Question about "faith"

[Sal]

What are axioms to the theist?

[possibletarian]

Here's a quote from one of the founders of my church; it's possibly the most widely read and distributed book within my church, first published back in 1892:

"God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith.

Excellent

His existence,

Evidence ?

His character,

What evidence do you have of his character ?

the truthfulness of His word,

Hmmmmm

are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant.

So other people who believe the same, like in any other religion, cult, or conspiracy theory ? who also rely on other people's testimony.  At some point it has to touch reality with proof wouldn't you think.

Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt.

That's what you would expect with no proof or convincing evidence.. aye ?  If it was convincing we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration.

(E.G.W., Steps to Christ)

The reasoning of others without proof or evidence we can't agree is convincing evidence ?

The reasonableness of faith is nothing new. Perhaps that is why I'm so good at substantiating my arguments with references--it was engrained in me by my church.

Sustaining an argument is doing just that, someone of almost any religion, cult, flat earther could do that but it always falls short of proof.
Evidence and convincing evidence are just that, that's why for supernatural beings (of any ilk)  you always have to add faith.

So far as i can see the above statement is just a deceleration that faith in god is reasonable by assertion.


For the record John, I can agree that faith is trust, i don't have a problem with that at all.

[Belacqua]

John Bunyan in the 1600s; E.G. White in the 1800s; C.S. Lewis in the 1900s; and me in the 2020;  these are bits of data that when accounted for decrease the accuracy of your words and increase the accuracy of mine.

The faith/trust you place on chairs when you sit on them, is of the same kind that parted the Jordan when Israel stepped foot on it's shores. Nothing changed except for what the proposition entailed and who the proposer was.

I just read the article on faith in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Very long and detailed and carefully worded. Though it brings up a number of aspects that we haven't discussed on this thread (it's extremely detailed) it concurs with what you've been saying. Faith, for them, is a reason-based act of will which shows trust. 

One thing that article emphasizes is humility. And I know that humility is way out of fashion these days, especially in America, but it makes sense when talking about trust. In these examples, the trust we have in sitting down on a chair is less relevant than the trust we have when relying on some process or activity which we don't entirely understand. 

The obvious example would be flying in an airplane. I can't describe the physics of airplanes very well; I couldn't fly a plane; I couldn't fix one -- but I've often ridden in them without fear. 

Or for example a politician who votes to fund some kind of big scientific research project. The politician has no personal knowledge that the Large Hadron Collider will work, but he trusts the boffins who say that it will. 

Since Catholics emphasize that there is a great deal about God which is beyond human understanding, it makes sense that they would point to this aspect of faith. 

As with the other kinds we've been discussing, this faith in God is not different in kind from the faith we have in surgeons or pilots or others who do things to us that we don't fully understand. 

Atheists will want to argue that such faith in God isn't warranted, but I don't see how anyone could argue that this is not what faith consists of.

[Simon Moon]

As with the other kinds we've been discussing, this faith in God is not different in kind from the faith we have in surgeons or pilots or others who do things to us that we don't fully understand. 

Atheists will want to argue that such faith in God isn't warranted, but I don't see how anyone could argue that this is not what faith consists of.

What I find unwarranted, is using the same word to describe the reasonable expectations in: surgeons or pilots, etc, that is based on mountains of evidence.

We can demonstrate that surgeons and pilots exist. We can demonstrate that their science based training continues to be effective. We can demonstrate the effectiveness of planes, surgical tools, medication, etc, etc, etc.

None of that can be demonstrated in the same way for the existence of a god. Not even close. All people talk about as evidence are: personal experience, ancient texts, philosophical arguments, improvements in their life, etc.

If a theist can't point to their god in the same way I can point to a plane, then how can it not be argued that they are using another definition of the word faith? Even if they say they are using in the same way as trust.

If a surgeon using came into the operating room, and said he was not going to use the demonstrable evidential methods of a trained surgeon, but instead was going to operate based on philosophical arguments, or a personal experience with a god, even the most devooute theist here would go running from that operating room.

Using the word faith to describe our demonstrably evidence based acceptance in the reliability of pilots and surgeons, and using the same word (with ostensibly the same meaning) to describe anything related to god belief, seems to smack of intellectual dishonesty, to me. Either that, or major cognitive dissonance.

[Belacqua]

What I find unwarranted, is using the same word to describe the reasonable expectations in: surgeons or pilots, etc, that is based on mountains of evidence. 

Right; that's what I said.
You disagree on whether the faith is justified.

[Sal]

What I find unwarranted, is using the same word to describe the reasonable expectations in: surgeons or pilots, etc, that is based on mountains of evidence. 

Right; that's what I said.
You disagree on whether the faith is justified.

I wonder why.

[Mister Agenda]

When something is based on evidence and reason, I find that I need not exert any will to believe it.

[Gwaithmir]

A great example of the atheist definition of faith lol.

faith, n., A firm, stoic, and sacred conviction which is both adopted and maintained independent of physical evidence or logical proof. (Aron Ra)

That certainly makes more sense than the way you define it.

[Sal]

When something is based on evidence and reason, I find that I need not exert any will to believe it.

I find that's less than half the story.

[John 6IX Breezy]

When something is based on evidence and reason, I find that I need not exert any will to believe it.

Provided the evidence and reasons meet your personal threshold. And of course, your biases against a proposition undoubtedly raise your acceptance threshold, and biases in favor lower it.

The forum seems unaware that people's thresholds differ; and they judge another's threshold by contrasting it to their own. To use a potentially wrong analogy: for some people the existence of Black Holes is reasonable based solely on the math; for others it is reasonable only when gravitational waves are measured; and still others find it unreasonable until a Black Hole is observed directly.

When it comes to God: for some people, existence alone is sufficient to make the proposition reasonable; for others, nothing short of directly observing God makes it reasonable. And between these ends lies an entire spectrum of thresholds that are as diverse as the brains in which they occur. 

As such my only concern is not to convince anyone here that God exists, but getting them to see how someone else might find it reasonable, and to respect that.