Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 12, 2024, 12:10 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"
#21
RE: Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"
(March 25, 2015 at 9:08 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote:
(March 25, 2015 at 8:40 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

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.

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#22
RE: Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"
(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.)
Reply
#23
RE: Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"
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.

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#24
RE: Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"
(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.
Tongue
Reply
#25
RE: Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"
(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.
Reply
#26
RE: Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"
(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.
Quote:I don't understand why you'd come to a discussion forum, and then proceed to reap from visibility any voice that disagrees with you. If you're going to do that, why not just sit in front of a mirror and pat yourself on the back continuously?
-Esquilax

Evolution - Adapt or be eaten.
Reply
#27
RE: Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"
(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?
Reply
#28
RE: Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"
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.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#29
RE: Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"
(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....
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply
#30
RE: Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"
"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.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How can a Christian reject part of the Bible and still call themselves a Christian? KUSA 371 100855 May 3, 2020 at 1:04 am
Last Post: Paleophyte
  In Christianity, blind faith is good faith Rwandrall 43 17026 May 16, 2015 at 1:39 pm
Last Post: Nope
  Why i'm not a Christian and why i left the faith as a child. dyresand 20 6379 November 8, 2014 at 10:01 am
Last Post: dyresand
  Yet more christian logic: christian sues for not being given a job she refuses to do. Esquilax 21 8007 July 20, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Last Post: ThomM
  Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution Whateverist 70 23606 July 29, 2013 at 10:03 am
Last Post: Bad Writer
  Relationships - Christian and non-Christian way Ciel_Rouge 6 6683 August 21, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Last Post: frankiej
  Do You Think Christians Are Crazy and Delusional Or Just Plain Thick? Xavier 43 18809 February 3, 2012 at 7:31 am
Last Post: Zen Badger



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)