What is "FAITH"

[NomenMihiNon]

For a bunch that has no faith in anything you sure seem to have a lot of opinions about faith. You know what they say about opinions, right. You should try and experience faith before running it into the ground.

It's a common theme in atheist communities like this one to host several members who are former believers. Who's to say they haven't already tried it?

I've never killed anyone, so does that mean I can't have an opinion about homocide?

In all seriousness, I am precisely the type of person that Tartarus Sauce is talking about. I spent many years trying to have faith, and not out a fear of retribution or mortality or anything like that. I wanted to believe that there is some sort of force or entity that watches over and cares for us and can be appeased to influence the workings of the world in our favor, and with which we can commune in order to have more meaningful, fulfilling lives. But ultimately, my inability to ignore the complete lack of evidence for any such thing, and the abundance of evidence that the universe is but a random, insentient system devoid of any inherent meaning save for that which we give it, made my having such faith impossible.

I'm not saying everything I feel is slave to hard evidence. I believe my friends care about me, I trust that I can confide in them, and I hope that no matter what we can remain lifelong friends. These things may be similar to faith, but they are not the same as faith. For I know it's possible they only find my company entertaining and don't truly care about me as a person, or that one of them could easily go blabbing my secrets to everyone we know, or that any number of changes in our lives could cause us to gradually lose touch. I don't mean to sound nihilist, for in spite my acceptance of life's uncertainties I still try my best to lead a happy, fulfilling existence. Whereas faith is the denial of that uncertainty, and thus the assertion of "knowledge" of things that you merely believe instead of actually know.

[Consilius]

I think you are painting faith in a bad light.
Faith and doubt are opposing terms. Both are built on evidence. This evidence causes a person to lean in one direction or the other in their belief in something. Neither faith nor doubt suggest that you are absolutely certain of anything.
Christians believe there is a God. Claiming to know for certain is as valid as claims of miracles or revelations.
Even God doesn't want people to to know for certain that he is real, because the fact is that nobody does or ever will. Words like 'believe', 'trust', and 'faith' are used in the Bible and by Christians show this.

---

Before you ask, the 'evidence' I accept is the philosophical claim that the unchanging and invisible nature of goodness suggests the nature of God. This good is 'revealed' in a way through personal subjective encounters of goodness e.g. getting 'lucky'.

[Walking Void]

I think you are painting faith in a bad light.
Faith and doubt are opposing terms. Both are built on evidence. This evidence causes a person to lean in one direction or the other in their belief in something. Neither faith nor doubt suggest that you are absolutely certain of anything.

I agree on 1 point, and disagree on another. I agree that faith and doubt are opposing terms. That is why I work with 1 but not the other. I work with doubt in my studies, and work to reduce that doubt so that I can be in favour of clarity (when doubt is no longer the majority). It is not easily calculated, but I can decide if I am in favour of 1 thing over another or have more answers than questions. I also take my understanding of things as granted, but never as absolute truths. These are truths that I work with for the present until a new discovery is made and I change an understanding or 2. I do NOT work with faith, I work with loyalty. Faith is more spiritual than it is a realistic component. I cannot apply my imagination to real life because I have to be able to test those imaginations and be able to reproduce them as real-world application. I have loyalty to what I have learned till now. Up to now, what I understand has not failed me yet I understand so little.

The part that I disagree on is faith being built on evidence. I use religion as an example. If I was a christian and I had faith in a god, do I need evidence or can I just be fulfilled thinking a certain way without change? Unfortunately, pathologically a god is a real concept in their mind, yet they do not to see it as imagination. It is true to them without evidence. It just... is.

When biologists like Richard Dawkins who have information in their own field of bio discover new information, I do not have faith that they have information (truth [not absolute truth]): I have loyalty to them that they were right.

[Strongbad]

What is Faith:

Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

- Ryft

Gosh, that's all so official and Latin-y sounding! And, it's oh-so persuasive...except for one little thing: the "notitia" is total bullshit.

Faith is merely the gullibility to believe the claims made by others, without evidence.

[FallentoReason]

When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content),

Naturally.

assensus (intellectual assent),

This is the weakest link. All sorts of erronious reasoning could lead to thinking that Christianity is true/false. I'm glad this has been accepted as part of the formulation of Faith though, because it means "God works in mysterious ways" doesn't cut it anymore. That isn't anymore an application of assensus than saying garden gnomes make my lawn grow.

and fiducia (committed trust).

Given the above, this now works against the concept of Faith. Do you trust that you trust your reasoning is valid? Do you trust that assessment of you trusting that you trust your reasoning is valid?

Seems like the word "trust" is its own definition of "faith", otherwise you have an infinite regression of trust, which no one has the capability of applying.

[Consilius]

I think you are painting faith in a bad light.
Faith and doubt are opposing terms. Both are built on evidence. This evidence causes a person to lean in one direction or the other in their belief in something. Neither faith nor doubt suggest that you are absolutely certain of anything.

I agree on 1 point, and disagree on another. I agree that faith and doubt are opposing terms. That is why I work with 1 but not the other. I work with doubt in my studies, and work to reduce that doubt so that I can be in favour of clarity (when doubt is no longer the majority). It is not easily calculated, but I can decide if I am in favour of 1 thing over another or have more answers than questions. I also take my understanding of things as granted, but never as absolute truths. These are truths that I work with for the present until a new discovery is made and I change an understanding or 2. I do NOT work with faith, I work with loyalty. Faith is more spiritual than it is a realistic component. I cannot apply my imagination to real life because I have to be able to test those imaginations and be able to reproduce them as real-world application. I have loyalty to what I have learned till now. Up to now, what I understand has not failed me yet I understand so little.

The part that I disagree on is faith being built on evidence. I use religion as an example. If I was a christian and I had faith in a god, do I need evidence or can I just be fulfilled thinking a certain way without change? Unfortunately, pathologically a god is a real concept in their mind, yet they do not to see it as imagination. It is true to them without evidence. It just... is.

When biologists like Richard Dawkins who have information in their own field of bio discover new information, I do not have faith that they have information (truth [not absolute truth]): I have loyalty to them that they were right.

I feel that faith and trust are just synonyms for believing without being sure. The word 'faith' being repeatedly used by Christianity has made you forget that it can be as secular as it is religious. Isn't "I have faith in you" the same as "I trust you?" Having faith or trust in a thing is an attribute of being loyal to a thing. You are loyal to Dawkins (as I am to much of modern science) because you believe that what he said is true; you were not present at the experiment, nor did you verify it yourself, but you believe what he says. You can not know for certain, but you would agree what he said is true.
Faith, again, can and at many times must be applied to real life. The issue with it is that it has the 'results may vary' disclaimer attatched. And this is in a world where we are used to nothing less than perfection and certainty.
It woud be unfair to request faith without evidence. I feel that the constant and unchanging goodness in the world (that is as close to a summary of that argument as I can get) proves that there is a God. It probably isn't sufficient to prove anything without a doubt, but it leans me in the direction of believing (not knowing) that God is real. Therefore, I have faith.

[Walking Void]

Having faith or trust in a thing is an attribute of being loyal to a thing. You are loyal to Dawkins (as I am to much of modern science) because you believe that what he said is true; you were not present at the experiment, nor did you verify it yourself, but you believe what he says. You can not know for certain, but you would agree what he said is true.

However! Being scientists, I could ask him of the evidence used to make such claims and He WILL provide.

Whether it be a formula that can be reproduced or a visual diagram explaining the structure of a new fatty acid, it can be tested. And when it can be tested, it is part of our life.

[Consilius]

Then why DON'T you ask for evidence whenever a scientist makes a claim?

---

Are only scientists entitled to believe in other scientists because they have the luxury of being able to directly obtain evidence?

[Walking Void]

Then why DON'T you ask for evidence whenever a scientist makes a claim?

---

Are only scientists entitled to believe in other scientists because they have the luxury of being able to directly obtain evidence?

Whoa whoa whoa, I need an umbrella for this rainstorm of assumptions. When someone makes a claim they need to have evidence. Right away. When it is post-publication and all We have are records there might not be all of the evidence on for example the Internet.

But We expect all of the credible evidence on the Internet already, do We not? Leaks. The grand database is bursting with unopened files.

You can just about learn anything You desire by utilizing Google. Scientists are not entitled to classified information unless they are being used by governments or corporations when that information thus becomes valuable intel. But no, EVERYONE is entitled to all information, some conflicting situations with this are only because someone is hiding said information, if there is any.

But like I said, if You desire knowledge, seek it out.

[Godscreated]

It's a common theme in atheist communities like this one to host several members who are former believers. Who's to say they haven't already tried it?

I've never killed anyone, so does that mean I can't have an opinion about homocide?

In all seriousness, I am precisely the type of person that Tartarus Sauce is talking about. I spent many years trying to have faith, and not out a fear of retribution or mortality or anything like that. I wanted to believe that there is some sort of force or entity that watches over and cares for us and can be appeased to influence the workings of the world in our favor, and with which we can commune in order to have more meaningful, fulfilling lives. But ultimately, my inability to ignore the complete lack of evidence for any such thing, and the abundance of evidence that the universe is but a random, insentient system devoid of any inherent meaning save for that which we give it, made my having such faith impossible.

I'm not saying everything I feel is slave to hard evidence. I believe my friends care about me, I trust that I can confide in them, and I hope that no matter what we can remain lifelong friends. These things may be similar to faith, but they are not the same as faith. For I know it's possible they only find my company entertaining and don't truly care about me as a person, or that one of them could easily go blabbing my secrets to everyone we know, or that any number of changes in our lives could cause us to gradually lose touch. I don't mean to sound nihilist, for in spite my acceptance of life's uncertainties I still try my best to lead a happy, fulfilling existence. Whereas faith is the denial of that uncertainty, and thus the assertion of "knowledge" of things that you merely believe instead of actually know.

I'm not trying to say you did not believe but, as I see it faith is not obtained by trying, faith comes to one through the Holy Spirit and you accept that faith given to you. As I have said many times, one receives faith and that faith leads to belief and belief to knowledge and all this comes to us by God through scriptures and experience as your relationship grows in Christ. All things come through Christ and not of ourselves.