in the life of every soul. It is the kind of faith born by experience; it gives us certainty that a new day will dawn, that spring will come, that growth will take place. It is the kind of faith that relates us with confidence to that which is scheduled to happen.
There is another kind of faith, rare indeed. This is the kind of faith that causes things to happen. It is the kind of faith that is worthy and prepared and unyielding, and it calls forth things that otherwise would not be. It is the kind of faith that moves people. It is the kind of faith that sometimes moves things. Few possess it. It comes by gradual growth. It is a marvelous, even a transcendent, power, a power as real and as invisible as electricity. Directed and channeled, it has great effect.
posted
Hm. I can think of at least two more types of faith. Maybe we should open it up to the group. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both of those faiths are the same - the former is simply faith in something that likely will happen and the latter is faith in something less likely. When we have faith in something likely and that thing occurs, we attribute it happening to the fact that it was likely to happen. But when we have faith in something unlikely and that thing occurs, we attribute it to the faith. This does not mean there is one faith that causes things and a different faith that does not cause change. It just mean we treat faith differently depending on how great a faith is necessary to believe something.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Differentiating between different types of faith is only important if one's definition of faith includes causality. If faith is nothing more than a mental construct and has no capability to affect the outside world, then defining different types of faith is rather pointless. But if faith does have causal capability, than the differentiation in the first post becomes more meaningful.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Further, stop trying to redefine the definition so that your arguments work.
It's Tatiana's quote that's trying to redefine faith, or at least trying to split it in two. What reason do we have to believe that faith is in two distinct categories, rather than a single continuum ranging from slight and unimpressive faith to great, inspirational, and occasionally foolish faith?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Winder: Differentiating between different types of faith is only important if one's definition of faith includes causality. If faith is nothing more than a mental construct and has no capability to affect the outside world, then defining different types of faith is rather pointless. But if faith does have causal capability, than the differentiation in the first post becomes more meaningful.
I'm not sure from your wording if you mean to imply that mental constructs necessarily have no capability to affect the outside world. If so, I have to disagree. Love is a mental construct. So is hope. So is joy. So is trust. All these actively shape the world.
Alternatively, fear, hate, bigotry, and greed are all mental constructs as well, and also dramatically shape the outside world.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Further, stop trying to redefine the definition so that your arguments work.
It's Tatiana's quote that's trying to redefine faith, or at least trying to split it in two. What reason do we have to believe that faith is in two distinct categories, rather than a single continuum ranging from slight and unimpressive faith to great, inspirational, and occasionally foolish faith?
I think the distinction being drawn is that the first "faith" is passive. "These things are going to happen." The second "faith" is active. "I can make these things happen." I think there is value in that distinction.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I was definitely not implying that mental constructs have no capability of shaping the outside world.
I was attempting to make a distinction between humanist, who would not believe that faith - in itself - can change anything, and the spiritualist, who does, no matter what the object of the faith might be.
I leave it up to you to determine the validity and relevance of that distinction.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought of the second faith as the kind of faith that Jack showed in the first few episodes of Lost (and that's all I've seen, so don't spoil me!). The kind where you believe so strongly that someone can do something that they begin to believe it as well, and thus are more able to do it. It's rare because it can be destroyed by the tiniest bit of doubt.
Is that not how everyone else saw it?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've only seen the most recent episodes of Lost (well worth watching btw) but I definitely know what you're talking about...
Posts: 25 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Winder: I was attempting to make a distinction between humanist, who would not believe that faith - in itself - can change anything, and the spiritualist, who does, no matter what the object of the faith might be.
I don't think that distinction is very valid. I consider myself a humanist (if I have to choose between that and a "spiritualist"), but I believe faith can be an agent of change in the world.
I have a problem with the "in itself" part, as well as the "no matter what the object" part. I know "spiritualists" who don't think "faith" alone is sufficient to change the world ("Faith, without works, is dead"), and I know spiritualists who think that faith in something unworthy of faith is dead as well. I mean it's not too much of a leap to imagine someone who believes that faith alone in Jesus Christ will bring about their salvation, but who also believes that faith alone won't end world hunger, or who believes that faith should only be in Jesus and all other faith is misplaced.
In other words, I reject your dichotomy. I think faith is much more complex than that.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you are very right to reject my dichotomy...the issue is definitely more complex.
However the dichotomy in the original post is somewhat valid I think...because those are really two different concepts to which we ascribe the word 'faith'.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the distinction between the two kinds of faith mentioned in the original quote, but I'm not sure they are the only kinds, thus I don't think there is a "dichotomy" there. I'm also not sure that "There are two kinds of faith" in that quote is meant to imply a dichotomy so much as to serve as a rhetorical device. Now had it said "there are only two kinds of faith" I'd agree that it is describing a dichotomy, but I'd disagree that such a dichotomy exists.
I think there is at least a third kind of faith that is somewhere in between those two. It is, in part, the "ordinary" faith described in the original quote, but it also encompasses the idea of making things happen. It is the faith of the teacher (for example). He has the "ordinary" faith that tomorrow will come or else he wouldn't bother teaching at all, but it also is faith that his actions are changing the world. You might argue that this is just showing a little bit of the two kinds of faith that exist. I could accept that, but in that case I'd have to say that the second kind of faith isn't all that rare, after all.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, good point...the original post really isn't meant to be a dichotomy...bad choice of words on my part.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the distinction being drawn is that the first "faith" is passive. "These things are going to happen." The second "faith" is active. "I can make these things happen." I think there is value in that distinction.
Yes, I can see the value in that distinction.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw this yesterday and somehow it filled me with light and understanding. It reminded me of that Vaclav Havel thing about hope, so I thought I'd post it as a companion-thread to my thread about hope.
The second kind of faith to me is what transforms the world. No enterprise of merit in all of human history has ever come about without strong faith on someone's part.
There are times in the life-cycle of nearly every project I've ever worked on when it is hard to see ahead to any sort of successful conclusion. When your ability to see through the fog ahead leaves you, what's left is faith that it's worthwhile to work toward something that matters, whether it is successful in the end or not. Like Sam's thrill of determination he felt at the feet of Orodruin, that feeling that one will keep on going, the faith that one's efforts have meaning regardless of the outcome, is the force that moves mountains and changes the face of the universe.
For many of us. this is bound up with our religious faith, (and the quote is from a religious source), yet it applies to secular life as well, and to everything anyone ever undertakes to do.
I just wanted to post the quote to see what y'all thought about it and to see if other people agree that faith is a profound creative and transformative force of nature.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
