1
There are various concepts of faith which have different connotations. In the dictionary there are multiple limiting definitions across a common theme:
1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. Belief that is not based on proof.
3. Belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.
4. Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.
5. A system of religious belief.
6. The obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.
7. The observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.
8. The trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
All are legitimate definitions, possessing thematic inter-relation.
The variety of definitions for the term is one reason why so few arguments on the subject of faith lead to useful ends. If different individuals are using different definitions, both sides are inclined to make errors of equivocation.
Mark Twain also created a classic definition in his book, Pudd'nhead Wilson: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
This is similar to Nietzsche's definition:
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true."
Many atheists regard faith as the act of coming to a conclusion first, and then filtering the facts to match preconceived expectations. In a sense, this is the opposite of science.
While useful for illustrating the problems associated with faith, this derisive use of the term sometimes hinders discussion of the topic, and thus, hinders intellectual growth.
Faith can apply to any assertion of truth, regardless of the quality of the reasons for that assertion. This is an important distinction because while faith includes counter-factual (wrong) beliefs, it also includes both factually supported and factually-neutral positions.
Factually-neutral positions include subjective statements (that's a pretty picture) and value-judgements (it's wrong to hurt people for fun). These are factually-neutral positions because it is impossible, even theoretically, to prove them right or wrong. Facts, effectively, do not apply to them.
Religions typically assert a number of positions in which they have faith, and do not typically differentiate between positions which can and cannot have facts applied to them. Since most religions do not have formal vetting processes, there is not typically a need for them to do so. This can lead to miscommunication when secular atheists vocalize a rejection of faith. For instance, most religions assert (explicitly or not) the central tenet of humanism: Human beings are morally valuable. As this is a factually-neutral stance, it is an article of faith. Secular atheists (like most people) typically do not reject factually-neutral ideas as fallacies, and (like most people) do not typically reject the idea that humans have moral value. A religious person hearing someone reject faith in general may well misunderstand this statement as a rejection of all moral values, as all moral values are eventually based on factually-neutral premises. This helps lead to the characterization that atheists have no morals.
"Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'"
— John 20:29
My personal definition of faith is accepting some belief as true without reason, evidence, or justification.
Faith is the excuse people give for believing something they don’t have sufficient reason to affirm as true that which is not evidently true. Faith is an assertion of absolute conviction that is assumed independent of evidence, and which must be defended against all evidence to the contrary. Until a belief is indicated in evidence it does not warrant affirming its truth claim.
Imagine a bar of believability, evidence piles up and as it increases, this constitutes evidence for finding the belief credible. Propositions ought to be proportioned in accord with the weight of the evidence in support of them. Any epistemic shortcut, jump, or lateral move in order to bridge the gap of believability is equivalent to faith in accepting a claim as true. Had I had good reasons, I would not need faith to believe something. Faith is the excuse that people give for believing something they don’t know is true: no true justified beliefs.
Bookmarks