Adrian and I disagree on faith.

[leo-rcc]

I somehow missed this part.

Having a belief in something without having good evidence to do so. I disagree with leo's definition.

Then I'd like to hear why you do.

I don't think believing that the sun will come up tomorrow is a faith based position, since you have good reason to believe so, same with having a job next month.

I don't consider previous experience valid evidence for future events. It cannot foresee the future.

There is no valid reason to assume that the Earth will keep rotating so you will see the Sun again. Is is a matter of faith. No matter how many good reasons you have of believing that you are correct does not make it any less of an assumption. Just because we know the Earth has always done it, is not a guarantee that it will continue to rotate.

Is the Earth likely to continue? Yes. Is it certain to continue? No. Do we therefore assume that the Earth stops rotating? No. We assume that it does continue, we have to accept on faith that it doesn't stop.

As for having a job next month, that is so dependent on so many factors that you have no choice but to accept on faith that you will still have a job next month and work hard to balance the odds in your favour. There is no basis outside faith to assume so.

I am not trying to be argumentative here, but I want to see why your definition of faith is different from mine.

[Edwardo Piet]

Evidence isn't certain. That's why it's evidence right? Otherwise it would be proof. So yes the sun is not certain, yes it is likely as you say, so yes it's based on evidence (and likelihood) and not proof/absolute certainty.

I also define faith as belief despite the lack of evidence.

EvF

[leo-rcc]

It is of course evidence, it is evidence that the Earth has rotated before, and we can collect data to verify that it is in fact rotating now, but I dispute it is valid evidence to use for future events. It is circumstantial evidence at best.

[Zhalentine]

It is of course evidence, it is evidence that the Earth has rotated before, and we can collect data to verify that it is in fact rotating now, but I dispute it is valid evidence to use for future events. It is circumstantial evidence at best.

It isn't just previous experience that leads us to believe the Earth will continue to rotate. Newton's laws are pretty good evidence for why we think the Earth will continue to rotate.

[Purple Rabbit]

It isn't just previous experience that leads us to believe the Earth will continue to rotate. Newton's laws are pretty good evidence for why we think the Earth will continue to rotate.

That is begging the question. Newton's Laws were derived from obervation. They have no absolute bearing on future events. The nature of Newton's Laws is that they are based on inductive reasoning not on deductive reasoning. This problem is known as the Problem of Induction and since David Hume its fundamental nature has been pointed out clearly.

[Tiberius]

My main disagreement is that your definition of the word "faith" is so wide it can include absolutely any position of belief or disbelief. Indeed, under your definition, believing the sun will come up tomorrow is a faith position.

However, this use of the word "faith" seems to divide statements into those that are "certain" to happen, and those that are not "certain" to happen. Anything that is certain to happen isn't a faith statement, and anything that isn't certain, is. It's almost as if you've replaced a belief that has the ability to be wrong with the word "faith".

It is my contention that beliefs can be either right or wrong, and that some beliefs are based on faith, whilst others are based on fact and reasoning. To classify all beliefs as faith (which is what you are doing since no belief can be "certain", otherwise it would classify as knowledge) is to make the term completely useless...why not just say belief instead?

We don't just say "belief" instead because faith-based positions are positions that are based on little to no evidence or reasoning. The belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on science, our observation of nature, our reasoning that the planet cannot simply stop turning, etc, etc. It is a reasoned position. It may be wrong, and it's certainly not certain (pun intended), but that doesn't make it a faith position. A faith position is something like "There exists a floating giant marshmallow with 12 eyes in the red spot on Jupiter". We have no evidence to suggest the existence of such a marshmallow, nor do we have any reasoning to think such a statement is true, so if someone believes it, they are making a faith based position.

Your position is an interesting one, but I disagree with it because it seems to simply conflate the issue, making any belief a faith belief, and thus the word "faith" becomes meaningless. If you disagree, I'd like to see a belief that isn't a faith-based one by your definition. I can't think of one that you can't simply argue is based on "faith", if you use the arguments you've used on my examples (sun, job, etc).

[leo-rcc]

I don't really see that much difference between belief and faith, other than that faith is a belief that one forces itself into because there are no verifiable factors. Future events are not verifiable since they have not existed yet.

You can believe that I have a job now, which you can verify, and faith I still have a job next month.

[Tiberius]

Haven't I got to take your word that you have a job now? Couldn't that also be a faith position? It could be argued that you have to have faith to believe your eyes are showing you what is there, since you can't confirm they are working 100% accurately.

I don't think being able to verify something equates faith either. All reasoned arguments for future events are faith based in that case. We have very good prediction of the weather currently, due to global communication and weather monitoring devices (and the computing technology to run large algorithms). Are we still taking the prediction on "faith" in this case?

Do you think faith is a single description, or more of a range? I.e. belief in God requires enormous amounts of faith, but believing in the weather prediction requires very little in comparison.

[leo-rcc]

Haven't I got to take your word that you have a job now?

You can find out, you can call my boss, you can verify. That is not the case with what will happen next month.

Couldn't that also be a faith position? It could be argued that you have to have faith to believe your eyes are showing you what is there, since you can't confirm they are working 100% accurately.

Sure, and that still doesn't do anything to disspell the argument that assuming future events is faith based.

I don't think being able to verify something equates faith either. All reasoned arguments for future events are faith based in that case.

Indeed, so what?

We have very good prediction of the weather currently, due to global communication and weather monitoring devices (and the computing technology to run large algorithms). Are we still taking the prediction on "faith" in this case?

Yes we are. And we are frequently wrong as well.

Do you think faith is a single description, or more of a range? I.e. belief in God requires enormous amounts of faith, but believing in the weather prediction requires very little in comparison.

There can be levels I suppose. Having faith that the earth keeps rotating requires less faith for me than me still having a job next month. But it still requires faith none the less.

[Violet]

My main disagreement is that your definition of the word "faith" is so wide it can include absolutely any position of belief or disbelief. Indeed, under your definition, believing the sun will come up tomorrow is a faith position.

However, this use of the word "faith" seems to divide statements into those that are "certain" to happen, and those that are not "certain" to happen. Anything that is certain to happen isn't a faith statement, and anything that isn't certain, is. It's almost as if you've replaced a belief that has the ability to be wrong with the word "faith".

How can you discern what is "certain", then? Beliefs can be right or wrong, well placed or misplaced... but believing something to be true is having faith in it's truth... belief is not a replacement for faith, it is a synonym...

It is my contention that beliefs can be either right or wrong, and that some beliefs are based on faith, whilst others are based on fact and reasoning. To classify all beliefs as faith (which is what you are doing since no belief can be "certain", otherwise it would classify as knowledge) is to make the term completely useless...why not just say belief instead?

Why not say 'towering' instead of 'gigantic'? Why not say 'vexed' instead of 'irked'? Why not say 'fat' instead of 'obese'? Because they are synonyms, and we use whatever synonym we feel like using in that case...?

You almost undoubtably have faith in fact and reasoning... you probably believe them to be far more stable/informative about an issue than personal insight could ever be. Faith isn't to suggest what it is based in, only the nature of assuming something to be correct. At the base of everything, there is circular faith (Ie: I believe because I do). One could not seriously function without accepting things as true with enough evidence/reason to believe them. Note @ the bold: the reasoning that supports the belief is not the belief itself. Faith is a separate issue from the justification one needs before they will hold faith in something.

We don't just say "belief" instead because faith-based positions are positions that are based on little to no evidence or reasoning. The belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on science, our observation of nature, our reasoning that the planet cannot simply stop turning, etc, etc. It is a reasoned position. It may be wrong, and it's certainly not certain (pun intended), but that doesn't make it a faith position. A faith position is something like "There exists a floating giant marshmallow with 12 eyes in the red spot on Jupiter". We have no evidence to suggest the existence of such a spot, nor do we have any reasoning to think such a statement is true, so if someone believes it, they are making a faith based position.

You seem to be confusing a position of little faith as being without faith, and a position of great faith as necessary for it to be faith in the first place. It's fine by me if you define faith as how I define a great deal of faith... but it remains that faith itself is unrelated to a qualifier.

Your position is an interesting one, but I disagree with it because it seems to simply conflate the issue, making any belief a faith belief, and thus the word "faith" becomes meaningless. If you disagree, I'd like to see a belief that isn't a faith-based one by your definition. I can't think of one that you can't simply argue is based on "faith", if you use the arguments you've used on my examples (sun, job, etc).

Belief = faith... I honestly can't see why you think that this shouldn't be so. Think about it Adrian: if you don't have faith in reasoning and science, then what can you trust (insert god arguments here )? I think that faith is a word that atheists and scientists need to "get over", kind of like how morbidly obese people need to "get over" being called fat.

All that holding faith to a definition that doesn't require a qualifier does... is help one understand the purpose of why we must have faith/belief/trust/confidence in things. It doesn't detract evidence, it doesn't spoil the data, and it doesn't interfere with science or reason in the slightest.

Faith does not become meaningless just because it is a synonym with belief...