What is faith?

[Calypze]

I like the following description and definition from RationalWiki:

Faith is something religious people use in place of evidence. People who have faith are rarely persuaded to change their opinions by the use of critical thinking, reasoning or logic, and consequently it is the antithesis of the scientific method and rationalism.

[Lazarus]

Faith is simply a belief held without evidence, but there is not strong evidence to the contrary of this belief either.

[Enzo]

What do atheists use in place of the evidence they don't have either? Assumptions of naturalism? Faith is equally as good, I would suggest it's somewhat better seeing as I don't know what the assumptions of naturalism is good for. Also I don't think you can really deal with any of the more ultimate questions if you don't think there are any questions to answer even to begin with.

[Lazarus]

Also I don't think you can really deal with any of the more ultimate questions if you don't think there are any questions to answer even to begin with.

I would love answers to those questions, but I would like the right ones. So until there's evidence to back up what you're saying (I know, I know - you've flooded this forum with evidence! How can I still not be convinced?) I'm just going with the only answer I know is 100% true about those big questions. Nobody knows.

[Enzo]

I would love answers to those questions, but I would like the right ones.

You won't get those answers from science unless you're assuming scientific naturalism then you think you will but still won't. I think science points towards a created order and design anyway, coincidence it is not.

I'm just going with the only answer I know is 100% true about those big questions. Nobody knows.

How do you know that? I hope you're not assuming anything, assume makes an ass out of me and u.

[Lazarus]

How do you know that? I hope you're not assuming anything, assume makes an ass out of me and u.

It's quite simple. The universe as it existed before this state is incomprehensible. It's not something we can just have a quick look at in our history books. There are no experiments you can run to see how things exist outside of matter or time. You can't even test if existence exists outside of matter and time.

So. There's really no way that anyone can know. No scientist, Rabbi, Imam, Bishop or jacked up preacher on a soap box and anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or mentally ill (or has access to technology that goes far beyond what we know).

[Enzo]

It's quite simple. The universe as it existed before this state is incomprehensible.

That's fine and has nothing to do with the existence of God either way but bear in mind that a a time before time is the same as a place north of the north pole. You don't make any sense there. A minor point.

It's not something we can just have a quick look at in our history books.

Hmmm yes that true but a creation event is described in a certain book. Ahhh.

There are no experiments you can run to see how things exist outside of matter or time.

Absolutely right, you're coming on a treat now. You're getting the idea.

You can't even test if existence exists outside of matter and time.

Exactly, so therefore we will need to rely on another form of knowledge, the holy gospels.

So. There's really no way that anyone can know. No scientist,

No scientist yes that's true.

Rabbi, Imam, Bishop or jacked up preacher on a soap box and anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or mentally ill (or has access to technology that goes far beyond what we know).

This is the part you're not quite getting, the idea is that God exists and interacts with human history and the rest of the universe in general which is His creation, what else do you think it is? And God certainly is no absentee landlord. But you seem to have the right idea about everything else. Science doesn't explain everything nor does it have the capacity to do so.

[Himster]

What do atheists use in place of the evidence they don't have either?

The suspension of judgement is the only rational response.

[Enzo]

The suspension of judgement is the only rational response.

Isn't saying "I won't have faith/believe in God until I have concrete proof for certain that He exists and I will only believe in natural causes and coincidence until then" a judgement you have made? It's like being open minded in a close minded way.

[Himster]

Isn't saying "I won't have faith/believe in God until I have concrete proof for certain that He exists and I will only believe in natural causes and coincidence until then" a judgement you have made? It's like being open minded in a close minded way.

Well that's a strawman, so no.
A suspension of judgement when necessary evidence is missing: it's the default, religion doesn't get a free pass on this, no matter how many times you use the fallacy of special pleading.

[Enzo]

Well that's a strawman, so no.
A suspension of judgement when necessary evidence is missing: it's the default, religion doesn't get a free pass on this, no matter how many times you use the fallacy of special pleading.

Well that's what you mean, you won't believe in God unless you can be 100% certain that He exists. You can't ever be 100% certain so you have to completely rule it out. If you were to bring the certainity you need down a touch then you could have a faith in God. Either way this is a judgement you're making.

[Biggieboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

/thread

[chriscase]

Of course faith is a very broad term. Often the multiple meanings are mixed together to make equivocations.

I don't particularly like the OP definition because it fails to account for the more general uses of the term.

When we consider the term faith in a more general sense, it often means adherence to a principle, such as keeping faith with one's spouse. So given this definition, it would appear to boil down to the question what one keeps faith with. Some principles are worth keeping faith with; others are not.

[Phier]

Of course faith is a very broad term. Often the multiple meanings are mixed together to make equivocations.

I don't particularly like the OP definition because it fails to account for the more general uses of the term.

When we consider the term faith in a more general sense, it often means adherence to a principle, such as keeping faith with one's spouse. So given this definition, it would appear to boil down to the question what one keeps faith with. Some principles are worth keeping faith with; others are not.

Done here.

I have faith in my wife, but then again I have evidence that she is faithful

Faith as defined by the OP's post is more to be snarky.

[The Kybrothilian]

Faith is simply putting your trust on someone or something.

[basics]

" Faith is something religious people use in place of evidence. People who have faith are rarely persuaded to change their opinions by the use of critical thinking, reasoning or logic, and consequently it is the antithesis of the scientific method and rationalism."

Calypze,

People who have faith didn't come by it through critical thinking or anything else in the sentence above because faith comes from God. It is a gift of God imputed to them that never had any, how? By the revealing, inwardly or outwardly of Jesus Christ to them that no other experiences nor can experience in this One to one between God and man. Now one doesn't expect any that have never had it to accept that that is how people get faith.

Why it is that way is because faith that the new creation is gifted is the very same faith that Jesus himself had. It is that that is gifted to the recipient for two good reasons that immediately come to mind. One, the imputation makes the new creation at one with their Saviour and two, it is given so that the recipient has continual knowledge of what Jesus Christ did for them on the cross at Calvary which is fed by the Spirit who indwells them the moment of conversion or regeneration. Both are sureties that their experience is true because it is a continual experience never to leave them.

Paul wrote that for all his education and religious knowledge, it was but dung compared to what he now knew through the faith given him by Jesus Christ. He wasn't an ignorant man by any standards, being taught by Israel's greatest teacher of his day, the man Gamaliel. Bound into the Law of Moses, he claimed to be a Pharisee of Pharisees yet when faith came along with regeneration, it was but dung compared to that given him by the Saviour. The guys that were with him knew something had happened to him but what they didn't know.

Now that is exactly the same position that you guys who haven't had that experience see yet will not accept. You know the Christian has something but what it is you cannot put your fingers to it and therefore put it down to delusion or madness. Paul himself thought them worthy of death at best or imprisonment at worst until his experience came. As for me, I have walked away from four major car crashes with only four stitches to my knee amongst many other things since my conversion and people saved or unsaved have been witness to these things. My faith leads me to know that God is watching over me without the shadow of any doubt.

What it boils down to is that it is not persuasion in any form. Many so-called evangelists use sweet words and music to persuade people but that is not faith and never can be because faith begins with repentence and repentence comes by acknowledging through revelation what Jesus Christ did for that person at the cross. When the heart of that person has reached the shame of conviction for His action on the cross, then and only then will God regenerate any recipient and indwell them with the Holy Comforter along with the gift that is the faith of Jesus Christ. Therefore as it is written we are saved by faith, faith to faith, meaning the ongoing faith imputed to us.

Is this blind? No, what is blind is what comes next in the new creation's life but by faith he or she can overcome any obstacle that rises up because they know that God is not just with them but in them. It is believing that the unseen cannot overcome what they see and know through faith and so not fear it because once again it is written that nothing can take them out of the hands of God no matter what that power might be. One can tell these things until blue in the face, yet an unbeliever just won't accept them as being true.

[Vizsla]

It would be more enlightening to define the word ‘equivocation’ and then use the words ‘faith’ and ‘Christian’ as common examples.
Although it would still be pointless because the faithful care even less about logical fallacies than they do about evidence.
To quote Martin Luther: “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
[Not certain where he stood on the use of Oxford Commas.]

[Irishman]

Faith is a method of belief justification (or if not justification, maintenance). It is in contrast with experimental/rational justification.

[Valden]

Faith is a method of belief justification (or if not justification, maintenance). It is in contrast with experimental/rational justification.

This is such a false distinction;

To have faith in something is to place trust in it. I place trust in my axiomatic belief that the physical world is real and the reports of my senses are real, I trust that the universe was not created ten seconds ago with the appearance of age and false memory traces in my brain. I trust my own cognitive faculties. Do all these things make me irrational!? If so then we are all 'irrational'.

Your position is rendered utterly circular anyway because you clearly have faith in the validity of your own logic, otherwise you would not have spoken. That's right, we take the axiomatic principles of our own logic on faith. Having faith in a religious experience or particular philosophy really isn't as 'irrational' as some hardline scientific realists would have us believe.

[chriscase]

This is such a false distinction;

To have faith in something is to place trust in it. I place trust in my axiomatic belief that the physical world is real and the reports of my senses are real, I trust that the universe was not created ten seconds ago with the appearance of age and false memory traces in my brain. I trust my own cognitive faculties. Do all these things make me irrational!? If so then we are all 'irrational'.

Your position is rendered utterly circular anyway because you clearly have faith in the validity of your own logic, otherwise you would not have spoken. That's right, we take the axiomatic principles of our own logic on faith. Having faith in a religious experience or particular philosophy really isn't as 'irrational' as some hardline scientific realists would have us believe.

You are equivocating two distinct uses of the term "faith". Faith in ordinary reality is not the same as faith in the supernatural. Consider what makes faith in the ordinary strong, as opposed to what makes faith in the supernatural strong. Ordinary "faith" in the ordinary outcomes of ordinary events increases with the rational appraisal of the likelihood of the outcome. Supernatural faith in the intercession of a non-ordinary agency increases with the rational appraisal of the implausibility of the outcome.

Consider two sports fans observing a sporting event. The clock is winding down and one team has a nearly insurmountable lead. The chances of the trailing team have dwindled to almost zero, and the final few seconds of the game are approaching. Now, one spectator is sitting back in his seat, calmly noting the time and nodding his head. "I believe my team is going to win," he says confidently. A second spectator is on his knees, his frame tense in supplication, straining through the last moments of the event as if he is on the field of play himself. "I believe my team will win," he whispers, fervently.

Is their faith the same thing? No. One is based on the almost certain victory of one team, which gives rise to an ordinary, rational expectation of the outcome. The other is based on the almost certain defeat of the underdog, which gives rise to a primitive reaction - the reflex to try to influence the outcome via the intercession of an agency, which somehow depends on the strength of the believer's faith. This is magical thinking, the fantasy that we can influence objective reality by the strength of our wishes. It's a fundamental confusion of the subjective with the objective, and the diametric opposite of rationality.