As sited earlier in this thread.

Knowledge, Belief, and Faith by Anthony Kenny; The Royal Institute of Philosophy Annual Lecture 2007, given at the London School of Economics, January 24th, 2007. — Banno

It's a commonplace. Same as used by Kierkegaard. The faith of Abraham when he bound Isaac. The submission in Islam.

It's a commonplace. Same as used by Kierkegaard. The faith of Abraham when he bound Isaac. — Banno

It really isn't a commonplace that faith is belief in spite of evidence to the contrary. You've misunderstood.

Don't think so. Don't much care, either, unless you can cite some reliable sources or present more than your own opine.

Putting it roughly and briefly,

One believes some statement when one holds it to be true.
One is certain of some statement when one does not subject it to doubt.
One has faith in a statement when one believes it regardless of the evidence. — Banno

To my mind you have these wrong except the first. Re the second, if one believes some statement one does not subject it to doubt, so the second is the same in substance as the first if you mean "feels certain" .

So the problem is, you are again speaking ambiguously; by "is certain" did you mean "feels certain" or something like "has the certitude of common knowledge or assent"; the two are not the same. You need to speak with more clarity. Re the third, I would say no one believes anything without also believing they have evidence.

So again, here there is the ambiguity between feeling certain (thinking one has evidence) and being certain (having what would generally or commonly be counted as evidence). The latter is obviously much harder to establish, at least in many cases.

More nuance, Banno!

Don't think so. Don't much care, either, unless you can cite some reliable sources or present more than your own opine. — Banno

If you could present the part of Kenny's speech that produced your impression we discuss that.

If you're at all familiar with Kierkegaard, you'd already know that's not how he used the idea of faith.

If you could be bothered doing some reading we might continue this discussion.

you could be bothered doing so — Banno

I've read both Augustine and Kierkegaard. No need to be testy.

Then make your case.

No. I have in mind Kenny's "Faith, then, resembles knowledge in being irrevocable, but differs from it in being a commitment in the absence of adequate evidence" Faith is unwarranted belief.

Knowledge, Belief, and Faith. — Banno

Then make your argument — Banno

Argument as in: explain what Augustine and Kierkegaard meant by faith?

Knowledge, Belief, and Faith.

Faith is definitely unwarranted belief. It has this in common with many ordinary beliefs. The element of will is the distinction.

Faith is not belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. No one has ever used the word that way as far as I know.

Faith also has a sense of loyalty or reliance, like being faithful to one's family or fulfilling obligations.

Faith is definitely unwarranted belief. It has this in common with many ordinary beliefs. The element of will is the distinction. — Tate

Faith can be distinguished from certainty in that faith is that sub-class of certainty such that no evidence to the contrary will be sufficient to dissuade the believer.

Of course, there is more to it than just that, as the Kenny article and others cited previously attest, but that's the nub for the purposes of the OP.

Indeed, there alternate senses and uses. The purpose here is to present a grammar that displays the contradiction in @Ken Edwards's OP.

Faith can be distinguished from certainty in that faith is that sub-class of certainty such that no evidence to the contrary will be sufficient to dissuade the believer. — Banno

Is this how you are interpreting the above quote from Kenny? Or did he go into this issue of evidence to the contrary later in the speech?

You mean this part:

I, personally, "believe in" many noble things including such things as "Love" or "Democracy", etc but, in contrast, I believe nothing whatsoever.

I, personally hate and despise the action of "believing". — Ken Edwards

It certainly appears contradictory. I would have put it differently, and sort of the other way around. I may believe things but I'm very cautious about using the term 'believe' because of the social implications. I would rather not have faith in institutions but accept and entertain them provisionally for pragmatic reasons. Matters of the heart are irrational by nature.

Seems you are getting the idea.

If you wish to discuss Kenny, have a read and get back to me.

So the problem is, you are again speaking ambiguously; by "is certain" did you mean "feels certain" or something like "has the certitude of common knowledge or assent"; the two are not the same. You need to speak with more clarity. Re the third, I would say no one believes anything without also believing they have evidence. — Janus

As pointed out previously, here you seem to be vacillating between "is certain" and "is true", as you must do if you are to adopt a pragmatic theory of truth. Is that your goal?

Seems you are getting the idea. — Banno

My agreement with the spirit of the OP hasn’t changed, though I think that I’ve benefited from the discussion in exploring the nature of belief.

As pointed out previously, here you seem to be vacillating between "is certain" and "is true", as you must do if you are to adopt a pragmatic theory of truth. Is that your goal? — Banno

Not at all; I think things may be true regardless of how certain we might feel, but anything we can be certain of must be true. I don't think any belief falls into that category; only what counts as knowledge does. "Is certain" means, for me, justified; and something is not really justified if our reasons for believing it are not sound..

Again I'm not clear what you mean by "is certain". Do you simply means 'feel certain' or something else?

And again, your distinction of "feels certain" from "is certain" does not make sense.

Wo else makes this distinction? Can you point to a source?

And again, your distinction of "feels certain" from "is certain" does not make sense.

Wo else makes this distinction? Can you point to a source? — Banno

We are discussing this, so why attempt to bring others into it? Let's start with baby steps: do you think anything at all is certain?

Universeness, if your point is that same as Ken's, quoted here, which I agree with, then it is not "inconvenient for my point" at all. — Janus

Again, you misinterpret. It’s inconvenient to your position that what I stated was pointless.
In my opinion, @Ken Edwards is mainly concerned about how individuals abuse the tendency of others to follow blindly and become believers in poorly formed and sometime quite nefarious proposals such as ‘all Belgians are….. or all Jews are……. You can fill in any nationality and claim you like.
You claim you have some position short of ‘believing.’
I think the reasoning you have offered is mere ‘hair splitting,’ at best. Although I am sure you BELIEVE what you type.

I was merely pointing out that I have some sympathy for those who are fooled into believing inaccurate statements and I lay some of the blame at the door of all of us who have to take care about the accuracy of what we say or type.

Perhaps ‘what is the capital of France?’ Should be considered an inaccurate question and it should be cited as such and perhaps it’s important to suggest it is changed to ‘what is the name of the capital city of France,’ so that someone cannot offer the answer ‘F,’ by conflating the question with ‘What is the capital letter of France?’
Nefarious individuals twist meanings all the time. This is the basic tool of fake news and is used to fool people into believing what the nefarious want them to believe.
Just like the majority of people who incorrectly believe the Sun rises and sets.

Holding beliefs is unavoidable, trying to dilute the term into something without the word belief with a lower level of conviction merely indicates a belief held with a lower level of conviction.

The way to help stop people believing in and acting (sometimes lethally) based on false claims is to encourage everyone to fact check as much as possible, not encourage alternatives to the word or concept of belief.

We are discussing this, so why attempt to bring others into it? — Janus

Simply by way of trying to make sense of your position.

Let's start with baby steps: do you think anything at all is certain? — Janus

Yes, lots of things. Next.

So...

"Having studied the subject a bit, I believe that Democracy is the best form of government for the people that I know of, at least when it has adequate supporting institutions, checks on power, etc."

...wouldn't make any sense to you? It seems a perfectly normal sentence to me.

Obviously when someone says they "believe in..." something, that's a different expression with a different meaning altogether.

It's constructed in at least the sense that the screen is distinguished from everything else. — praxis

As has already clarified, that's what 'seeing' is. We don't 'see' the constructed screen (as if we could see the deconstructed one, but don't). Rather 'seeing' something is the process itself. Identifying edges, corners, texture, colour, size...naming it, remembering it, picturing it's use, imagining it's far side...these processes are what 'seeing' consists of.

The object of our belief (the computer screen) is already a public object, an agreement between us and the world as to it's constitution, so there's no 'real' computer screen that we're seeing a model of. But this is slightly off topic... and we've been through it before.

The way to help stop people believing in and acting (sometimes lethally) based on false claims is to encourage everyone to fact check as much as possible, not encourage alternatives to the word or concept of belief. — universeness

Isn’t fact checking or verification the alternative to belief? If you’re opposed to holding something to be true then, if it matters, you must be for verifying that it’s true.

"Having studied the subject a bit, I believe that Democracy is the best form of government for the people that I know of, at least when it has adequate supporting institutions, checks on power, etc."

...wouldn't make any sense to you? It seems a perfectly normal sentence to me. — Isaac

It suggests more a commitment, that I will ‘hold it to be true’, when I would rather be more adaptive.

As ↪Banno has already clarified, that's what 'seeing' is. We don't 'see' the constructed screen (as if we could see the deconstructed one, but don't). Rather 'seeing' something is the process itself. Identifying edges, corners, texture, colour, size...naming it, remembering it, picturing it's use, imagining it's far side...these processes are what 'seeing' consists of. — Isaac

I know it’s beside the point, I’m just saying that the mind is constructing it in at least the sense that the screen is distinguished from everything else. Is it really separate?

It suggests more a commitment, that I will ‘hold it to be true’, when I would rather be more adaptive. — praxis

Surprising, but I'll take your word for it. It suggests nothing of the sort to me. American vs English usage perhaps?

Is it really separate? — praxis

Yes. It really is separate, because it is an 'it' only by our use. Outside of that, there's no 'it' to be 'really' anything.

A computer screen is the thing we look at, talk about, use... The means by which we come to do so are the matter of interest to neuroscientists, cognitive psychologists and the like. How we come to believe what we believe is what I study, but in doing so I'm not studying the real thing (in itself), that's the object, I'm studying the means by which we come to have such an object.

Perception is probably the easiest process to explain the principle with. When you see a rose, the thing you're seeing is a rose - the thing you pick, the thing which pricks your finger. Anything outside of your Markov blanket is part of the means by which you see a rose, not the 'real' rose.

Does that make sense?

Isn’t fact checking or verification the alternative to belief? If you’re opposed to holding something to be true then, if it matters, you must be for verifying that it’s true. — praxis

I’m not against holding something to be true but I am advocating for some rigorous background checking to make sure YOUR conviction or belief it’s true is justified to YOU and you can cite your sources and also cite why your sources are reliable and rational. Fact checking is a way to support personal beliefs.