Questioning faith

[RedbeardUH]

Hi, I am curious to see if anyone here has has a problem of faith. I was raised Catholic, turned Christian, and finally I think I am becoming agnostic. It does not upset me, per se, but it is certainly different. I am curious to hear other's anecdotes of losing religion. I would also entertain arguments to return to faith, but I warn those that in doing so they are liable to hear my counter arguments. To quote Nietzsche (whom I am very indebted to, philisophically)

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. "

[SecretMethod70]

Questioning faith for some reason has a connotation as being bad. I think questioning faith is an essential part of existence and an essential part of having any true faith. So, I encourage the questioning of one's faith. Of course, I believe it is also necessary that, in doing so, one is sure to get arguments from BOTH sides. I think that the act questioning faith the way most people undertake it can be more accurately described as researching all the counter-arguments to faith. Since I don't believe that one can actually have faith without questioning it first, simply researching all the counter-arguments is not questioning faith but, rather, solidifying lack of faith.

So, how does one question faith in a nutshell? Hell if I know But there are some things i'm pretty certain about. Clearly, one does need to expose oneself to the counter-arguments of any faith. Exposure and consideration of these is necessary for developing what I would call actual faith. One also must discover the arguments and counter counter-arguments of faith. There are two important points of this though. Obviously, one should find out what the "official" arguments are. This is not as simple as it seems though. For example, if one is questioning Judaism, there are many different "official" arguments depending on whether it is Orthodox Judaism, Hasidic Judaism, Reform Judaism, and so on. But that is not all. This is where the second part comes in: one needs to look into the other theological trends of the faith as well. For example, in the case of Catholicism, there are certain contemporary theological trends at work right now that one cannot find in the "official" arguments. It's not so much that the "official" arguments are wrong, or that contemporary Catholic theology is right, but that theology is a constantly evolving thing. With new understandings of life and existence that come in the world through, for example, science, so too must theology evolve to reflect our growing understanding of ourselves. Clearly, it takes longer for something like this to occur in "official" teaching than in contemporary thought. One must simply keep in mind that it is, for lack of a better term, the "cutting edge" of theology.

An example: I am Catholic and I have come to be fairly secure in a belief that the sacrament of baptism is not a mystical "instant cleansing" of some ailment that is passed down from person to person since the first humans (Catholics do not reject evolution and I find it impossible not to accept it). Rather, through discussions with some Catholic theologians (it helps that I go to a Catholic university of course, but that doesn't make it impossible for those who don't) and the reading of books by various Catholic priests on the more contemporary end of Catholic theological thought, I have come to the conclusion that the sacrament of baptism is a largely symbolic and beautiful initiation rite into the Church. There are already hints towards this line of thought in modern, post-Vatican II "official" Catholic teaching. For example, the belief that baptism is not absolutely necessary for one to find salvation - whatever that may be described as. However, IMO at least, it takes time for these thoughts to be taken to their logical conclusions in the "official" circles of theology. It's not that I reject these "official" teachings, but more accurately that I think there is a better way to describe them. For example, despite the recognition since Vatican II that baptism is not something that is absolutely 100% necessary, the Church's definition of Original Sin remains the same - seemingly in contradiction with this stance on baptism. (Incidentally, I think original sin can be more accurately described as simply the inherent flaws that make us human - the drive for power, greed, selfishnes, etc. Indeed, these ARE things passed down from generation to generation, but they are not things which can be instantly cleansed away or things whose presence is an instant preventor to being a good person and connecting with God.)

Based on the (very) short description above, you can probably guess that I don't believe one ever stops questioning faith. Questioning faith is a lifelong process to me, and in my opinion it is the only way it can be meaningful. Being set in one's ways is detrimental to mental and spiritual health. If one chooses to be Muslim and ceases to critically contemplate Islam in relation to the world in which they live, it becomes not faith but comfort. Rather than having faith, one is instead simply sticking to what they know. Likewise, if one chooses at some point in their life to become atheist or agnostic but ceases to be critical of atheism or ceases to be considerate of other possibilities, one becomes stagnant and is no longer actively rejecting anything but, rather, simply comfortable with not challenging themselves.

Any kind of serious quest to find or reject faith of any sort is, I believe, a lifelong process which involves intense contemplation, discussion, and reading. Anything less I think is a disservice to oneself.

To speak more directly to your own description, a few books I am quite fond of in addressing various concepts in Catholicism are The Great Mysteries, Pierre Teilhard De Chardin: Writings, and Jesus in the New Universe Story.

[planets]

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Of course, I believe it is also necessary that, in doing so, one is sure to get arguments from BOTH sides. I think that the act questioning faith the way most people undertake it can be more accurately described as researching all the counter-arguments to faith. Since I don't believe that one can actually have faith without questioning it first, simply researching all the counter-arguments is not questioning faith but, rather, solidifying lack of faith.

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Since I don't believe that one can actually have faith without questioning it first, simply researching all the counter-arguments is not questioning faith but, rather, solidifying lack of faith.

While i agree wholeheartedly the second part of your statement, the first needs some clarification if u pls. The basis of faith is wholehearted belief, whether or not there is objective or empirical justification, so to question something before accepting it is akin to asking for evidence. Which defeats the purpose of faith. Do you have faith in religion, even if someday the artifacts are proven to be false? Will your faith be shaken should you find out one day that the answers you have gotten through "questioning it first" are not entirely correct?

In addition to that, it seems that we have taken a lot into our hands by subjecting religion to rational discursion. True, discourse strengthens faith, but fatih strengthens faith, too. The fundamental difference between one who asks questions to obtain "actual faith", and one who asks questions to strengthen his/her faith, is the plainly obvious fact that one had faith to begin with and one didn't.

Of course then there would be many things to question. How does a person who was not borne into a religious family seek to 'find' his faith? Do we develop faith out of nothing? Is our capacity for faith inherent in us?
One big subset of which deals with these issues asks whether we are born with our minds a 'tabula rasa', a blank slate. Which brings me to the baptism issue. It is heartening that there is at least someone who believes that baptism is not a necessary rite for catholics. I would go so far as to claim that in fact, no rite is necessary for any religion. Just take for example a person born on an island somewhere in the pacific with no church or men of God nearby. He lives and dies without a concept of any mainstream religions. In fact he believes that the most majestic sight ever happens to be the stars in the night sky. And so that's wat he believes he should respect.
Now, apart from happening to face upwards when he considers Creation or any concept of philosophy or theology, he is as Christian or Catholic or anything else as i am a martian. Will he go to heaven then? Did he have faith in God?
ok i'm digressing...
back to questioning faith. What i'm driving at is the fact that questioning is not for the faithful. Affirmation is for the faithful. Questioning is for the curious

[asaris]

It depends what you mean by "whole-hearted" faith. We are supposed to always act as if we believe, but it's ridiculous to think that we should [b]feel[b] like we have faith all the time. C. S. Lewis wrote that he has moments where the whole enterprise of Christianity feels like so much smoke and mirrors, but that when he was an atheist, he had moments when he thought Christianity was true. It might be worth comparing it to a marriage. No one is ever going to always feel lovey-dovey towards their wife. But one should always act as if one felt that way.

And a number of thinkers have believed that questioning one's faith is not only okay, but necessary for the increase of that faith. Jacob was only given the name Israel after he had spent the night wrestling with God. At the end of Job, God commends Job for speaking rightly of him -- after Job had spent the whole book complaining of his treatment.

And throughout the history of Christianity there have been hordes of people who have, on the one hand, used rational thought to try and understand Christianity -- people like Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Jonathan Edwards, Alvin Plantinga, and many more. And, on the other hand, people who have used rational argument to try and get people to see the truth of Christianity. C. S. Lewis, who I think is right as often as not, makes the good point that, while arguments are not sufficient for faith, they are sometimes necessary when someone has thrown up intellectual obstacles.

Perhaps faith is "wholehearted belief, whether or not there is empirical/objective justification", perhaps not. But very few people have ever said that there wasn't, as a matter of fact, empirical/objective evidence for Christianity. It's perhaps worth noting that fideism, "a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority"[1], is condemned by the RCC.

[1]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm

[SecretMethod70]

Originally Posted by planets

The basis of faith is wholehearted belief, whether or not there is objective or empirical justification, so to question something before accepting it is akin to asking for evidence. Which defeats the purpose of faith.

"Faith" is what we define it as. To me it is simply something which goes beyond that which is physically provable. What you describe I would call blind faith.

Do you have faith in religion, even if someday the artifacts are proven to be false? Will your faith be shaken should you find out one day that the answers you have gotten through "questioning it first" are not entirely correct?

I don't believe it is possible to "know" answers. One's faith is an emerging and evolving process which is never complete. This is part of the reason why it is necessary to consider scripture as "living" text. If one is not open to reevaluating one's understanding of it in light of historical context, it is nearly worthless.

Of course then there would be many things to question. How does a person who was not borne into a religious family seek to 'find' his faith? Do we develop faith out of nothing? Is our capacity for faith inherent in us?

I would argue yes. Faith is not developed out of nothing however. It is developed in the context of the world: the phenomenon of man, the beauty of science, every interaction between man and man or man and the universe.

It is heartening that there is at least someone who believes that baptism is not a necessary rite for catholics. I would go so far as to claim that in fact, no rite is necessary for any religion.

Indeed, this is a stance of the Catholic Church. One who rejects what one does not know is good cannot be held accountable for their ignorance. Hence, while the Catholic Church believes that it contains the fullness of Truth, it recognizes that other religions also contain Truth and that because of this one need not necessarily be Catholic or Christian for that matter to find God, or whatever one may call it, simply that the Church is a more conducive environment to this.

[martinguerre]

echoing asaris and Smeth, faith is a relationship. Questioning it is really the only thing that makes it possible.

I left the church for a long time, until i figured out that i could have a self-critical beleif outside of fundyism. Now that i'm back, i'm constantly being challenged...and it's one of the things i love most.

[tecoyah]

I was born into the Catholic Faith, and studied it every day through sixth grade. As I began to question certain aspects of the bible(s) I was punished by my teachers, and eventually left for Public school.
Here I began to learn science....so much for Catholic Dogma (my school was extremely strict on the validity of the Bible) and I began to disike all the bible stood for. Time and wisdom turned me back to a search for meaning, and a study of the eastern myths, and eventually to Buddhist teachings. I have since decided to read all religious scripts I can get hold of....and from this have developed my own understanding of what "GOD" means. It is truly my own....and I have learned to keep it to myself for the most part.

In all my reading, studies and communications with persons of faith , one thing has stood out in my mind.......they are all correct in what they believe...and so am I.

[planets]

"It's perhaps worth noting that fideism, "a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority"[1], is condemned by the RCC.

[1]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm "

Asaris that was quite enlightening. Never knew such a term existed.

SecretMethod70:

Granted, faith is a concept with no defined state, it exists always in some flux between "blind faith" and "informed faith". The effort through which we challenge our current level of faith adds to how well-informed we are (and sometimes deducts too, if we find out certain facts were actually wrong). Actually, these precepts of constant examination and re-examination are fundamental to Islam and Buddhism as well.

So yes, i agree that for a religion, questioning faith is crucial. Yet, I still hold that questioning faith is an almost entirely but not quite sincere act for the already faithful. For the exact reasons that you state. If my purpose of questioning is to solidify my already-existent faith, there is no chance that my faith can ever be dispelled; in the consideration of arguments for and against some religion, the person who already subscribes to that religion lives in a tautological world, where no rebuttal exists that can ever be strong enough to sway his/her faith.

So here's a proposition: There still exists a level of blind faith within anyone who has consciously declared their subscription to a religion. This degree of blind faith must necessarily arise from something that is beyond reason, (for if it arose through logical deductions, by the fact that deductions can be drawn only from assumed premises, one can always reduce these assumed premises to certain statements that are purely arbitrary) which may be derived from either 1. a person's inherent predisposition towards accepting and defining a God/religion (the non blank slate thing) or 2. through sociological interactions.

Questioning faith is for the 2nd case. For the first, the person can no longer be considered to question faith; he/she is affirming their position.

Also there is the statement that "One who rejects what one does not know is good cannot be held accountable for their ignorance". What about our responsibility to find out if that thing we rejected was in fact good before making that decision? And if we can't come up with the answer, just as SecretMethod70 has stated that there is no firm answer to theological debates (whom i agree with too), do we just stall? If someone asks me what i subscribe to, in reply should i quote the lack of direct answers in theological debates as my reason for answering "nothing much dude, i'm just floating here"?

[Johnny Rotten]

Originally Posted by planets

Of course then there would be many things to question. How does a person who was not borne into a religious family seek to 'find' his faith? Do we develop faith out of nothing? Is our capacity for faith inherent in us?

One big subset of which deals with these issues asks whether we are born with our minds a 'tabula rasa', a blank slate. Which brings me to the baptism issue. It is heartening that there is at least someone who believes that baptism is not a necessary rite for catholics. I would go so far as to claim that in fact, no rite is necessary for any religion.

Think back when we were cave-dwellers. Well, imagine back. You didn't know anything about how the world worked, so whatever strange event wasn't tangibly explainable was attributed to a powerful being. Lightning storms, floods, earthquakes, rainbows, etc. Has to be a powerful creature capable of such things, and yet I never see him. He must live in the sky.

Humans are curious and imaginative creatures. And who wouldn't want an all-powerful being looking after them? Making sure that life has a plan, that things happen for a reason, that evil is punished and good rewarded, if not now, then in the afterlife. Very seductive, and compelling against the sometimes painful churn of life.

But eventually, religion is politicized and bloody, which makes it difficult to accept the message when the messenger is the erring human. The wars declared in name of God end up costing both sides dearly in the eyes of history, but they continue because you can get so many people under your banner so quickly. This is what propels the extremist Muslim terrorists--why fight for something as temporary as nation, when you can send the enemy to Hell with God's wind at your back? That never gets old.

Anyways. It is my personal belief therefrom that organized religion is a symptom of Man's flaw, while faith is a symptom of his hoping spirit. But over the stretch of history, it becomes difficult if not impossible to separate the institution from the imaginative spirit that created it. It becomes easy to doubt the messenger, especially as science marches into the fringes of reality without bumping into divinity.

I also believe doubt is healthy. To question means to be aware of a potential problem. To be aware that a problem could even exist. I doubt too much to give myself over to a being I am not aware of having ever experienced. I don't sense the presence of the closet behind me, but I know it was there because I saw it earlier. I am open-minded, but skeptical in the face of having no evidence. And I think that's healthy.

[papermachesatan]

I originally stopped wanting to attend Church because I felt that it was boring. My dad forced me to attend anyways, which resulted in me looking for excuses NOT to attend Church. Consequently, I started looking at other religions that didn't require Church attendence. I stumbled onto a Deism website and decided that their version of God sounded like something I'd like to believe in so I switched to that.

I started hanging around Creationism v Evolution/Athiest websites though which made me rethink my beliefs in regards to deism. I couldn't really think of any reason to believe in God other than simple "faith". I decided that there was no reason to hold a belief just for the hell of it and I started calling myself an agnostic. I rapidly decided that "Athiest" was a better title though.

[flstf]

My answer to your question is yes, I have had a problem with faith.
I was raised a Lutheran and throughout my youth attended church every Sunday and at a young age attended cathecism and was confirmed. When I was young I didn't think too much about whether my (and my family's) believe in Christianity was true or not, I just accepted it.

As I got older and started learning more about the world and the many different cultures and religions in it, I began to see that there were many different approaches to explain our existence. I began to wonder what makes people latch on to these beliefs and accept them as truth (sometimes the only truth at the expense of all the others). It just didn't make sense to me anymore that the Jewish tribal God could be the only one and true god.

I finally came to the conclusion that almost all the religions are just our way to try and make sense of the mysteries of existence. There is something ingrained in us that just cannot accept the unknown and lacking any real evidence as to the whys and wherefores, we will make something up and eventually it will morph into a religion, complete with doctrines, rules, etc...

At this time I can't really say that I am an athiest, I just have no idea what our existence is all about. I wish I did. As it stands now, I am just trying to keep an open mind and have a feeling that there may be a grain of truth in all of mankind's quest to understand (religions).

But I gotta tell you, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this universe is just a 7th grade science project from an alien student from an advanced civilization. And at the end of the semester we will all be flushed down the drain. Hopefully he/she/it will get a passing grade, LOL.

[Livia Regina]

I also have a problem with faith. I was raised Episcopalian and have investigated Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Recently I realized that I really don't believe much that any church teaches and never have. I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God. And the only message I've ever gotten from any Christian sect I've studied is that I will suffer everlasting damnation if I make one wrong move.
At the moment I think that I am real and the world around me is real. The world is not a figment of my imagination and I am not the figment of anyone's imagination. Since I don't think that things give rise to themselves, I think the world must have been created by something outside of it. This thing/God/Creator/whatever set up laws so that the world could run itself (laws of motion, thermodynamics, etc) and then left the world completly alone. This creator does not interfere with the world at all and therefore all revealed religions are just wishful thinking. Because the creator does not interfere in the world we know nothing about him/her/it and so we cannot assume that he/she/it cares about us and I think it is unlikely that he/she/it does.

I'm sorry if that is rambling and confusing, it is the first time I've written down what I believe. I'm also sorry if any of it sounds inflammatory, I don't mean it to be. I have no personal objection to religious people. I think they are wrong but I try not to preach.

I know this might sound stupid, but I guess if someone asked me I'd have to say I was a devout atheist - However, I do every now and then get tempted to entertain ideas of God, the supernatural and a whole host of other similar ideas. I don't know if anyone else could see this as a questioning of faith, but it seems to apply somehow.