- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 38
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Faith is a strange concept, and I won't attempt to tell you guys how you define it, because as I see it there are several possible definitions.
There is faith as in mere belief. I guess if you like you could say that I have faith in the theory of general relativity, because I believe that the theory of general relativity is true. But I think that, while the word is sometimes used - or people claim it is being used - in this way, it's a rather disingenuous meaning. If all you mean is "belief", just say it. I don't think there's anything particularly virtuous about this kind of faith.
Then there is faith as in the faith one has in a person, and essentially this comes down to the belief that the person can be trusted to do something. I have faith that my mother will look after me if I'm sick. This is a special kind of belief: a belief that a certain act is likely to be undertaken by a certain person. Now this kind of faith is prudent or imprudent depending on the actual character of the person in whom one has faith. It is prudent of me to have faith that my mother will look after me if I'm sick, because she always has done in the past and I know that she loves me. It would be imprudent of me to have faith that someone I know sometimes steals things and is often dishonest will tell me the truth about whether or not she took my watch. However, I don't think my faith in either case has any moral value. Either I am right or wrong to put faith in someone, but it does not make me a bad person if I make a mistake about whom to put faith in, nor if I have faith in more people rather than fewer.
Finally, there is "blind faith" - that is, belief that something is true without adequate (or any) evidence to support its truth. I simply can't see how this latter kind of faith can be a virtue, because it seems to contravene the way that we usually think in every field of discourse apart from religion. Usually we applaud people when they review all the evidence and come to a valid conclusion, and we are unimpressed when people ignore the evidence or say that it isn't important.
Recently someone said that there aren't many miracles these days because if there were too many then you wouldn't need faith. But why is faith so important? What's wrong with believing in God because of evidence? What is virtuous or good about believing in him with less than adequate or convincing evidence?
Please explain. Put simply, I can't understand why simply believing something can be considered a virtue, whatever kind of belief it is - the usual, evidence-based kind; the belief that someone will behave in a certain way; or the belief in something with little or no evidence. I'm not particularly knocking any of these kinds of beliefs themselves. I'm simply asking you how any of them can be considered a virtue.
There is faith as in mere belief. I guess if you like you could say that I have faith in the theory of general relativity, because I believe that the theory of general relativity is true. But I think that, while the word is sometimes used - or people claim it is being used - in this way, it's a rather disingenuous meaning. If all you mean is "belief", just say it. I don't think there's anything particularly virtuous about this kind of faith.
Then there is faith as in the faith one has in a person, and essentially this comes down to the belief that the person can be trusted to do something. I have faith that my mother will look after me if I'm sick. This is a special kind of belief: a belief that a certain act is likely to be undertaken by a certain person. Now this kind of faith is prudent or imprudent depending on the actual character of the person in whom one has faith. It is prudent of me to have faith that my mother will look after me if I'm sick, because she always has done in the past and I know that she loves me. It would be imprudent of me to have faith that someone I know sometimes steals things and is often dishonest will tell me the truth about whether or not she took my watch. However, I don't think my faith in either case has any moral value. Either I am right or wrong to put faith in someone, but it does not make me a bad person if I make a mistake about whom to put faith in, nor if I have faith in more people rather than fewer.
Finally, there is "blind faith" - that is, belief that something is true without adequate (or any) evidence to support its truth. I simply can't see how this latter kind of faith can be a virtue, because it seems to contravene the way that we usually think in every field of discourse apart from religion. Usually we applaud people when they review all the evidence and come to a valid conclusion, and we are unimpressed when people ignore the evidence or say that it isn't important.
Recently someone said that there aren't many miracles these days because if there were too many then you wouldn't need faith. But why is faith so important? What's wrong with believing in God because of evidence? What is virtuous or good about believing in him with less than adequate or convincing evidence?
Please explain. Put simply, I can't understand why simply believing something can be considered a virtue, whatever kind of belief it is - the usual, evidence-based kind; the belief that someone will behave in a certain way; or the belief in something with little or no evidence. I'm not particularly knocking any of these kinds of beliefs themselves. I'm simply asking you how any of them can be considered a virtue.