Do you believe everyone has faith or am I just being ridiculous? — OpinionsMatter

The truth is we don't really have any insider knowledge about how the universe works. We just kind of have to reverse engineer knowledge from our surroundings. You do have to put faith in what you hope will work, but you also shouldn't put faith in things you know won't. I don't put faith in God coming down and curing my sinus infection and flu right now because that is unprecedented in both my life and all reliable documentation. I do have faith in the antibiotics I'm taking because I've taken them before and so have many others.

Everyone has to put faith in something, but it is in the best interest of everyone to put our faith into things that we have worked to prove and have a good chance of actually helping us.

No you are correct.
Fath is simply something we believe and understand.

Most people have fath in what they see some in logic, ext. I would think it would be extremely hard to find someone without faith in something.

Faith isnt a reason for believing in something. You do not believe in your driving because “faith”. You have actual reasons for believing in your driving, a track record, training, experience etc.
Faith is precisly NOT a reason for believing in something. It is the answer you give only if you have no reason. If you had a reason, you would just say that.
So the “faith” in god is different than “faith” in your driving. The latter is just something people say, a figure of speech.
When asked why someone believes in their driving, they can cite reasons. When someone is asked why they believe in god, they might have reasons for believing in god as well. If that reason is “faith”, they are confused. That is not a reason, it is the answer given when you do not have a reason.
This is what puts the claims “i have faith in the sun coming up tomorrow” or “i have faith in my wifes fidelity” in a different catagory than “i have faith in god”. The former is referencing their belief not their reasons for that belief. The latter references their reason for belief (from their confusion they fail to see that it is in fact not a reason).
When someone claims everyone has faith in something, this is merely an attempt to muddy that distinction so that all belief has equal merit or is in the same catagory so they no longer have to justify their belief in their imaginary fairy tale friend. Excepting of course, for people who cite actual reasons for believing in their imaginary fairy tale friend, as opposed to people who cite “faith” as their reason.

Do you believe everyone has faith or am I just being ridiculous? — OpinionsMatter

I think you’re basically correct, but there’s more that can be said.

First of all, it is indeed correct to say that faith in a broad sense is fundamental to the social order. Currencies, contracts, insurance policies, and so on, all depend in some sense on faith - faith that the other parties to the contract will observe it, and so on.

The Buddhist word for faith is ‘sraddha’ meaning ‘to place one’s heart upon’. So it’s a sense of trust or confidence. However it doesn’t have quite the same connotation of ‘unquestioning trust’ that it does in Christianity (Protestantism especially).

But I think a deeper issue is the role that ‘faith’ plays in Western culture, in particular. This goes back to the big historical conflicts over orthodoxy and heresy. The issue there was, not only that you were expected to have faith in particular religious doctrines and principles, but that if your opinion was deemed incorrect, you could be punished for it. Recall the 30 Years War which was marked by appalling slaughter initially along religious sectarian fault lines, not to mention the Inquisition. Then also consider the emphasis that Protestant Christianity put on ‘faith alone’ as the only means to salvation. I think these factors have had huge influence on how Western culture appraises the matter as these are the kinds of conflicts that drove the adoption of secularism as a guiding philosophy.

(You might find this OP interesting.)

Faith can represent a number of daily activities, but it happens to go unnoticed majority of the time. — OpinionsMatter

Indeed. Just today I saw a guy riding in a narrow bike lane while hundreds of total strangers raced by at 60mph just a few away. Now THAT is faith!

The technical definition of faith is: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.(noun) — OpinionsMatter

It's trust or confidence in something in lieu of other evidence/support for it.

Well, I define ''faith'' as belief sans evidence. This is probably the conventional meaning of ''faith''.

If so then you violate the fundamental principle of rationality which is to believe only on evidence. Basically, you're irrational if faith is your way to truth. In fact the path of faith will probably take you away from the truth.

When you cite examples of faith-based behavior in our lives you forget that they actually aren't so. For instance I believe my car will take me to my destination because it always has and there's no reason why it should fail. No faith involved here. Simple reasoning with justifications for your belief.

Religious faith is an extreme sort of attitude wherein you don't provide evidence for theism and also refuse to acknowledge counterevidence. This, I think, is being dangerously irrational.

In conversations about the existence or non-existence of gods (or a god)...

...a "belief" is merely a blind guess disguised by the use of the word "belief." That is all it is...a blind guess that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist.

"Faith" is merely INSISTING your blind guess is correct.

Mostly that "insisting" is done on the theistic side of the question...which is why "faith" is more closely associated with theistic sentiments.

BUT...if someone on the non-theistic side makes a blind guess that no gods exist...and insists that the blind guess is correct...then "faith" applies there also.

Faith is often taken to be 'blind' belief, without proof or evidence. But in classical Greek pistis (faith) had significations 1: that which gives confidence/assurance 2: means of persuasion (such as an argument or proof).

The problem with that for religious belief is that it undermines the conviction/commitment of it. If you only believe because there's a logical argument or proof, then your belief isn't as significant, and your belief can also crumble if the logical argument is shown to have problems.

That's why faith as something sans other evidence is cherished in religion.

Yes but belief sans evidence is a modern derivation that had nothing to do with the word in its original form. Wherever the word pistis appeared in the NT, it carried with it these significations (assurance, persuasion, trust) which were known to the Greeks. The nuance and richness of the word was lost through transliteration somewhere along the way. I think its worth getting at the etymological roots. The title of the thread is: faith - it's not what you think. I'm inclined to agree.

If you agree that faith in the earlier sense undermines conviction/commitment/significance of religious belief, why would you think that the other sense is something we should go back to and that the original sense is more nuanced and richer?

What would make the original sense different from belief in something based on logical argumentation or empirical evidence?

Yep. I'm in another concurrent discussion in the philosophy of religion section where someone has just accused my position of being "just faith", even though anyone here who pays any attention to my posting history, and who is not biased against me, can see that I am about as far from that mindset as possible.

If I was going to go by faith, or just faith, then I would go with something more creative: I have faith that the world is a giant floppy green giraffe called "Philip", and we are all fleas on the giraffe who dream of being humans on a planet called "Earth".

It is both true and trivial that there is faith in a sense besides religious faith.

Yes, Ive been following that and some of your other discussions. Word of advice: just lead with a good breakdown of good ol’ Dunning Kruger. Everything you need to know will be included in the responses and you’ll waste less time. ;)

Damn. That explains so much.

Lol, ill be less entertained so on 2nd thought just keep going.

The dictionary describes faith in two senses.
Faith
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
-a system of religious belief.
"the Christian faith"

-a strongly held belief or theory.
"An Atheists faith"
I copied and pasted this directly from an online version of Merriam Webster's Dictionary.
I said what I said based on this entry. If you care to disprove the dictionary, which is based on logic, go ahead. But you all put faith in your houses that they aren't going to fall over and crush you, because your house has never failed you before. You completely trust your house, therefore you have faith in it. You don't necessarily have faith in the second sense, but you definitely do have it in the first.

I guess that's the problem when you link too many respondents into a reply and try to speak to them all at once. Why would I care to disprove the dictionary? That's laughable. I already acknowledged both usages and commented that this is trivial. It is something already known, not a novel insight. Faith - it's what we already knew it to be through prior knowledge of the English language. If you have something to say that's more worthy of my thinking, then hit me up.

Do you believe everyone has faith or am I just being ridiculous? — OpinionsMatter

I agree that it's reasonable to use the terms belief and faith as synonyms, and that in this sense everyone "has faith" in something or other.

I disagree that "faith" always means or entails "complete trust", despite the fact that this is one of several definitions in the dictionary. That particular sense seems especially ill-suited if we allow that faith can be a matter of degree: It seems nonsense to distinguish between having a little bit of complete trust and a whole lot of complete trust. Rather, a little faith is a little trust, and a lot of faith is a lot of trust. I'm not sure what "complete trust" is supposed to mean in this context, especially if trust is in principle revocable as events unfold.

I might not say that faith "is also a feeling". I prefer to say that the fact of faith -- of belief, of expectation, of trust -- is associated or from time to time may be associated with feelings. Hume suggests that belief is correlated with something like a "feeling" of belief. We might say there is "something it's like" to believe, to expect, to assert, to remember. Of course there is a difference between "having" a belief and "entertaining" or "affirming" a belief; and we needn't be aware of a belief as such in order to be said by others to have it. Beliefs are often ascribed in the third-person in light of an agent's behavior.

Preachers and theologians sometimes speak of "pure faith". One way to take this phrase is to suggest that pure faith is or entails belief without rational justification, or perhaps regardless of rational justification. That's been one traditional refuge for the faithful, whereby one may wave off embroilment in the interminable controversies that have churned through Western culture since the Enlightenment in the wake of philosophical anxieties about an alleged conflict between reason and science, on the one hand, and morality and religion, on the other.

Here too we recognize use of the same phrase in secular contexts. A stranger makes an extraordinary promise. I find myself believing he will come through -- or I decide to trust that he will come through -- though I know there's at least as much reason to expect the opposite outcome. I might say my belief in the promise is a matter of "pure faith".

Faith is often taken to be 'blind' belief, without proof or evidence. But in classical Greek pistis (faith) had significations 1: that which gives confidence/assurance 2: means of persuasion (such as an argument or proof). — emancipate

Not sure of what you were trying to say here, but, respectfully as possible, you missed.

In classical Greek science...the Earth was a relatively flat disc in the center of the universe with the Sun, moon and stars circling it.

Your post was irrelevant to the points I made. Not sure why you put everyone altogether in that as if your short response could adequately cover so many peoples points, but at least I can give a clear answer to your question. Yes, you are being ridiculous.

No I wasn't, I can see that now. Why I put every one together was so that you could see what my final conclusion was concerning this post. I am now convinced that either 1. The dictionary had a typo
or 2. Faith is miscommunicated sometimes.

Yes, I see that putting too many people in that was not exactly reasonable, but I wanted to get the message out.

The dictionary describes faith in two senses.
Faith
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
-a system of religious belief.
"the Christian faith"

-a strongly held belief or theory.
"An Atheists faith"
I copied and pasted this directly from an online version of Merriam Webster's Dictionary.
I said what I said based on this entry. If you care to disprove the dictionary, which is based on logic, go ahead. But you all put faith in your houses that they aren't going to fall over and crush you, because your house has never failed you before. You completely trust your house, therefore you have faith in it. You don't necessarily have faith in the second sense, but you definitely do have it in the first. — OpinionsMatter

Dictionaries primarily tell us how words are used...not what they mean.

If you were to look up "curse" "profanity" "vulgarity" "swearing" in a dictionary...you might easily find that they are considered synonyms.

They are not...each has a meaning which is rather specific...but they are used interchangeably.

In any case, the words "belief" and "believe" are used in a religious discussion context as a disguise for blind guess.

By both sides of the issue.

A person saying, "I believe in God" (a form I detest) what they actually are saying is, "In the absence of any reliable, unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...I am blindly guessing that at least one god exists...and that god happens to be the God I worship."

"Faith"...is insisting that that blind guess is correct.

Same thing applies to the other side of the issue. A person saying, "I do not believe in God" (another form I detest) is actually saying one of two things. Either:

a) In the absence of any reliable, unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...my blind guess is that the god being discussed does not exist...or...

b) "In the absence of any reliable, unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...my blind guess is that no gods exist. (More often the latter than the former.)

"Faith" for these people is the insistence that their blind guess is correct.


Think about it. You'll see that I am correct.

↪TogetherTurtle
↪DingoJones
↪Wayfarer
↪Terrapin Station
↪TheMadFool
↪Frank Apisa
↪emancipate
↪S — OpinionsMatter

If you care to disprove the dictionary, which is based on logic — OpinionsMatter

:brow: Isn't the dictionary supposed to be reporting word usage?

Isn't the rest of our lives based on popular opinion? It is based on logic in the sense that everyone else uses it that way, is one person's opinion going to change it? Absolutely not. Yes it reports word usage, but is it not us, as humans, who dictate what is and isn't considered to be the 'right way' to use those words?

I was saying I did have the first definition. Not sure exactly why I was grouped in, but I’m sure it’s just a misunderstanding.

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes their mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop
44
Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes their mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Nice commentary. I was with you right up until the end.

Then it got a bit murky...with that, "We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong..."

Did you mean to write, "We cannot show our faith based friends that they MAY BE wrong?"

Or did you mean what you wrote?

If you meant what you wrote...we part company.

Take talking serpents and donkeys and a water walking Jesus.

If your faith tells you they are all real, and logic and reason does not tell you that your belief is completely wrong, then you are allowing your faith in the supernatural to guide you instead of logic and reason.

If you are doing that then I do not mind parting company with you are you have allowed your mind to go into intellectual and moral dissonance.

If you are that then I will give you cab fare to leave ASAP. You, as this link indicates, are a disgrace to the human race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=related

Regards
DL