Is Faith the Opposite of Certainty?
on another blog, someone stated that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. i decided to write post the comment i made in response, as i think its an important topic. what do yall think???
unfortunately, i think you make a claim that you cannot back up. if you choose to change the historical definition (and Scriptural) of faith, then so be it. but under a traditional definition, faith is not the opposite of certainty.
for instance, Paul says that Abraham had “faith”. for what? for believing God’s promise with certainty that God would follow through. Because in regard to the promise of Isaac, Abraham had to wait 25 yrs. sure, Abraham doubted the manner in which God would do so during that time, thus Ismail.
or another example, Hebrews says that faith the “certainty of hope”.
but even in a secular perspective, faith has an aspect of certainty. the world sees “faith” as typically a negative thing for this exact reason, because they believe that it is a blind adherence to belief.
so here, we come to the real crux of the issue. i dont think faith is opposite of certainty, but i do think that faith has room for evidence and difference of opinion. there is no question that blind faith is foolish. this, not certainty is the problem, i believe.
for example, suppose there was a magician, he shows a person three nut cups and a marble. he then places the marble under the middle nut cup and mixes them around. then he asks you to guess which cup it is under. you pick the one you thought was it, but its not there. now in this situation, would you honestly believe that the magician made the marble disappear??? or are you “certain” that the marble is still somewhere? you dont believe that the marble has disappeared. even if the magician were to uncover the other two nut cups and claim that he made the marble vanish. you still hold with certainty the marble is somewhere, though you cannot see it.
so faith does have a measure of certainty in it. and “certainly”, i dont think faith is the opposite of certainty.
what do yall think?
Filed under: Christianity, Religion | Tagged: certainty, faith
It’s an interesting question, PB&J. Quite honestly, I’m not sure the word “faith” has a good opposite. Not every word has one. Many concrete “things” do not. What, for instance, is the opposite of computer or stapler or scissors (Can you tell I’m scanning my desk for examples?)? I think there are near-opposites for “faith.” I can see why you would say doubt (”If you don’t have faith that something exists, you doubt its existence”), and I can see why you might say certainty. Because faith takes a certain leap beyond what science is currently capable of proving, faith could be considered the opposite of “scientific certainty.” In the end, though, I’m not sure either one is especially effective if trying to give a perfect antonym. Maybe “skepticism” is close, but I’m not sure that quite works either.
So I guess I’m saying I don’t know. Perhaps that’s not the best answer to your question. How about if I say, “I know, but I’m not telling YOU!” Yeah, that’s better.
jwhaws
i like that last part best. i may try to use that one in the future.
as far as your thoughts, i think you make a good point about the difficulty of defining an antonym. it is hard. i was trying to use a traditional definition of faith. since faith tends to be from the realm of “religion”, i felt religious texts were necessary.
this is where i disagree with you, you said “Because faith takes a certain leap beyond what science is currently capable of proving, faith could be considered the opposite of ’scientific certainty.’”. i think this is quite limiting. not because you may not be correct, but because the traditional definition comes from within a culture that believes God is a scientific reality. for instance, to return to Abraham, he spoke face to face with God. check out Genesis 18.
whether this is a true story or not isnt the point. those who believe this story are the people who predominantly use the word “faith”. so in order to understand the etymology and usage of the word, we must turn to an Abrahamic concept of faith.
so suppose a man saw YHWH (the Hebrew name for God) face to face and spoke with him and provided food for him and reasoned with him, etc. wouldnt that be a “scientific” proof that this Being existed? unless one is a pure skeptic scientifically, we all believe that the senses are what we base our scientific measurements and evaluations upon. for Abraham, he saw YHWH. he had scientific proof that YHWH existed. then he sees YHWH destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (in chapter 19). he sees the power of YHWH, firsthand.
isnt that a form of “scientific” evidence (assuming the story is true)?
so Abraham’s faith was blind. it was rational, calculated, and scientific. but it was certain as well. as i pointed out earlier, Abraham believed YHWH would keep His promise for 25 years. thats a long time, and i am not sure my faith is that certain.
now, to the point, this faith of Abraham is what the entire Jewish culture (and, therefore, Christian as well through the New Testament writings) bases its concept of faith off of. and as we are a judeo-christian culture, we come to our definition of faith through Judaism and Christianity. thus, i believe that our definition of faith cannot include doubt, and should include certainty. the problem, i believe, comes when people say that faith must have certain tenets. because that really is purely metaphysical logic, whereas faith is based upon rational experience.
peter
Hey peter. Good to see your name. I’m not sure I knew it before. But I do love me some PB&J. Had it for breakfast this morning, in fact. It always reminds me of the lunches I had in elementary school, when my mom left me a bag for lunch every morning. If anything were scientific proof that God exists and loves us all, it’s peanut butter and jelly.
But I digress …
I think the main question in your response regarded Abraham. You asked if his speaking to God face to face was “scientific” proof. The answer, alas, is no.
To Abraham himself, it may have been a justifiable reality. He believes he saw God face to face, at least according to the Bible. But eyewitness testimony does not science make. Especially if that eyewitness testimony comes from a 2,000-plus-year-old book that has been translated from one language to another and to another.
You can believe the Bible is 100% true, but you can’t account for the credibility of Abraham or the translators of his story. Even if you talked to Abraham himself and knew him to be credible, that wouldn’t be scientific in any way. In fact, even if you saw God yourself, that’s not proof of his existence.
Eyewitness testimony is extremely flawed, even if the eyewitness himself is as credible as humanly possible (Abraham’s account is not). People are too often known for thinking they see things they didn’t actually see. Eyewitness accounts are miles and miles from being scientific evidence, though I’m sure Abraham is a great guy and all.
jwhaws
sure, but i think you missed my pt. i prefaced it all with hypothetically assuming (philosophers love to do that) that Abraham did in fact see God face to face.
the reason this assumption is valid is not because it is necessarily true, but because many billions of people have believed it to be true. since they are the ones using the word “faith”, there concept of “faith” is derived partially from Abraham’s faith.
now, to “scientific” evidence. lets discuss what exactly that means.
i believe “scientific” evidence is any evidence that can be used in a scientific method in order to support (or negate) a theory. so here is the theory:
If there is sensory evidence of YHWH, then YHWH exists
Abraham (hypothetically) saw YHWH (sight)
Abraham ate with YHWH (taste, touch)
Abraham reasoned with YHWH (intellect)
Abraham witnessed YHWH destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (sight)
this is all sensory evidence
therefore, YHWH exists (according to Abraham)
thus, his faith (to him) was not a blind, reasonless, unscientific faith. rather it was rational and evidentiary (to him).
as far as scientific goes, this is how science has determined that “atoms” exist (or many other things). they theorized that there would a small structure which composed the basis for life (although we know there are things smaller than atoms now). they couldnt see the atoms at the time of their hypothesis. since then, we have electronmicroscopes which can “see” them. this is “scientific” evidence that they do in fact exist.
how is this any different than Abraham’s personal experiences? for him they were just as convincing. so regardless of whether they were real or not, all of us are within a culture that was founded on judeo-christian heritage. thus, our words are defined through our culture. (not to mention the original word “faith” probably originated in english from the Biblical word for faith, although i am not sure) our culture (whether right or wrong) in general believe(s)/(d) the Bible stories are true. thus, our culture defines faith upon their acceptance that Abraham had it, and it was blind.
make sense?
Well, it makes sense, but what you’re suggesting isn’t scientific. It’s faith.
It’s not that observation can’t be used in science, as in your atom comparison. It certainly can be. But it absolutely must be replicable. In other words, in science, if you say you observed something occurring in nature, you must be able to replicate what you observed. Then, other scientists must be able to replicate it using your data in order to evaluate your conclusions. If it can’t be replicated, it fails to meet the most basic of scientific standards and, therefore, is unverified.
What you’re trying to say is, “What if it actually was a fact that Abraham saw God?” The problem is that this isn’t a scientific question to begin with. You’re asking, “What if this eyewitness observation was undeniable scientific fact?” But eyewitness observation cannot be scientific fact. The only way it can be a fact at all is if you take a leap of faith, saying Abraham is somehow infallible and you have absolute faith in what he said (and in how it was translated, reported, etc.).
If you’re willing to take that leap, anything can be turned into fact. If you have faith that the Bible is infallible, then what it contains is fact to you. But that has nothing to do with science. It is faith, and faith alone. There’s nothing wrong with that; it just is what it is.
[...] is science? I’ve been having a discussion with Peter in the comments section of Mere Humanity, and I thought it was worth touching on over [...]
jwhaws
i hear ya, but i still disagree. thanks for the good discussion however. i think where you and i disagree is that i believe any “scientific” experiment is just an “eyewitness” testimony. as the eyewitness(es) was the only one to observe the event.
then of course, you are right the phenomenon must be verifiable (although i hold more of a Popper view about the impossibility of verifying theory) or at least made more likely by other accounts.
well, that is exactly the case, there are many other “eyewitnesses” who have claimed to have the same experience. this is then, just like the atom, as it is verified in other centuries by other people, many times over. so it really is no different (other than you cant see God when you want, but when He chooses).
peter
No, it’s still completely different, Peter. Scientific evidence, for the most part, has no relation to “eyewitness testimony.” If you can show the actual evidence to others, it stops being eyewitness testimony. Or if the actual observation can be replicated, it’s not eyewitness testimony.
What you’re referring to is exactly like people claiming to see UFOs. Tons of people say they’ve seen them in eyewitness accounts, but the number of people over time doesn’t “scientifically” verify it. All it does is show that many people make the same claim. Until there is some physical evidence, it can’t be scientific.