All people live on faith

[JohnnyJersey]

All people live on faith. There is not a soul in the world who KNOWS everything about everything. People all live on faith to some extent or another. By and large, most (if not all) people temper their faith with reason; it is rare that people believe things on blind faith. Someone may not know how or why his car works, but he has faith that it does. He may have enough knowledge about the car to satisfy (or PROVE to) himself that the car is worthy of his putting faith into it to do what he expects it to do. He need not get an education in engineering and auto mechanics to reasonably believe that a car will work as he expects.

People - theists and atheists alike - do this on a daily basis, with (virtually? probably absolutely) everything in their lives. We truly, at the root of it, don't KNOW anything. We use the word "know" to describe those things in which we have the greatest faith.

It is irrational for atheists to presume that theists don't know about God due to a lack of "proof" or due to the fact that there is faith involved. Most of those very atheists claim to "know" a lot of things which they, in fact, only "know" because they put their faith in what they have learned from others. Someone who has not been to Australia cannot claim to KNOW that Australia exists EXCEPT by accepting as valid evidence the reports and tales of others.

Many an atheist has admitted to accepting something as "true" based on a certain amount of evidence. It is implicit in their use of "evidence" that they refer to that evidence which they accept as valid, where someone else may reject that very same "evidence". Yet, they will turn around and decry the "fanciful tales and stories" about "gods and imaginary [sic] beings" that theists and supernaturalists accept as real.

There is a definite disconnect on the part of the anti-faith crowd.

Can anyone reasonably deny that faith plays a huge role in every person's life?

[bernee51]

JohnnyJersey


By this meaning we have concluded that your OP is false, end of story.

Grumpy

As was pointed out in Post 8 of this thread which highlited the disingenuous nature of the OP.

The implication of the this type of faith claim is that atheistic criticisms of religious faith are inherently hypocritical.

I suggest that with the use of word 'faith' in the sense of the OP comes the belief that thre is a leveling of the playing field and the removal one of the atheist's more powerful arguments, namely that using reason when evaluating truth claims is superior to using faith.

This claim commits an equivocation fallacy with the term "faith." The only sort of "faith" which might be common among atheists is that of mere confidence based upon and limited by repeatable, objective experiences. This is the sort of faith which can apply to the "faith" that your brakes will work, or the "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow. This "faith" is only as strong as the evidence or reason allows and it is defeatable given new evidence or arguments.

The faith claimed - religious faith in the existence of a god - is a very different matter - something Paul clearly recognized when he defined faith as the "...assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebr. 11:1) This is not the sort of faith used by those who think that the brakes on their car will work: this is the sort of faith used by those who believe without sound empirical evidence.

The fact that atheists might have the former kind of faith and the fact that theists have the latter kind of faith does not mean that atheists and theists are operating or thinking the same way. It does not mean that we are forming and evaluating beliefs in a similar manner.

It is a poor attempt to demonstrate that some sort of "faith" is necessary, and if so, why not faith in the existence of your god?. It is an argument from a position of pure solipsism - an extreme and irrational form of skepticism whereby everything is denied as being a viable and rational belief.

[BwhoUR]

JohnnyJersey


By this meaning we have concluded that your OP is false, end of story.

Grumpy

As was pointed out in Post 8 of this thread which highlited the disingenuous nature of the OP.

The implication of the this type of faith claim is that atheistic criticisms of religious faith are inherently hypocritical.

I suggest that with the use of word 'faith' in the sense of the OP comes the belief that thre is a leveling of the playing field and the removal one of the atheist's more powerful arguments, namely that using reason when evaluating truth claims is superior to using faith.

This claim commits an equivocation fallacy with the term "faith." The only sort of "faith" which might be common among atheists is that of mere confidence based upon and limited by repeatable, objective experiences. This is the sort of faith which can apply to the "faith" that your brakes will work, or the "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow. This "faith" is only as strong as the evidence or reason allows and it is defeatable given new evidence or arguments.

The faith claimed - religious faith in the existence of a god - is a very different matter - something Paul clearly recognized when he defined faith as the "...assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebr. 11:1) This is not the sort of faith used by those who think that the brakes on their car will work: this is the sort of faith used by those who believe without sound empirical evidence.

The fact that atheists might have the former kind of faith and the fact that theists have the latter kind of faith does not mean that atheists and theists are operating or thinking the same way. It does not mean that we are forming and evaluating beliefs in a similar manner.

It is a poor attempt to demonstrate that some sort of "faith" is necessary, and if so, why not faith in the existence of your god?. It is an argument from a position of pure solipsism - an extreme and irrational form of skepticism whereby everything is denied as being a viable and rational belief.

Once again, as in post 8, a brilliant summary. Thanks.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Once again, as in post 8, a brilliant summary. Thanks.

Please do be mindful of rule number nine (no one-liners that don't add to the debate).

[BwhoUR]

Moderator Comment

Once again, as in post 8, a brilliant summary. Thanks.

Please do be mindful of rule number nine (no one-liners that don't add to the debate).

Sorry about that, I'll try not to do that again.

[JohnnyJersey]

When one worships a god, and declares that god "Truth", I'd say that's a whole heaping bunch of faith. When one declares some dude hopped up after being dead for three days - and their only evidence is the book making the claim - I'd say there's a whole heaping bunch of faith.

I'd say that's all faith, also.

When one says they can't wait to see the sunrise tomorrow, I'd say that's not so much faith as a prediction based on real world observation.

No, it's faith. If he is saying he "can't wait to see the sunrise tomorrow," it is implicit in that statement that the sun WILL "rise tomorrow", so it is clearly a belief. Since it is a belief that is not yet proven, and is based only on evidence of past experience, it is a belief without proof. Therefore, it is FAITH. That's all there is to it.

Like many words in our language, faith can be considered in terms of 'degrees' or maybe better as a 'continuum'. We can draw a line and place on one end "positively beyond doubt and even the goofiest among us would agree", and on the other "can't prove it, but danged if I ain't gonna believe it anyway". On that line then we could plot points were we subjectively determine two given notions to be placed.

I agree.

On that line the theist may place "can't wait to see the sunrise" right up there with "donkeys talk", with no space between the two points, no matter where on that line the points are placed. The atheist is likely to have a broad gap in where he places the two points.

Everyone will place things at different points on the contiuum. Some Christians may place "sunrise" and "donkey talking" on the same point, some may not. For example, the word "car" includes a lot of different types of "cars". Some may put a Hyundai econobox on the same point on the continuum as a loaded Lexus, some may not. Some may put the Hyundai higher, some lower; it comes down to personal belief which is shaped by individuals' respective experiences, thought processes, needs, wants, feelings, etc.

The reason I consider my post(s) here on topic is because the OP is, IMO, correct when it says all folks live on faith, but misses the perhaps subtle ways in which that term is applied in the real world.

The intention was to first come to a common understanding that all people live on faith, regardless of the subtleties. What I am still seeing is that people are insisting that the subtleties don't exist but rather that "faith" is something only certain people have while certain others have NONE whatsoever. Before we can talk about the value of the different levels of faith, we have to have a common understanding of what faith actually IS; if we do not agree that faith is something all people have for their respective faith-based beliefs, then we cannot discuss the differences as differences or subtleties.

Where the OP addresses faith in a car working, we can verify the existence of cars, verify that many cars work, and we have little reason to doubt when one tells us they have a car, their car works, and even if it's a Chevrolet that car may be worthy of some small measure of 'worship' (thankfulness it gets us where we want).

I don't understand how "worship" is being injected into that, but, other than the comment about "worship", I agree.

On the issue of religious faith though, all we have are tales of a fantastical nature, and we are expected to change our lifestyles to suit the wants of the proposed god. It's a far cry from having faith a car will work, and having faith a god exists, and that god gives two hoots about how humans live their lives.

Again, before we get to discussing "religious faith", specifically, we have to have a common understanding on what "faith" is. That is why I used the basic lexicographical definition of what "faith" means in our English language.

It seems many want to skip ahead of this basic point and jump right into discussing the differences between religious faith and other faith, while in the process denying that there is such a thing as "faith" that non-religious people have.

[JohnnyJersey]

What theists "pride themselves on just how much faith they have"??? What the freaking bloody hell are you talking about? Certainly not Christianity.

Can't you people stay on topic?

FROM: CHRISTIAN-FAITH.COM

What Faith Is ... <snip>

I don't see what your point is with this massive cut-and-paste.

[JohnnyJersey]

Who is "reluctant to embrace faith for what it is: belief without proof and complete trust"???

You. You want faith to stand for every kind of belief, you say that "evidence" is a common element of faith, but it is not, "evidence" is an element of proof.

I'm not "reluctant to embrace faith for what it is: belief without proof and complete trust". I accept that definition. Where did I reject that definition? I also accept other definitions, in other lexicons, which neither contradict nor are contradicted by that particular definition.

By the definition you provide and by other definitions, faith does indeed stand for "every kind of belief" where evidence may indeed be (or may not be) involved. I agree that evidence is an element of "proof", but it is not limited to being an element of "proof". A piece of evidence is evidence, whether it lends to the "proof" of something or not. If I find a half-eaten cookie on my doorstep and I try to use that to prove that my neighbor threw it there, it is not enough to prove that; so, I have a piece of evidence that does not lead to proof. It is still evidence, but by itself is not enough to prove anything. Evidence does not necessarily constitute or lead to "proof".

You want to add things to the definition by including synonyms, and, when I stated that I use the strictest definition of faith, you stated that I was "entitled" to do that, were you not being honest then?

Sure, I was being honest. You're entitled to do what you want. That doesn't mean that it's rational, I never said that you're entitled to do what you want and in doing so it will be rational. When you state that you want to use the "strictest definition" of faith and you identify that definition along with or as your personal idea of what a word means, then, while you're entitled to do that, you are being subjective.

The bigger question, however, is: Why can you not admit that using the strict definition of "faith", not all people live on faith?

Because it simply isn't true at all. Why would or should I admit something that isn't true at all???

I have not found the term "blind faith" in the dictionary. Please lend me your source.

I find it hard to believe that you have never heard the term "blind faith" and/or don't understand what it means, but I'll humor you one time:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blind+faith

It's a two-word term, and not all multiple word terms are in every dictionary. To understand what it means, just look up the words "blind" and "faith". It's not a difficult concept, most people know what it means.

And again, despite my two sources, you include "evidence" in your definition of faith, as if it is a part of it. "that with evidence" is not passive language.

I don't include it, I simply don't exclude it, as no definition you provided excluded it.

At the very least, you should ALWAYS qualify this part of your definition with something like "that which may have some evidence" (lest you read this wrong, this is not part of the definition, but it is the least you can do since you insist on saying it. In all fairness to the dictionary, what you should state is that it is your opinion, but I don't expect you will do that.)

That's what I would do if I were defining the word, but I wasn't. I was explaining that "faith" can be blind or with evidence, I was not claiming that all faith has evidence, in fact I was explaining the opposite, that faith can indeed be blind and without evidence. But, while it CAN be blind, it NEED NOT be blind, which is another way of saying it may have evidence to support it.

I'm glad you are admitting that faith is enough for you to live by, though.

Really? Is that how you read it? What do you gain by again and again trying to twist my words around and by twisting definitions around? Do you think anyone is fooled?[/quote]

I'm not twisting your words; you bemoaned that more people don't stick to the pure definition of the word, and that they don't admit that they believe faith is enough; I agree with that. I guess what you meant was why don't religious people stick to your pure definition of the word, but that was not what you said.

That's the problem I'm highlighting; people equivocate on the word faith. They want it to mean a completely blind, irrational faith and they want this to be understood when they use that word but they don't want to admit to the fact that by the actual, pure, dictionary definition of the word that they, too, live on faith.

[BwhoUR]

What theists "pride themselves on just how much faith they have"??? What the freaking bloody hell are you talking about? Certainly not Christianity.

Can't you people stay on topic?

FROM: CHRISTIAN-FAITH.COM

What Faith Is ... <snip>

I don't see what your point is with this massive cut-and-paste.

It is an example of christian faith and from my reading, it appears very important to christians and to their religious belief system. I don't know why you keep trying to diminish the importance of it in religion or change the meaning of it. It's puzzling.

[JohnnyJersey]

JohnnyJersey

Yes, I realize you and many, many others deny that faith plays a huge role in every person's life, but it has yet to be demonstrated by anyone that the denial is a reasonable denial.

Oh, we've pretty well concluded that you are inflating the meaning of the word faith to the point of meaninglessness.

You may have concluded that, but you haven't shown with logic and reason how I am "inflating the meaning of the word faith to the point of meaninglessness". Until you do, your conclusion is obviously a subjective, irrational conclusion.

You did the same thing with violence in your first series of posts, calling disagreement with you violence against Christians.

Actually, a bunch of atheists did that with the word "violence" and I went with their inflated use of the word (to which you or anyone other atheists didn't object when THEY did it, as it bolstered your opinions) to make the point that they were inflating the use of the word and using it incorrectly. Only then did anyone acknowledge that such use of the word was "inflated" and incorrect.

I'll take a moment also to point out that "inflating the meaning of a word" is a meaningless thing to say, at least in terms of whether the word is used correctly or incorrectly. Either a word is used correctly or it's not. If the use is "inflated" to be used in the most extreme case of the definition of the word, it is still correct.

The appropriate meaning of the word faith is acceptance without and without need of evidence.

That's your subjective opinion, thanks for sharing it, but it only proves that you have a subjective opinion on what a word means and it has no bearing on the actual meaning of the word.

By this meaning we have concluded that your OP is false, end of story.

Grumpy

Yes, by that subjective meaning you have reached your subjective conclusion; I agree with that. The problem is that it's all subjective and does not objectively make or prove a point beyond the fact that you can have a subjective conclucion based on a subjective opinion.

[Grumpy]

JohnnyJersey

you haven't shown with logic and reason how I am "inflating the meaning of the word faith to the point of meaninglessness".

Yes, we have, repeatedly. Not only in your overbroad meaning of faith, but in your previous overbroad meaning for violence. It seems to be your tactic of choice, dishonest as it may be. Defining your way to a conclusion is a really underhanded way to win.

Actually, a bunch of atheists did that with the word "violence" and I went with their inflated use of the word (to which you or anyone other atheists didn't object when THEY did it, as it bolstered your opinions) to make the point that they were inflating the use of the word and using it incorrectly. Only then did anyone acknowledge that such use of the word was "inflated" and incorrect.

It's no excuse, you are still trying to do this to faith.

I'll take a moment also to point out that "inflating the meaning of a word" is a meaningless thing to say, at least in terms of whether the word is used correctly or incorrectly. Either a word is used correctly or it's not. If the use is "inflated" to be used in the most extreme case of the definition of the word, it is still correct.

There are words with many meanings, we must use them in their proper context. You are not doing that with faith. Example...

No, it's faith. If he is saying he "can't wait to see the sunrise tomorrow," it is implicit in that statement that the sun WILL "rise tomorrow", so it is clearly a belief. Since it is a belief that is not yet proven, and is based only on evidence of past experience, it is a belief without proof. Therefore, it is FAITH. That's all there is to it.

The statement "The sun will rise tomorrow" is not based on faith, nor is it expressing faith. It is a PREDICTION based on a long line of days where the sun did rise. It is KNOWLEDGE that it has happened before(every time).

Accepting fairy tales as being true DOES NOT HAVE ANY INSTANCE WHERE THAT IS REALITY. That's faith. It requires faith to accept unevidenced things, but faith is at the bottom of a long ladder of reasons for acceptance, an ever increasing certainty based on confirmation, investigation and reasoning.

Like many words in our language, faith can be considered in terms of 'degrees' or maybe better as a 'continuum'. We can draw a line and place on one end "positively beyond doubt and even the goofiest among us would agree", and on the other "can't prove it, but danged if I ain't gonna believe it anyway". On that line then we could plot points were we subjectively determine two given notions to be placed.

I agree.

Then we are done and your side lost, I don't think we even need to take a survey.

The intention was to first come to a common understanding that all people live on faith, regardless of the subtleties. What I am still seeing is that people are insisting that the subtleties don't exist but rather that "faith" is something only certain people have while certain others have NONE whatsoever.

No, you have made plain that you will stretch words to mean whatever you think will raise the belief in things unevidenced(which MUST be done by faith)to the same level as knowledge(where acceptance does not require faith). Well, the concept of faith DOES NOT COVER the concept of knowledge and you are unsuccessful.

Before we can talk about the value of the different levels of faith, we have to have a common understanding of what faith actually IS; if we do not agree that faith is something all people have for their respective faith-based beliefs, then we cannot discuss the differences as differences or subtleties.

Not all people have faith based beliefs, until you recognize that fact we have nothing to discuss. When you do accept that fact, then we can discuss the various levels of certainty in a meaningful way(something impossible if every level of certainty is referred to as faith). This whole problem(in the quest for understanding)is one manufactured by you to deceive and to blur the whole topic into meaningless semantics so you can claim that everyone is as gullible as you are in what they accept or reject(IE "All people live on faith").

You have failed.

Grumpy