(March 25, 2015 at 9:08 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote:

(March 25, 2015 at 8:40 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

---

"Faith," like many words in English, has more than one meaning. Take a look at:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all


Because of the various definitions, people often speak past each other. The proper solution, of course, is to ask each other, what, precisely, does one mean by ones terms?

For a discussion of 2 (which is essentially belief without evidence), take a look at what William Kingdon Clifford had to say at:

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

If you are thinking of 1, there is a difference between trusting someone or something with evidence that the thing one is trusting is actually trustworthy, and trusting it without such evidence.

---

I'm surprised that the dictionary definitions in your quote all suggest that faith is either 0% or 100%. It would be very common to say "I don't have too much faith in political promises", or "how much faith do you have in Social Security?" Those statement imply that faith can range between 0% and 100%. Maybe I'm weird, but I would use "faith" in those sentences commonly.

Take another look. "Strong belief" is not the same as 100% certainty.

The main thing, though, it that there is a difference between "trust" and in "belief without evidence," and that is where people often end up talking past each other. One can trust someone or some thing for good reason (i.e., because of the evidence), though some people trust without evidence (which is stupid). "Trust," it itself, is neither good nor bad. It is a question of what one trusts, and, more importantly, why one trusts it, that determines whether the trust is reasonable or stupid.

With the second of the definitions from Oxford, the "spiritual conviction rather than proof" is code for having no evidence for the belief. If there were evidence, it would be "proof" in the relevant sense of the term:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

As for "belief without evidence," that is always stupid. And immoral. For why it is immoral, see the essay by William Kingdon Clifford at:

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

If you want to read a batshit crazy response, read the essay by William James after it at the above link. If you have trouble realizing that it is batshit crazy, read the essay that follows the William James essay by A.J. Burger.

(March 25, 2015 at 9:31 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: There are degrees of faith. A biblical example would be Jesus being persuaded to go to someone house in order to heal them. Meanwhile a Roman centurion who realized the concept of authority, knew Jesus could Just "order" the healing to be done, no need to actually go to the house. Hence why his faith was greater.

Sometimes I wonder if the born-again Christian theology is recycled Gnosticism. The Gnostic Christians believed that knowing the truth would resurrect them to heaven after death.

It seems that this might be part of the problem with the Christian definition of "faith". Christians use faith in Christianity/Jesus as the key to heaven.

The epistle of James has a more practical definition of "faith" that connects it with decision making. (Of course "faith" is a result of experiences too. A person can't simply decide to have faith. I'm not sure if James covers that or not.)

Sometimes people willfully utilize the ambiguity of the term "faith," jumping back and forth between definitions, in an effort to evade reality. This is called "equivocation." See:

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

This is a common ploy that I have encountered in the question of "faith" and its relationship with Christianity. "Trust" and "belief without evidence" are not at all the same thing, and it is unfortunate that the same word can mean either.

(March 25, 2015 at 10:33 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Sometimes people willfully utilize the ambiguity of the term "faith," jumping back and forth between definitions, in an effort to evade reality. This is called "equivocation." See:

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

This is a common ploy that I have encountered in the question of "faith" and its relationship with Christianity. "Trust" and "belief without evidence" are not at all the same thing, and it is unfortunate that the same word can mean either.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that definition of equivocation.
I like this example:

Quote: Margarine is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than butter.
Therefore, margarine is better than butter.

(March 25, 2015 at 10:33 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Sometimes people willfully utilize the ambiguity of the term "faith," jumping back and forth between definitions,... "Trust" and "belief without evidence" are not at all the same thing, and it is unfortunate that the same word can mean either.

I agree that much 'church-speak' does cause a great deal of confusion. But I also agree with Hugs because Christian faith is not about a philosophical/scientific inquiry; but rather a personal relationship.

(March 25, 2015 at 8:54 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: A man's word used to mean something. There was a time where you would take the word of a "gentleman" without second thought.

Your cynicism is more a reflection of the times you live in.

Hang on, WHEN did this period of a [gentle]mans word being acceptable on spec, take place? Because having studied history through from the dawn of civilisation shows continuous use of lying and manipulation.
Taking a mans word isn't a sign of that person's integrity, it is a sign of the gullibility and/or servility of the recipient.
You are expected to neglect checks and investigations as a mark of loyalty and obedience to the alpha-male under the implicit threat of reprisal.
This is why I never expect anyone to take me at my word but to investigate for themselves.

(March 25, 2015 at 9:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Where did I indicate specifically what I believe? Do I choose to take God at his word? Yes.

"Let God be true, but every man a liar;" - Romans 3:4

There is a difference between believing God and some random man off the street. I would even go as far as saying it is no longer faith in my case, I have SEEN the evidence, there isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that God exists.
Whether you believe that or not makes no difference to me.

There are 3 sources of evidence: statements by others which you choose to believe, experiences of your own to which you attribute ideas (about what they are and what they mean), and scientific evidence.

You cannot, based on your words, have learned about God from some "random man off the street." And you cannot have gleaned it from scientific evidence, of which there is none.

Therefore, you are depending on your own experiences to provide you with direct insight about God. And yet, strangely, you quote the Bible, which was written by people. It's clear, therefore, that you ACTUALLY learned about God from the people around you and the people who made the Biblical texts-- and that, having learned these ideas, you are interpreting your own experiences through that world view.

So the question is this: do those writers, or church leaders, or you yourself have an unquestionably accurate view of the world, of the universe, or of God? You will answer yes, probably because your feelings are so strong that it seems they must certainly represent reality. However, on what rational basis will you answer yes? On what basis can you establish that your religious texts, your religious leaders, your respected community members, and your experiences be seen as intrinsically more truthful that the religious texts, leaders, respected community members and experiences of a Hindu, a Satanist, or a cult?

The first problem is professed beliefs versus actual beliefs.

I don't buy for a second that all christians actually believe everything they say they believe. I think a lot of the time they are saying what they would like to believe. The fact that their actions betray these beliefs almost constantly is my evidence.

But if we assume someone has a religious belief that they really, truly believe. They can't give a rational reason (without embarressing themselves to anyone familiar with logical fallacies) so they say it's faith. Belief is a state of mind, so as has been said, they do have a reason. They may not even know what the reason is themself. But in my opinion "faith" is going to be made up mostly of emotional reasons such as fear, hope, security, sensations that have become associated with ritual, and so on. In other words they are reasons, but not good ones for establishing truth.

That is another point, I don't feel that every christian really cares about what is true, but rather what is comfortable.

(March 25, 2015 at 8:42 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Having to repeatedly preform tests actually shows lack of confidence.

But herein also lies the fundamental flaw of taking anything at face value. I guess you're pretty glad a prescribed medication has been tested again and again before you're taking it.

Same goes for most things science is involved and is used in our daily lives. A car, an airplane....

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

If there was any evidence for religious claims, believers would happily pack it up our asses. The fact this doesn't happen is sufficient to conclude it's all bullshit. The concept of faith is invoked in the absence of evidence to satisfy the yearning to justify belief.