NationStates Jolt Archive

I was looking through an old thread and found a post I missed replying to, so I will address it as the start of a new discussion, thrown out for anyone to respond to.

Out of interest, what would you say is the difference between belief and faith?
Degree. A belief can be reversed, but if one has faith, that is unshakable. One can only lose it in its entirety, but not reverse it.
Sounds good to me. Mind you, I had to read it several times first.
One thing I don't get is the difference between reversing a faith and losing it entirely. what did you mean by that?

I have not lost my faith (yet anyway) although I have lost several beliefs along the way. I'm not sure where 'reversing a faith' fits in.
There was a thread on the subject of "What is faith?" earlier in the year that offered up many good ideas, and my reply here was influenced by them: that faith is belief in a "stronger" form; that faith is unshakable, because it is absolute, you either have it or you do not. "Reversing faith" refers to the subject of one's faith. But these definitions are no longer adequate.

Isn't it funny that we can have concepts, like "faith," and be so unsure of what they mean that we have to question others about them? When I was young, I wasn't sure at all what faith meant. I knew it was "faith in God" that everyone talked about. I was quite sure that I didn't have it, but how do you know for sure if you're not even sure what it is? How do I know if I have faith? What does it feel like?

The two different terms, faith and belief, have been in our language as it evolved since before our written history. The dictionary is little help, since it equates words in order to define them. That leaves us with a technique I learned recently (that was helpful to distinguish between "fate" and "destiny") that involves examining how the words are used, and in what context, in order to distinguish them. Their context suggests that they are not the same thing, although they are made synonymous.

One significant difference between the context of faith and belief is this: faith is knowing with your heart. This ties it to the emotions, because the "heart" is a symbol we use to mean the part of our mind that deals with the feelings input from the senses evokes. And it ties it to the mind, the repositor of knowledge. Belief makes no such claims on the heart. This suggests that faith was once considered a type of knowledge, on a par with how we use the term today, as information that is either deduced logically or inputted empirically. This also means that feelings were once considered valid information, and that that attitude has changed over the millennia. This is the case, that a gap between feelings and thought, artificially introduced to our psyche, defines the our outlook today.

This 'old word' attitude, that feeling is valid information, informed the people of its day. Can we even imagine what life for them was like? Well, yes, a bit, because the attitude still persists in our psyche. It has not gone anywhere, it is simply repressed, as often and as forcefully as it can be. We call them superstitious, those who bring it out to display to others, simpletons who cannot distinguish between feeling and thought. But the fact that it is still around today indicates something: necessity, perhaps. And really, why do we malign the feelings so? Why do we put down the subjective interpretation and glorify the objective one? But that's a topic for another thread, perhaps.

Now that I am older, I know I have faith in some things. I have faith in myself and in the people I love. I have faith in a god, and in existence. I believe in some concepts that I cannot justify, I just know they are right. The operative word is "knowing." Belief does not claim this "knowing" through the heart, but faith does. When you get a feeling that something is true, if you then accept that as a type of knowledge of truth, that is faith. I *know" the people I love are good people. I *know* the sun will rise again tomorrow. I *know* there is a god. That is faith.

The two different terms, faith and belief, have been in our language as it evolved since before our written history. The dictionary is little help, since it equates words in order to define them. That leaves us with a technique I learned recently (that was helpful to distinguish between "fate" and "destiny") that involves examining how the words are used, and in what context, in order to distinguish them. Their context suggests that they are not the same thing, although they are made synonymous.

Yes, this is definitely a problem with communication. Many people use words to mean different things. Then when they speak with someone else, they assume they are all using the same word to mean the same thing, which ultimately leads to confusion.

One significant difference between the context of faith and belief is this: faith is knowing with your heart. This ties it to the emotions, because the "heart" is a symbol we use to mean the part of our mind that deals with the feelings input from the senses evokes.

Which is the amygdala.

And it ties it to the mind, the repositor of knowledge. Belief makes no such claims on the heart. This suggests that faith was once considered a type of knowledge, on a par with how we use the term today, as information that is either deduced logically or inputted empirically. This also means that feelings were once considered valid information, and that that attitude has changed over the millennia. This is the case, that a gap between feelings and thought, artificially introduced to our psyche, defines the our outlook today.

A good example of this is Capgras Syndrome. V.S. Ramachandran gives an informative case study in his book A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness, pages 7-9. It is about a patient who awoke from a coma and was convinced that his mother was an imposter. This resulted from damage to the connection from his fusiform gyrus to the amygdala. His visual areas were all intact, so he recognized his mother, However, since the connnection to the amygdala was damaged, the vision of his mother no longer evoked the same emotion that is did before the accident, hence his denial that it was his mother. Interestingly, the connection between his auditory cortex and his amygdala were still intact, so on the telephone he still recognized her as his mother.

This 'old word' attitude, that feeling is valid information, informed the people of its day. Can we even imagine what life for them was like? Well, yes, a bit, because the attitude still persists in our psyche. It has not gone anywhere, it is simply repressed, as often and as forcefully as it can be. We call them superstitious, those who bring it out to display to others, simpletons who cannot distinguish between feeling and thought. But the fact that it is still around today indicates something: necessity, perhaps.

No, it is still around because it does there is no selection against it - those with it are just as likely, if not more so to reach childbearing age and reproduce as those without it. Just because something may be of no use (such as an appendix) does not mean we automatically lose it.

And really, why do we malign the feelings so? Why do we put down the subjective interpretation and glorify the objective one? But that's a topic for another thread, perhaps.

Perhaps, but it has to do with the realization of how faulty our subjective interpretations can be and the need to find something more reliable.

Now that I am older, I know I have faith in some things. I have faith in myself and in the people I love. I have faith in a god, and in existence. I believe in some concepts that I cannot justify, I just know they are right. The operative word is "knowing." Belief does not claim this "knowing" through the heart, but faith does. When you get a feeling that something is true, if you then accept that as a type of knowledge of truth, that is faith. I *know" the people I love are good people. I *know* the sun will rise again tomorrow. I *know* there is a god. That is faith.

Funny, as I get older (I am 50) I find just the opposite. That feelings are not a good source of truth (in fact, this is the basis of humor- we set up a situation that is percieved one way, and the punch line is in showing that our initial expectation was flawed). There are so many ways in which our feelings about something can be highly flawed (pick up a book of optical illusions sometime for an example of this) that we need to find a more reliable way of seeking the truth.

So like things they are subsets

Faith is a subset of belief

A good example of this is Capgras Syndrome. V.S. Ramachandran gives an informative case study in his book A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness, pages 7-9. It is about a patient who awoke from a coma and was convinced that his mother was an imposter. This resulted from damage to the connection from his fusiform gyrus to the amygdala. His visual areas were all intact, so he recognized his mother, However, since the connnection to the amygdala was damaged, the vision of his mother no longer evoked the same emotion that is did before the accident, hence his denial that it was his mother. Interestingly, the connection between his auditory cortex and his amygdala were still intact, so on the telephone he still recognized her as his mother.
Interesting! Thanks, I'll read about that.

Funny, as I get older (I am 50) I find just the opposite. That feelings are not a good source of truth (in fact, this is the basis of humor- we set up a situation that is percieved one way, and the punch line is in showing that our initial expectation was flawed). There are so many ways in which our feelings about something can be highly flawed (pick up a book of optical illusions sometime for an example of this) that we need to find a more reliable way of seeking the truth.
Optical illusions are perhaps not the best example; the only feelings they stimulate in me is frustration. :)

Faith doesn't provide a truthful understanding that could ever be anything but subjectively viewed. In other words, it only works for the individual, it is not expected that it be a sharable experience of "the truth". I don't think this devalues it in any way, unless, as the saying goes, our "faith is misplaced".

faith is to have complete belief in something without proof

belief is to completly belive in something with some proof even if circumstantial

please excuse the spelling

Interesting! Thanks, I'll read about that.

Ramachandran's book mentioned above is a good start. If you ignore the endnotes it is only 112 pages. It is subtitled: "From Imposter Poodles to Purple Numbers". The "Imposter Poodles" refers to other cases of Capgras Syndrome, the "Purple Numbers" refers to synesthesia, sort of a sensory "bleedthrough". I think about 1 in 200 people have synesthesia, the most common being where you see different numbers (the actual characters) as different colors. Ramachandran detects it by use of a figure with the symbol "5" scattered within a box, with "2" character imbeded among them, the "2" symbols forming a geometric shape. Most people have difficulty picking out the shape, but since synesthetes see them as different colors, they can quickly identify it.

If you find that book at all intriguing (he also does some speculative musing on what is art, sort of a minor follow-up to a book he co-editted Art and the Brain (Journal of Consciousness Studies Volume 6 (1999) June - July)) the some of his other books are also reachable, as is The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach by Christof Koch.

Faith doesn't provide a truthful understanding that could ever be anything but subjectively viewed. In other words, it only works for the individual, it is not expected that it be a sharable experience of "the truth". I don't think this devalues it in any way, unless, as the saying goes, our "faith is misplaced".

If it is not sharable, then I do think it does devalue it claim to be some sort of truth. For instance, someone who is hallucinating will not be able to share what they see, it can only be sensed by them. That does not in anyway mean that what they are sensing is true.

Edit to add pointer to paper on Capgras Syndrome patient mentioned above:

http://psy.ucsd.edu/chip/pdf/Capgras_Syn_Roy_Soc.pdf

faith is to have complete belief in something without proof

belief is to completly belive in something with some proof even if circumstantial

please excuse the spelling
I get where you're going with that, but the fact is that somebody who doesn't, really wouldn't understand it so well. To use "belief" and "believe" in a circular definition just doesn't seem right.

And besides, I used to believe in Santa Claus, even without proof. My parents never even told me that he existed. How does that work into the definition?

Once again, not slamming you.....just offering up some intellectual fodder....

I think the difference between faith and belief (in a more spiritual sense) is the following:
Faith is your faith in whatever divine you believe in. You trust that.
Belief is what makes up your faith, or lack thereof. You can hold the belief that God exists and you can believe that he doesn't. Both are beliefs, but only one of them has to do with Faith.

Ramachandran's book mentioned above is a good start. If you ignore the endnotes it is only 112 pages. It is subtitled: "From Imposter Poodles to Purple Numbers". The "Imposter Poodles" refers to other cases of Capgras Syndrome, the "Purple Numbers" refers to synesthesia, sort of a sensory "bleedthrough". I think about 1 in 200 people have synesthesia, the most common being where you see different numbers (the actual characters) as different colors. Ramachandran detects it by use of a figure with the symbol "5" scattered within a box, with "2" character imbeded among them, the "2" symbols forming a geometric shape. Most people have difficulty picking out the shape, but since synesthetes see them as different colors, they can quickly identify it.

If you find that book at all intriguing (he also does some speculative musing on what is art, sort of a minor follow-up to a book he co-editted Art and the Brain (Journal of Consciousness Studies Volume 6 (1999) June - July)) the some of his other books are also reachable, as is The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach by Christof Koch.
Well, the reviews of Ramachandran were not very encouraging, but I did find, through that subject, rave reviews for another book that does look good, Consciousness Explained (http://dannyreviews.com/h/Consciousness_Explained.html) by Daniel Dennett. I'll take a look at them.

If it is not sharable, then I do think it does devalue it claim to be some sort of truth. For instance, someone who is hallucinating will not be able to share what they see, it can only be sensed by them. That does not in anyway mean that what they are sensing is true.

Edit to add pointer to paper on Capgras Syndrome patient mentioned above:

http://psy.ucsd.edu/chip/pdf/Capgras_Syn_Roy_Soc.pdf
I made no claim that what they sense is true. But, thanks for the link.

Simonist']I get where you're going with that, but the fact is that somebody who doesn't, really wouldn't understand it so well. To use "belief" and "believe" in a circular definition just doesn't seem right.

And besides, I used to believe in Santa Claus, even without proof. My parents never even told me that he existed. How does that work into the definition?

Once again, not slamming you.....just offering up some intellectual fodder....
Sorry, my bad. Emulating the dictionary, again.

The following is a personal view of the 'faith - belief' issue:

Belief (>Middle Eng. beleve; >Old Eng. bileafe, geleafa = cognate to German 'Glaube') is an Anglo-Saxon word for confidence (cf. fide) or conviction. Faith (>Middle Eng. feith, feth; >Old French. feid, feit; >Latin. fides) is a Romance word for a confidence or conviction. Thus, they can be used interchangeably, e. g. faith or belief in God, in one's fellow man, etc.

Like so many words, these seem to mean something, but their definition depends on their use. Faith seems to have become the word used to signify our belief in an almighty being.

Is faith simply not to follow a belief where a belief is something which you deam to be true

I was looking through an old thread and found a post I missed replying to, so I will address it as the start of a new discussion, thrown out for anyone to respond to.


There was a thread on the subject of "What is faith?" earlier in the year that offered up many good ideas, and my reply here was influenced by them: that faith is belief in a "stronger" form; that faith is unshakable, because it is absolute, you either have it or you do not. "Reversing faith" refers to the subject of one's faith. But these definitions are no longer adequate.

Isn't it funny that we can have concepts, like "faith," and be so unsure of what they mean that we have to question others about them? When I was young, I wasn't sure at all what faith meant. I knew it was "faith in God" that everyone talked about. I was quite sure that I didn't have it, but how do you know for sure if you're not even sure what it is? How do I know if I have faith? What does it feel like?

The two different terms, faith and belief, have been in our language as it evolved since before our written history. The dictionary is little help, since it equates words in order to define them. That leaves us with a technique I learned recently (that was helpful to distinguish between "fate" and "destiny") that involves examining how the words are used, and in what context, in order to distinguish them. Their context suggests that they are not the same thing, although they are made synonymous.

One significant difference between the context of faith and belief is this: faith is knowing with your heart. This ties it to the emotions, because the "heart" is a symbol we use to mean the part of our mind that deals with the feelings input from the senses evokes. And it ties it to the mind, the repositor of knowledge. Belief makes no such claims on the heart. This suggests that faith was once considered a type of knowledge, on a par with how we use the term today, as information that is either deduced logically or inputted empirically. This also means that feelings were once considered valid information, and that that attitude has changed over the millennia. This is the case, that a gap between feelings and thought, artificially introduced to our psyche, defines the our outlook today.

This 'old word' attitude, that feeling is valid information, informed the people of its day. Can we even imagine what life for them was like? Well, yes, a bit, because the attitude still persists in our psyche. It has not gone anywhere, it is simply repressed, as often and as forcefully as it can be. We call them superstitious, those who bring it out to display to others, simpletons who cannot distinguish between feeling and thought. But the fact that it is still around today indicates something: necessity, perhaps. And really, why do we malign the feelings so? Why do we put down the subjective interpretation and glorify the objective one? But that's a topic for another thread, perhaps.

Now that I am older, I know I have faith in some things. I have faith in myself and in the people I love. I have faith in a god, and in existence. I believe in some concepts that I cannot justify, I just know they are right. The operative word is "knowing." Belief does not claim this "knowing" through the heart, but faith does. When you get a feeling that something is true, if you then accept that as a type of knowledge of truth, that is faith. I *know" the people I love are good people. I *know* the sun will rise again tomorrow. I *know* there is a god. That is faith.


I think the problem is a modern disassociation between faith, belief, and trust. The three words; while different, are saying the same thing. In prior languages (such as greek) the three were all the same word, conjugated into different forms for different uses; all rooted on "trust". Possessing "faith" is infact possessing a "trust", or exhibiting a "trust"; having "faith in [something]" is posessing a belief (a trust in) that thing.

Well, the reviews of Ramachandran were not very encouraging, but I did find, through that subject, rave reviews for another book that does look good, Consciousness Explained (http://dannyreviews.com/h/Consciousness_Explained.html) by Daniel Dennett. I'll take a look at them.

Not sure where you have seen less than encouraging reviews for Ramachandran.
I have read both, and they are very different books. Dennett's book is very much metaphysical musings, whereas Ramachandran's approach is more pragmatic and empirical. That is not surprising, as Dennett is a philosopher (Head of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm) and Ramachandran is a neurologist (head of the Center for Brain and Cognition at UCSD http://psy.ucsd.edu/chip/CBC2.html )

Dennett's take is that consciousness is illusory while Ramachandran would see it more as an emergent property of certain biological systems.