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).
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).
