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?

[Grumpy]

JohnnyJersey

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

Faith-belief without and without need of evidence of any kind

Confidence-expectation informed by evidence.

I have confidence(not faith)that the sun will rise tommorrow, that my car will start and that water runs downhill. This is qualitatively different from your faith in god(s).

Geez, get a dictionary!

Grumpy

[Crazy Ivan]

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

Understand the difference between "faith" and "earned trust"...

[Zzyzx]

.
Define "faith" as used in the OP.

[KennethM]

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.

Unlike God I can witness a car working and if I so desire learn what makes it work through actual observation.

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.

Incorrect. While I will say that many people claim to know that which they don't knowledge is real and it is antithetical to 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.

Incorrect. It is irrational for theists to assert that God exists without evidence. Beyond that, I can travel to Australia, see pictures of it and meet people from there.

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.

Incorrect. People can accept things as true based on theories which are supported by all pieces of related evidence. In educated circles nuances of theories are often contested but complete paradigm shifts in thought are much more rare and only occur when a substantial new piece of evidence is introduced which completely contradicts the previously held theory. Science embraces this if the new theory passes peer review and is verified as being able to stand in light of all evidence. Supernatural concepts, in being supernatural and thus antithetical to the natural order cannot be explained with evidence which is why they are rejected as not 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?

Yes, completely as it is totally reasonable.

[JohnnyJersey]

Faith is the belief in something without "proof". It is not the belief in something without "evidence". As it is, "proof" is debatable as is "knowledge", but that is another discussion.

As it stands, "faith" is the belief in something without "proof". That means there can be evidence or there can be no evidence. It is rare (if ever) that there is faith with no evidence whatsoever. People have evidence before they have faith. It can be a lot of evidence or very little, but so long as it doesn't constitute "proof" then belief is by faith.

In naturalistic terms, the supernatural cannot be proven. It is impossible. If it were possible, then it wouldn't be the "supernatural" being proven, but something natural instead. Therefore, from a scientific standpoint, the supernatural can only be believed by faith.

Naturalists love to crow about how there is "no evidence" for the supernatural, but there is. What isn't available is natural (or scientific) proof. Those with supernatural beliefs, taken on faith (from a naturalistic viewpoint), don't do so in a vacuum or with no evidence whatsoever; they have evidence, some more than others, and upon that evidence they choose to base their faith. The same can be said for the person who uses a cell phone without knowing or having it proven to him that a cell phone works the way it does; it is enough evidence for the person that it works for him, and he takes on faith that the engineers and technicians who make it work are doing something that works.

Now, people can play word games all they want and argue semantics (which is the last resort of a desperate person) by saying "It's not faith, it's confidence, it's earned trust, it's an educated guess, it's a likelihood, a probability, etc." However, that doesn't change the fact that those very things are indeed "faith", by definition.

People live by faith, whether it is faith in the natural or supernatural.

[Crazy Ivan]

People live by faith, whether it is faith in the natural or supernatural.

Speak for yourself. I have absolutely no faith at all, in anything. I do a great deal of trusting, though. In science, which has amply demonstrated to be trustworthy. In friends, who have earned that trust. There is not a single shred of "trust without any evidence". If you can't handle that, it is your problem.

-edit:

Now, people can play word games all they want and argue semantics (which is the last resort of a desperate person) by saying "It's not faith, it's confidence, it's earned trust, it's an educated guess, it's a likelihood, a probability, etc." However, that doesn't change the fact that those very things are indeed "faith", by definition.

Presuming completely distinct concepts are what you whimsically decided to be "faith by definition" is what is desperate.

[bernee51]

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?

Ah this one....agian.


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

I suggest that with your use of word 'faith' you believe you level the playing field and remove 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 you claim - 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.

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

[williamryan]

This is a very unusual definition of "faith." Your definition--"Faith is the belief in something without 'proof'" [where you define "proof" as scientific evidence]--assumes that "faith" is a way of knowing something. That's not the case. Faith is trust based on reasons. Faith is an assent of the will, not an assent of the intellect. When you sit in a chair, you exercise "faith" that the chair will support you. And you exercise that faith based on reasons (e.g. your past experiences with chairs in general and with this one in particular, whether the chair looks sturdy, etc.). You don't know anything "by faith." You can have propositions that are "of the faith," in the sense of propositions that constitute some or all the set of propositions Christians take to be revealed by God.

Your OP may be after something a little different than an odd definition of "faith." You may be trying to assert (and defend) the following proposition:

(1) Everyone holds at least one belief that cannot be "proven" by your five sense.

If you're asserting and defending (1), then I think that's obviously true. For example, science presupposes the fundamental truths of logic and mathematics. So if science tried to "prove" the truth of those fundamental principles, that would be arguing in a circle. Or, as another example, most people reading this believe the computer screen they're looking at really exists; it's not a image in their mind generated by the Matrix. In other words, most people believe that there is an objective world that exists independently of their minds. But science presupposes the existence of an external world that can be experimental upon. So that, again, if science would to try and "prove" there's an external world, that would be arguing in a circle.

[JohnnyJersey]

Unlike God I can witness a car working and if I so desire learn what makes it work through actual observation.

You don't really know that until you yourself experience it. Now, are you telling me that you have experienced everything in the world that you believe? That would mean that you don't believe any history that happened before you were born (because you couldn't have possibly been there to experience it, except perhaps supernaturally) and that you don't believe in the existence of any place in the world that you yourself haven't been to and experienced, and that you don't believe in anything scientific that you yourself haven't observed and gathered data for, etc.

The difference is only the amount of evidence you require to accept something on faith. If 5 or 100 or 500 of your friends tell you they've been to Australia but you haven't been there, and their reports are corroborated by tales in articles, books, etc. then you may decide that evidence is sufficient for you to believe in Australia's existence, on faith which is based on inconclusive evidence, despite your not having been there to experience Australia's existence yourself.

Anyone who does not delve into the workings of a car does not KNOW that they can do so, they only believe it, on faith, based on the evidence they have thus far. They will only know when they actually experience it.

Incorrect. While I will say that many people claim to know that which they don't knowledge is real and it is antithetical to faith.

Wrong. "Knowledge" is, at its core, intuitive; we don't know how we "know" things. We have some understanding of the physiological aspect but how or why that works the way it does is not explained. "Knowledge" is not always true. It is what is accepted as "true" by an individual. Have you ever "known" something only to find out later you were wrong? Was it knowledge that you had? Until you found out you were wrong, it was indeed knowledge on your part.

Knowledge is hardly antithetical to faith; in fact, faith is integral to knowledge in terms of those things we are unable to physically prove to ourselves. I know that Australia exists even though I haven't been there, and that knowledge is based on my faith in the tremendous amount of evidence that has been presented to me from various sources, although I have not proven it to myself by going there. Is my knowledge of Australia's existence wrong because it is based on faith?

Incorrect. It is irrational for theists to assert that God exists without evidence. Beyond that, I can travel to Australia, see pictures of it and meet people from there.

Wrong. It is rational for anyone to state and live by a belief that is based on faith, since we all do it, all the time, every day, all our lives. There may be illogic involved in what a person puts his faith in, but the illogic is not the faith itself, but rather the reasons for the faith. It is the reasoning for the faith that can be argued regarding logic and reason. The problem is that too many atheists believe (or are brainwashed to believe) that faith itself is the problem, when it is not.

Incorrect. People can accept things as true based on theories which are supported by all pieces of related evidence. In educated circles nuances of theories are often contested but complete paradigm shifts in thought are much more rare and only occur when a substantial new piece of evidence is introduced which completely contradicts the previously held theory. Science embraces this if the new theory passes peer review and is verified as being able to stand in light of all evidence.

Here you demonstrate faith in the scientific community. If "science" is able to claim knowledge about something being true and proven only to later CHANGE the truth via some new "proof", then it is clear that "knowledge" is relative. However, science puts faith in what it knows until it knows more, and when it knows more that may very well destroy the previous knowledge. Science is ultimately rooted in faith because it is limited in its ability to observe. And I'm not even getting into the fact that so much of science places its faith in the data gathered and presented by various individuals or devices or methods that themselves can be flawed or make mistakes. Sometimes science will even acknowledge this "margin of error" or variance from fact in regards to the quality of their data upon which they base their proof and knowledge.

Supernatural concepts, in being supernatural and thus antithetical to the natural order cannot be explained with evidence which is why they are rejected as not real.

So because something cannot be explained it cannot be real? So then "dark matter" is not real? Gravity is not real?

What you're really saying is that since the supernatural is outside (super, or above) the natural it cannot be explained by natural laws, and that is true. However, that doesn't mean it's not 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?

Yes, completely as it is totally reasonable.

You haven't shown it to be reasonable.