Wow Cadet this all got real ugly real quick sorry to see that.
Faith is at the very least involved in the acquisition of belief and is therefore an epistemological term. Epistemology is more than simply giving an account of the acquisition of episteme or scientific knowledge (here science is used in it proper sense not to simply refer to the modern methodology of much of natural "science", but something more like what Descartes meant by
"certain and indubitable" knowledge). But when people speak of knowledge as a result of faith they usually mean a number of different things. I don't necessarily agree with all of them but I can try to present them to you if you're really trying to understand.
Very good points in your post. Here's another thought:
Semantics is always the problem with gaining a consensus in understanding the term "faith", and can certainly be effected by ones concept of the make up of man. To someone who does not believe man has a spirit, and there is no such thing outside of man either, "faith" will certainly have a meaning much different than someone who who believes man does have a spirit and is in touch with it, and therefore with the one who created him, also a Spirit. "Faith", then becomes "action based on belief", belief in what that Spirit has communicated. You may believe fire kills, but if your house is burning and you don't leave it, "belief" alone won't save you, taking action on what you believe will. So, to those who dismiss the possibility of "spirit/Spirit", all theists are considered to be delusional, in denial of reality. To those who believe in spirit/Spirit, those who don't are totally unaware of the greater reality, like a two dimensional man only able to experience length and width, not aware of the third dimension of height, not knowing what's going on right above his head. Perspectives are completely different and therefore so are the semantics and understanding of the concept.
First we have to understand that "
πιστις" in Greek has a slightly wider valence that "faith". There is no other word for "belief" or "trust" in Greek, so we have to allow four our use of of the word to be slightly wider that we are used to it. I think, however, allowing this gives us a better understanding of the term as it is used in English. This is of course why your definition won't do, because it is not the definition given in Hebrews. It would be difficult to make it a coherent sentence in Greek: "
Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις . . . πραγμάτων πίστις οὐ βλεπομένων". Or "but faith is . . . the faith in things unseen". Instead of second "
πίστις" Hebrews uses the word, "
ἔλεγχος" or "evidence", though some translations use a more subjective word like "
conviction". Faith is the evidence of things unseen and before that "the substance of things hoped for", again some translations say something more subjective like "
realization" rather than "substance". In this sense faith functions not as a complete epistemology, but as an epistemological tool with which to determine beliefs. It is clear then that it is not the propositional faith which is commonly spoken of in modern parlance.
With that cleared up, I'd say there are essentially four categories by which faith is said to amount to knowledge.
1. Some times we speak of knowing something because we believe an authority who we conclude knows it. Here we have reason for believing that (we have "seen") that the authority is
trustworthy and we have understood ("seen" the meaning of) the authority's relation of its knowledge, but we have not seen the thing itself. As a result of this we have sufficient epsitemic warrant to consider our proposition known. You or I might for example say that we know the gravitational constant to be G = 6.673 x 10-11 N m2/kg2, but I suspect neither of us has done Cavendish's experiments by which he discovered it. Either this meant to be proper scientific knowledge, in the sense that we have scientific knowledge of the trustworthiness of the authority and the meaning of the authority's relation, and thus know with the same certainty that what he says it true. Of course some times we mean knowledge in a lesser sense than scientific knowledge. I and most modern philosophers would go so far as to claim that scientific knowledge never occurs naturally and thus if we use the word "knowledge" of this or anything but the soon to be gotten to third sense in which faith can result in knowledge, we must be using it in some lesser sense. Typically this lesser sense is understood to be the knowledge resulting from "moral certainty", which is often defined variously as either the certainty necessary to justify actions, which is basically how Descartes defines it in his
Principles of Philosophy, or that highest level of certainty as is possible regarding particulars, which particulars contain that which "
concern[s ] human character and conduct”.
2. Sometimes "knowledge" does not refer to questions concern questions of certainty. Sometimes it just means retention of some information. In that case, insofar as revelation can result in the acquisition/acceptance of this information, one could say that knowledge is gained by means of faith. By trusting in the authority or if the word faith is meant in the broader sense of a system of religion. In a related manner, one might be said to have knowledge regarding the faith, both regarding certainty and simple retention/acquisition, because one knows things about the faith.
3. Propositional faith can be said to result in knowledge because a) we can use those propositions as principals from which to draw other propositions, b) our intellectual effort and time can be directed away from lines of thought which will not be fruitful, c) directing our minds to consider the proposition of faith can result in greater understanding and indeed sometimes something can only be really grasped by living it out which one would not do without some level of faith in it, d) some times our incapacity to see is a result of intellectual or moral weakness. If Christian faith is truly regenerative then the holding and/or living out of the faith could strengthen these intellectual or moral faculties.
4. Some times faith is meant to be understood as a capacity for ascertaining truth enlivened/enlightened by the Holy Spirit. This is principally what is meant by the "gift of faith". Essential the idea is that the Holy Spirit is in some sense manipulating out epistemic apparatus in order for guide us into truth. Sometimes this is understood as a guiding or strengthening of our normal epistemological faculties. Other times it is understood as the implanting or overhauling of our intuitive faculty such that something is seen to be clearly the case based on what would other otherwise be no or insufficient evidence.
I hope that helps and that it can spur additional worthwhile discussion if that is helpful.
