Question about "faith"

[Belacqua]

John has been clear and consistent throughout the conversation that belief comes first, and then once you believe that a thing exists, you may or may not trust it. He says that it works for God as it works for the dentist. 

You refuse to believe that this dentist you TRUST isn't real.
You just gotta have faith that this dentist you trust is real.

Apparently, you refuse to believe that John and many others really do believe that God is real. For them, it's not like believing in an unreal dentist. The conviction that God is real is not a faith proposition, since they are convinced.

To say he "refuses" to believe that God isn't real, you'd have to show that the non-existence of God has been adequately demonstrated, and that he is stubbornly ignoring that proof. 

It may be that to people who don't believe in God, a Christian's belief seems to include something like faith, where "faith" refers to some kind of willful choice to accept something that hasn't been demonstrated. Like believing there must be a dentist around the next corner, even though you have no evidence for that. John has been clear that he isn't using the word "faith" in that way.

For people who already believe, though, the belief question and the faith question are separate. Belief is prior to trust. 

So if you want to assert that John's belief is like believing in a dentist that doesn't exist, you'd need to go back to all the old arguments that there is no God. But that's a separate question to the one about faith. And since he's pretty clearly heard all the old arguments, I think we can be confident that he's sincere in what he says. He believes, for what he takes to be good reasons, and the trust follows on from that.

[Sal]

I can equally have a faith in something else, without ever knowing of its existence. Doesn't make it correct outside of my head.

No one is arguing that theists believe in god. They clearly do. They have faith.

The problem arises with the realization that faith isn't uniform, why else would there be so many versions and interpretations of the supernatural? Genuine question. There's no proposition in faith (nor is it able to make such Stuff) which can be argued against/for.

In physics, e.g., there are many hypotheses about the nature of the internal workings beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Some are conjecture, others parsimonious, others still explore on the basis of theory into making some hypothesis about black holes. But like any other experimentalist, astrophysicist, astronomist and theoretical physicist, they do not claim faith in their work. There are several stories of scientists in their respective fields who were proven wrong and conceded their points. Not because of humility or some other notion of defeat or whatever for human considerations, but because of falsifiability. it could be proven wrong.

Faith has none of that. It's conceit, a mask made out of emotion for pretend epistemology.

[Belacqua]

There's no proposition in faith (nor is it able to make such Stuff) which can be argued against/for.

Here you're using the word "faith" to mean something like "unsupported belief." 

That may be a common way to use the word. But to be clear, John is not using it that way.

Having faith in a dentist is a proposition that may be argued for or against. That she has a good reputation, and has always done good work for me in the past, serves as evidence for my argument that faith in the dentist is justified. 

I moved to Chicago, and the evidence was clear that the post office didn't deliver properly. So I lost faith in the post office there, though its existence was never in doubt. I moved to Japan, and all my mail got through. So I gained faith in the Japanese post office. This faith or lack of faith was based on clear experiential evidence.

[Sal]

There's no proposition in faith (nor is it able to make such Stuff) which can be argued against/for.

Here you're using the word "faith" to mean something like "unsupported belief." 

I'm really not. I'm using a conceptualization of 'faith' disparately distinct from 'unsupported belief', and 'belief' in general.

That may be a common way to use the word. But to be clear, John is not using it that way.

Having faith in a dentist is a proposition that may be argued for or against. That she has a good reputation, and has always done good work for me in the past, serves as evidence for my argument that faith in the dentist is justified. 

I moved to Chicago, and the evidence was clear that the post office didn't deliver properly. So I lost faith in the post office there, though its existence was never in doubt. I moved to Japan, and all my mail got through. So I gained faith in the Japanese post office. This faith or lack of faith was based on clear experiential evidence.

That's an ablative use of 'faith', to mean the same as 'justified belief'.

Justified belief is based on inductive experience, same shit has happened over and over for the same conditions and you form a belief based on that experience that the same will happen again further down the line, a justified belief.

When there's a change of "the same conditions", like there's for trust or believing someone, then you'll start to doubt if that belief was warranted. It sorta loses its status as a 'justified belief', like only seeing white swans your entire life and then suddenly coming across a black swan (there are more problems with induction, I'm sure you're aware of, but we use it all the time for everything else).

[Belacqua]

I'm using a conceptualization of 'faith' disparately distinct from 'unsupported belief', and 'belief' in general.

"I believe it" means "I hold it to be true." A person may hold well-supported beliefs or not-well-supported beliefs.

In what way are you using "he has faith" to mean something other than "he holds things to be true which are not well-supported"?

That's an ablative use of 'faith', to mean the same as 'justified belief'.

It's also a normal, everyday use of the word.

The first definition that Google gives me is this one:

faith
/feɪθ/

noun
noun: faith
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

The second one is probably the one you prefer.

2.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"

So both senses are common. Is there some reason why you'd like to limit the word to the second definition?

Justified belief is based on inductive experience, same shit has happened over and over for the same conditions and you form a belief based on that experience that the same will happen again further down the line, a justified belief.

The word "faith" may be used to refer to justified belief. As when I have faith that the dentist will do the best job she can.

Unless you can show that the first definition, above, is not acceptable.

When there's a change of "the same conditions", like there's for trust or believing someone, then you'll start to doubt if that belief was warranted. It sorta loses its status as a 'justified belief', like only seeing white swans your entire life and then suddenly coming across a black swan (there are more problems with induction, I'm sure you're aware of, but we use it all the time for everything else).

Yes, if my dentist goes senile, or if she's caught using inferior materials, then conditions have changed and I will lose faith in her. 

[Sal]

I'm using a conceptualization of 'faith' disparately distinct from 'unsupported belief', and 'belief' in general.

"I believe it" means "I hold it to be true." A person may hold well-supported beliefs or not-well-supported beliefs.

In what way are you using "he has faith" to mean something other than "he holds things to be true which are not well-supported"?

The inability to have complete trust.

No matter how close you get to 100% trust, it never becomes faith. That's not a problem in science or other uses of induction. It is a problem for faith.

That's an ablative use of 'faith', to mean the same as 'justified belief'.

It's also a normal, everyday use of the word.

No. That's reductive, at best.

I don't care what the general, majority use of the word 'faith' is. Doesn't answer how it is a-rationally substituted for trust.

The first definition that Google gives me is this one:

faith
/feɪθ/

noun
noun: faith
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

The second one is probably the one you prefer.

Incorrect.

Beyond the definition, I accept both definitions. Do you?

The difference between you and me, I suppose, is the inherent conflict between the use of 2 definitions of a word that can be, sometimes, be resolved by using them in a proper context.

Don't believe me? Look up the definition for 'human' in the Google dictionary, for an example of what I mean by this. We're not exactly using Lojban here.

2.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"

So both senses are common. Is there some reason why you'd like to limit the word to the second definition?

Precision.

In the tool for communication of the internal model of the contents of one's own brain; instead of using language like a sniper rifle (e.g. Lojban), we're currently using English, which is a fucking scattergun. Good at close range, fucking useless at a sufficient distance.

Justified belief is based on inductive experience, same shit has happened over and over for the same conditions and you form a belief based on that experience that the same will happen again further down the line, a justified belief.

The word "faith" may be used to refer to justified belief. As when I have faith that the dentist will do the best job she can.

Unless you can show that the first definition, above, is not acceptable.

That's easy.

You don't have, despite all your handwaving, complete trust in your dentist.

When there's a change of "the same conditions", like there's for trust or believing someone, then you'll start to doubt if that belief was warranted. It sorta loses its status as a 'justified belief', like only seeing white swans your entire life and then suddenly coming across a black swan (there are more problems with induction, I'm sure you're aware of, but we use it all the time for everything else).

Yes, if my dentist goes senile, or if she's caught using inferior materials, then conditions have changed and I will lose faith in her. 

Can you now see why atheists demarcate between the terms of the words 'faith' and 'trust'? You never had complete trust in her. Sure, you use, reductively, the word 'faith' - but at the cost of precision.

---

I have a reason why I don't use faith, ever.

But unless you accept this little sidetrack of the definitions between the two terms, I see no point in continuing this discussion (although that alone won't hinder me). Because, if you don't, then we're talking past each other. I say po-ta-toe, you say pot-a-toe.

[Foxaèr]

Theists love their semantics in relation to faith.

In the end, faith in god is faith in something that has no evidence to prove its existence.

Religious faith is not good, it's quite the opposite. It's pure ignorance, it's the inability to accept reality.

[John 6IX Breezy]

When a dictionary lists multiple definitions for a word (e.g. duck meaning animal vs duck meaning crouch) each definition functions as a separate word.

Faith 1 represents the way Scripture uses the word. This is seen both by the context in which it is used in the Bible (to trust) and the definition of the Greek word from which it is translated: πίστις

Faith 2 is a different word. It is used in a different context for a different reason. Note that the synonyms for Faith 2 include religion, church, denomination, etc. For example, "the Christian Faith" and "the Christian Religion" are synonymous with each other.

-Faith 1 is how Christians use the word.
-Faith 2 is what religions are called more broadly.
-Faith 3 (not found in the dictionary) is the atheist definition.

[Foxaèr]

But in the end, it's trust in a person that doesn't exist, because there's no evidence for god's existence.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Exactly; that's a far better argument:

"The God you have faith in doesn't exist" vs "you believe God exists because of faith."