Let's define "faith"

[KnowtheSilence]

Atheists get criticized for taking the word "faith" to mean something along the lines of "belief without sufficient evidence," even though sometimes that's pretty much what we're given to work with when someone tries to describe their faith to us. But I want to give people a fair shake, so I'd like to hear what Christians and other religious people typically mean when they use the word.

Anticipating some areas where I see this heading, here are some follow-up questions for various definitions that might be given:

Faith = "hope"
But do you base any knowledge claims on faith(hope)? When you say something like "I have faith that Jesus resurrected," are you really just saying "I have hope that Jesus resurrected"?

Faith = "trust"
So, if someone says something like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheists" or "atheists have more faith than me," are they really saying "I don't have enough trust to be an atheist"? Trust in what?

Hebrews 11:1
Faith is "the substance of things hoped for" and "the evidence of things unseen." Can you unpack this for me at all? Is this at all different from saying "faith = hope"?

Thanks in advance to all who participate.

 

[jax5434]

Let's define "faith"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheists get criticized for taking the word "faith" to mean something along the lines of "belief without sufficient evidence," even though sometimes that's pretty much what we're given to work with when someone tries to describe their faith to us. But I want to give people a fair shake, so I'd like to hear what Christians and other religious people typically mean when they use the word.

The Greek word commonly translated as faith is "pistis" which literally means forensic proof. While it can be read as this in some parts of Acts faith is usually used in the sense of loyalty and trust.

Faith = "hope"
But do you base any knowledge claims on faith(hope)?

As opposed to loyalty and trust? No. Hope is defined as faith in things unseen.

When you say something like "I have faith that Jesus resurrected," are you really just saying "I have hope that Jesus resurrected"?

No. Because while hope is faith in things unseen, most Christians believe that there is also significant historical evidence for the resurrection. (please note I did not say proof)

Faith = "trust"

and loyalty

So, if someone says something like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheists" or "atheists have more faith than me," are they really saying "I don't have enough trust to be an atheist"?

Christianity is a big tent so you may get some different answers but for me ; yes that is what I am saying.

Trust in what?

Trust in a philosophical system that denies what seems so obvious.

Hebrews 11:1
Faith is "the substance of things hoped for" and "the evidence of things unseen." Can you unpack this for me at all? Is this at all different from saying "faith = hope"?

Not precisely the same thing but closely related.
Again you will probably get some different answers.

Thanks in advance to all who participate.

You're Welcome
God Bless
Jax_________________

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm not sure it can be defined for all Christians. Christians that try to base their beliefs on reason and evidence will probably understand 'faith' differently from Christians who doesn't examine their beliefs too deeply.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Trust in a philosophical system that denies what seems so obvious.


You're Welcome
God Bless
Jax_________________

Atheism isn't a "philosophical system."

Good question by the O P though.

 

[jax5434]

Atheism isn't a "philosophical system."

DEFINITIONS OF: philosophical system. n a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school. (Emphasis mine)
from VOCABULARY.COM.

Atheism is a philosophical system, Christianity is a philosophical system, Liberalism is a philosophical system, Hinduism, Buddhism, Libertarianism, and many many many more things are philosophical systems.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Ana the Ist]

DEFINITIONS OF: philosophical system. n a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school. (Emphasis mine)
from VOCABULARY.COM.

Atheism is a philosophical system, Christianity is a philosophical system, Liberalism is a philosophical system, Hinduism, Buddhism, Libertarianism, and many many many more things are philosophical systems.

God Bless
Jax

And since atheism is a lack of a belief it doesn't exactly qualify now does it?

Or does your lack of belief in fairies (I'm assuming, of course) qualify as a "philosophical system"?

 

[Smidlee]

Trying to nail down the definition of faith can be as difficult as defining love and life.
Some will see love nothing more than an emotion which probably true to them while for others love goes much deeper which is also true for them.

Faith is the same way. Some will claimed faith is complete blind and to them it is but others faith isn't blind at all.

One man's view of life was life is a STD while life to others has a much deeper meaning.

 

[Tree of Life]

When the Bible talks about faith, it's talking about a relational, dependent trust in a person. It goes beyond intellectual assent to propositions. As James says, even the demons "believe in God" but this faith does them no good.

Faith is an active trust in the Lord to be who he says he will be and do what he says he will do. Faith is, therefore, a way of life. It has everything to do with how we live. A faith that is purely abstract, that is assent to propositions that have no bearing on how we actually live, is not the "saving faith" that the Bible is interested in.

To offer an analogy: what's the difference between a child believing that his father exists and a child trusting his father? In order for a child to trust his father he must first believe that he exists. But a child can certainly believe that his father exists without trusting him. He can be convinced of his existence and hate his father.

Christian faith is trust in God like a child trusting his father to be who he says he will be and do what he says he will do.

 

[jax5434]

And since atheism is a lack of a belief it doesn't exactly qualify now does it?

Lack of belief in what? If it is a lack of belief in anything probably not. If it is a lack of belief in God (I'm assuming) then yes it is a philosophical system.

Or does your lack of belief in fairies (I'm assuming, of course) qualify as a "philosophical system"?

My lack of belief in fairies is subsumed in my overall Philosophical system (Christian Theology).

If you want to continue this discussion we should start a different thread. It is off topic here. Or if you wish we can go over to the formal debate forums.



God Bless
Jax
__________________

 

[Ana the Ist]

Lack of belief in what? If it is a lack of belief in anything probably not. If it is a lack of belief in God (I'm assuming) then yes it is a philosophical system.



My lack of belief in fairies is subsumed in my overall Philosophical system (Christian Theology).

If you want to continue this discussion we should start a different thread. It is off topic here. Or if you wish we can go over to the formal debate forums.



God Bless
Jax
__________________

What philosophical system is a lack of belief of god subsumed in then?

If the O P wants me to stop this line of discussion because he feels it's off topic, he need only ask.

 

[poolerboy0077]

My lack of belief in fairies is subsumed in my overall Philosophical system (Christian Theology).

You're avoiding the main point. Is a lack of belief in something a belief system? By definition, no. If you want to persist that it is you create an awkward position for yourself. You'd have to call not collecting stamps a hobby, call bald a hair color or say that not subscribing to any magazine makes you a subscriber (of nothing).

 

[jax5434]

What philosophical system is a lack of belief of god subsumed in then?

Uh...That would be atheism.

If the O P wants me to stop this line of discussion because he feels it's off topic, he need only ask.

Just trying to show some respect to the OP. Is that really such a foreign concept?

God Bless
Jax

 

[Ana the Ist]

Uh...That would be atheism.


Just trying to show some respect to the OP. Is that really such a foreign concept?

God Bless
Jax

So...Even though it contradicts your definition, one "lack of belief" now qualifies as a philosophical system? That's a low low bar you've set there. There must be thousands upon thousands of philosophical systems you have that you aren't even aware of...

 

[jax5434]

Ana

So...Even though it contradicts your definition, one "lack of belief" now qualifies as a philosophical system? That's a low low bar you've set there. There must be thousands upon thousands of philosophical systems you have that you aren't even aware of...

Poolerboy

You're avoiding the main point. Is a lack of belief in something a belief system? By definition, no. If you want to persist that it is you create an awkward position for yourself. You'd have to call not collecting stamps a hobby, call bald a hair color or say that not subscribing to any magazine makes you a subscriber (of nothing).

I'm going to address these together if you don't mind.

Atheist began to redefine what atheism meant in the middle of the last century because they realized that that they could not shoulder the burden of proof for the positive affirmation "God does not exist" So they redefined it to mean a "lack of belief in a God". Thinking then that they would no longer have a claim they couldn't defend.
But that doesn't really solve your problem.
You say you just lack belief in God.That is certainly possible, many things lack a belief in God. Infants, rocks, flowers, most insects ect also lack belief in God.
The difference of course is that humans are capable of reason. Rocks for example have no reason for lacking belief.
So when I ask you "Do you have a reason for lacking belief" you will have to answer yes or no.
If you answer yes then you once again have to shoulder the burden of proof for your position. At that point the change of definition becomes a distinction with out a difference and you are back into Atheist philosophy.
On the other hand if you state that you have no reason for your lack of belief you are admitting that,in this area at least, your reasoning ability is no better than that of a box of rocks.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ana


Poolerboy


I'm going to address these together if you don't mind.

Atheist began to redefine what atheism meant in the middle of the last century because they realized that that they could not shoulder the burden of proof for the positive affirmation "God does not exist" So they redefined it to mean a "lack of belief in a God". Thinking then that they would no longer have a claim they couldn't defend.
But that doesn't really solve your problem.
You say you just lack belief in God.That is certainly possible, many things lack a belief in God. Infants, rocks, flowers, most insects ect also lack belief in God.
The difference of course is that humans are capable of reason. Rocks for example have no reason for lacking belief.
So when I ask you "Do you have a reason for lacking belief" you will have to answer yes or no.
If you answer yes then you once again have to shoulder the burden of proof for your position. At that point the change of definition becomes a distinction with out a difference and you are back into Atheist philosophy.
On the other hand if you state that you have no reason for your lack of belief you are admitting that,in this area at least, your reasoning ability is no better than that of a box of rocks.

God Bless
Jax

Ok...

What atheists did or didn't do in the past really has nothing to do with me. I would imagine that my "reasons" for not believing in god are rather similar to the reasons you hold for not believing in things that you don't believe in.

The point you're trying to avoid though still stands....it's not a philosophical system. Therefore the O P's question still stands, what exactly is it that you don't trust?

 

[jax5434]

What atheists did or didn't do in the past really has nothing to do with me

.
"those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it"

I would imagine that my "reasons" for not believing in god are rather similar to the reasons you hold for not believing in things that you don't believe in.

(italics mine)

Than you!! You just proved my point. You did not say "My reasons for a lack of belief in God." You said "for not believing in God." Once you admit their are reasons for your non-belief your position defaults to that of traditional atheism. Precisely what I said in my last post.

The point you're trying to avoid though still stands....it's not a philosophical system.

I believe my point is still in fine figure, thank you.

Therefore the O P's question still stands, what exactly is it that you don't trust?

.... ] A philosophical system that denies what seem to be obvious; and Ted Cruz.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Ana the Ist]

.
"those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it"

(italics mine)

Than you!! You just proved my point. You did not say "My reasons for a lack of belief in God." You said "for not believing in God." Once you admit their are reasons for your non-belief your position defaults to that of traditional atheism. Precisely what I said in my last post.

I believe my point is still in fine figure, thank you.

.... ] A philosophical system that denies what seem to be obvious; and Ted Cruz.

God Bless
Jax

Well if not having a reason to believe in god counts as a reason to not believe in god....does it? Is lacking a reason a reason? I'm not sure it is... it could be. Seems you need a reason to believe in something's existence...but you don't not to.

Actually, the point still stands...lack of belief isn't a belief...which doesn't make atheism a philosophical system.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Than you!! You just proved my point. You did not say "My reasons for a lack of belief in God." You said "for not believing in God." Once you admit their are reasons for your non-belief your position defaults to that of traditional atheism. Precisely what I said in my last post.

I believe my point is still in fine figure, thank you.

Um, no actually. "Not believing in God" is not a positive affirmation. Not believing means exactly the same thing as lacking belief. It would be very different to say "X does not exist." That would be different and would turn the burden of proof. What doesn't turn the burden of proof is one's rejection of another person's bald assertion. Nice try, though.


But we're digressing...

What is faith? We need specifics. Is it a reliable epistemology to discern fact from fiction?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Atheists get criticized for taking the word "faith" to mean something along the lines of "belief without sufficient evidence," even though sometimes that's pretty much what we're given to work with when someone tries to describe their faith to us. But I want to give people a fair shake, so I'd like to hear what Christians and other religious people typically mean when they use the word.

Anticipating some areas where I see this heading, here are some follow-up questions for various definitions that might be given:

Faith = "hope"
But do you base any knowledge claims on faith(hope)? When you say something like "I have faith that Jesus resurrected," are you really just saying "I have hope that Jesus resurrected"?

Faith = "trust"
So, if someone says something like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheists" or "atheists have more faith than me," are they really saying "I don't have enough trust to be an atheist"? Trust in what?

Hebrews 11:1
Faith is "the substance of things hoped for" and "the evidence of things unseen." Can you unpack this for me at all? Is this at all different from saying "faith = hope"?

Thanks in advance to all who participate.

"hope" is a subset of faith that is faith in something now in the future.

Someone who says "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" is saying they take great comfort in the belief in God and would find it difficult to get along without their belief in God.

The Hebrews 11:1 verse is not a definition of faith, in spite of all those who say it is, but is rather descriptive, describing some of the things faith has or does. If I say "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", I am speaking a truth, but I am not defining patriotism. So the word "is" does not always mean a definition has been given.

Faith is putting your feet where your head says they can go. You see a chair, you figure it could hold you. You actually sit in it, you have placed your faith in the chair. Merely having the opinion that the chair could hold you is not putting your faith in the chair.

 

[poolerboy0077]

"hope" is a subset of faith that is faith in something now in the future.

I'm not sure I accept that definition. When I hope that someone gets better, I don't hold a belief that they will (how would I know?). I only desire that they do. That's it. No faith is required, at least if we define faith as a trust imparted onto something or someone giving the believer a sense that their belief is true or will come true.

Someone who says "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" is saying they take great comfort in the belief in God and would find it difficult to get along without their belief in God.

Which is weird because reality is not contingent upon what we want life to be. I may want there to be naturally pink cats in the world but I cannot possibly expect this to be true simply because it would be very sad if my belief weren't true.

Faith is putting your feet where your head says they can go. You see a chair, you figure it could hold you. You actually sit in it, you have placed your faith in the chair. Merely having the opinion that the chair could hold you is not putting your faith in the chair.

Do you see any difference between an assumption and faith?