Hmm... I think that definition, while working on an everyday level, isn't good enough. What is proof, what constitutes proof? I think a better definition is just accepting an axiom. If there are any reasons to accept an axiom, then it really it does not seem to be an axiom.
Remember that I stated reason, proof, and rational thought. The difference is succinct, we have proof that gravity functions
right now but only logic dictates that it will function 10 minutes from now. I cannot prove this, but it is reasonable to assume this because there is no reason or proof to the contrary and logic does not dictate to the contrary. Under my definition, this means I believe that there will be gravity 10 minutes ago, but I do not have faith in this belief. If I were given proof to the contrary, then I would weigh it and either call the fellow a kook, or freak out-whichever act the proof provided dictates.
I am not placing artificial value (ie faith) to the idea of there being gravity 10 minutes from now if I believe this with logic behind it and no proof or logic to the contrary.
I disagree. Rational simply means be reasonable, and because many of things we do in life are predicated on the hope we have assessed the situation properly rather than on confirmed evidence, we trust--have faith in--our assessment will hold up. So, because we seldom have enough evidence of correctness for most of what we do, I think it is most rational to operate on the faith of the evidence at hand--either acting on it or not. How else would one get through life?
It depends. Some faith is quite reasonable and rational even though it can't be proven with absolute certainty. For example: I have faith that the plane I'm taking next month for a business trip won't crash. I can't prove that, but it's a reasonable belief, that can be supported by past experience.
I'd say faith becomes irrational when it exists despite all objective evidence and experience to the contrary.
It's harder for me to analyze your statements because neither of you stated how you define faith. But the arguments are basically the same. First, I didn't predicate the lack of faith on proof, but rather on the totality of proof, reason, and rational thought (evidence and logic). One need not know something absolutely to believe in it without faith, one need only understand that a particular belief is
more likely than the other based on existing logic, reason, and proof. If the body of logic, reason, and proof changes the likelihood of a given belief from being likely to unlikely, then a person without faith in it would be willing to change their opinion whereas someone with faith in it might not. Let's have an example:
Late 90's/early thousands scientists were busy calculating the omega value of the universe, this is basically a value that represents the ratio of matter/energy to volume of space in the universe. Any value above 1 represents curvature, 1 represents a flat plane, and below 1 represents a strange, parabolic euler shape. Before omega was calculated, I believed that space/time was curved. This made logical sense to me, and the body of proof was either ambiguous or for it. with very little to the contrary. Once omega was calculated it ended up being below 1 (hence the 'missing mass' of the universe) and so I discarded that belief in the face of the superior proof to the contrary. If I had faith in a round universe, then I would have held that idea regardless, but because I had no faith, I recognized that the body of proof contrary to my held opinion was superior than for it, and so I changed my opinion. If the body of proof/reason/logic swings the other way, my opinion will change, because I do not attach artificial significance to the opinion.
N.B. The value of omega can change in the future, based on new findings. Science is fluid, it changes and grows based on new evidence and findings.
