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?

[JohnnyJersey]

As far as what JJ is trying to debate here, that all people live on faith, I have to wonder why someone would be reluctant to embrace faith for what it is: belief without proof and complete trust. Why not just embrace the pure definition, instead of grasping at synonyms and including words that are not specifically excluded, and "just have faith" in your religion. Why insist that most of the time there is a LOT of evidence". Why is faith not enough?

I think it's a form of psychological projection, where the theist needs to ensure themselves their faith is justified.

Contrast religious faith - with all its attendant claims - with the sort of faith folks have in the sunrise, or their brakes, for two common examples, and we see the theist attempting to equate one form of faith with another.

Faith in the sunrise is borne of evidence, faith in gods is borne of an absence of evidence.

The fact of the matter is that faith is faith; some faith is better supported than other faith, but faith is faith. Nobody's denying there are differences; there are. But the fact remains that they are also equal in terms of being different forms of faith.

Things can be equal and different at the same time. For example, a Hyundai Accent is not equal to a Ferrari, but both ARE equally "cars". A broken down, 1998, dented Hyundai with no wheels is a car every bit as much as a Ferrari. One car may be much nicer or better than the other, there can be myriad ways in which they are different, but there's no getting away from the fact that they are both CARS.

Same with faith. An atheist's faith that the can of beer he cracks open will actually contain beer is just as much FAITH as a Hindu's belief in Ganesh. One person's faith may have more evidence upon which it's based; but both are FAITH. Period.

[JohnnyJersey]

As far as what JJ is trying to debate here, that all people live on faith, I have to wonder why someone would be reluctant to embrace faith for what it is: belief without proof and complete trust. Why not just embrace the pure definition, instead of grasping at synonyms and including words that are not specifically excluded, and "just have faith" in your religion. Why insist that most of the time there is a LOT of evidence". Why is faith not enough?

I think it's a form of psychological projection, where the theist needs to ensure themselves their faith is justified.

Contrast religious faith - with all its attendant claims - with the sort of faith folks have in the sunrise, or their brakes, for two common examples, and we see the theist attempting to equate one form of faith with another.

Faith in the sunrise is borne of evidence, faith in gods is borne of an absence of evidence.

Hola, JoeyK. I believe you are right about the projection in the OP. I appreciate this post, in that it has made me really think about what faith is supposed to mean. The fact that people use it so broadly, in my opinion, diminishes its intended religious power. In fact, someone who believes that evidence is an element of faith, must then explain what their faith is based on, if to no one but themselves. This defeats the whole purpose of having faith.

Faith in and of itself has no "intended religious power". Specifically religious Faith may be considered to have a special "intended religious power" by practitioners of a religion.

The OP (which I wrote) is not about religious faith specifically. It is about faith in general. Why you and others try to derail and change the thread is beyond me, but it's pretty pathetic and weak.

[JohnnyJersey]

It is kinda weird to think a theist might pride themselves on just how much faith they have, and then argue "well we all have faith in something" - where that 'something' is the relatively mundane.

I can't see how it doesn't diminish the faith in religion.

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?

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Why you and others try to derail and change the thread is beyond me, but it's pretty pathetic and weak.

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?

If you don't wish to be placed on probation, then banned, you will need to find more civil ways to make your points.

[McCulloch]

I'll address the OP directly.

All people live on faith.

This is not a valid statement unless you properly define faith.

There is not a soul in the world who KNOWS everything about everything. People all live on faith to some extent or another.

It seems that by faith you mean believing that something is true without definitively knowing that it is true. My own definition of faith is close to that. Everything that we believe to be true, we have a degree of certainty associated with that belief. My belief that the car will run this morning is not as certain as my belief that the sun will appear to rise in the east. Faith, to me, is having a degree of certainty about a belief that is not warranted by the evidence, reason and logic. Thus, it takes no faith to believe that the sun will appear to rise in the east this morning, but it takes faith to believe that there will be a resurrection of the dead. To me faith is a bad thing, it distorts priorities and probabilities. I endeavor to maintain a proper match between the degree of certainty that I have for my beliefs and the supporting evidence for that belief.

We truly, at the root of it, don't KNOW anything.

Ren Descartes explored this idea and determined that the only thing that we can truly know is our own thoughts. Je pense donc je suis he wrote in 1637, I think, therefore I am.

We use the word "know" to describe those things in which we have the greatest faith.

I disagree. We use the word know to describe those things that we have the greatest certainty of their being true. The degree of certainty is never perfect, however.

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.

From my own point of view, it is irrational for theists to claim to know God, when it is faith, a distortion of the degree of certainty required for that belief, is required.

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.

Most of what we know, we know from others. What others tell us, we can test with reason, logic and evidence as well as the testimony of others. If the belief withstands the tests of reason, logic and evidence and it has a virtual consensus from the people we trust, then that belief should be considered to be more certain than one that is illogical, unreasonable, against the evidence and not universally believed. One such belief is the belief in the Christian God.

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.

We know that other lands exist. There is valid and consistent evidence that Australia is such a land. On the other hand, we do not know that any spiritual beings exist.

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?

Yes, I do.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 312:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Can't you people stay on topic?

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.

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).

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.

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...

I disagree. Where tales that assault the senses are offered, then some evidence should be forthcoming before one accepts belief, IMO.

Examples not mentioned directly...

"A man named Jesus walked the planet".
Plausible, not unreasonable, believable.

"Jesus hopped up after being dead for three days".
Please provide some means to show you speak truth.

[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

In the general sense of the word, to have faith is to believe in something or someone, to fully trust, to be so confident that you base your actions on what you believe. To have faith is to be fully convinced of the truthfulness and reliability of that in which you believe.

Faith in God then, is having the kind of trust and confidence in God and in Christ that leads you to commit your whole soul to Him as Saviour (Justifier, Cleanser, Healer, Deliverer) and Lord (Master, King).

The NIV translation says, "Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1 NIV).

The NKJV of the Bible says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1).

Faith is a spiritual substance. When you have this spiritual substance in you, it communicates to you a certain inner knowing that the thing you are hoping for is certainly established, even before you see any material evidence that it has happened.

Faith is a spiritual force. Faith in God is a response to God's Word which moves God to act. Jesus said in Mark 11:23, "For assuredly I say to you, whoever SAYS to this mountain, 'Be removed and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but BELIEVES that those things he SAYS will be done, he will HAVE whatever he SAYS." Words mixed with the real, pure faith can and will move mountains or any other problem that we face.

Faith in God must be from the heart. It is not merely intellectual. It is spiritual. "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10:10)

Faith causes you to know in your heart before you see with your eyes. "For we walk by faith, not by sight." (2Cor 5.7)

Some say, "Seeing is believing." Once you see the thing hoped for already existing in the natural order, you don't need faith.

Hope is a condition for faith. Hope is "a positive unwavering expectation of good". Hope is for the mind (1 Thessalonians 5:8; Hebrews 6:19), an anchor for the soul. It keeps us in the place where we can believe, but it is not in itself "faith". Yet, without hope there are no "things hoped for", and therefore there cannot be faith.

Through faith we can know we have the answer to our prayer before we see anything change in the natural order (1 John 5:14,15). Jesus said, "Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them." (Mk 11:24). God expects us, even commands us, to believe that our petitions are answered by God AT THE MOMENT WE MAKE THEM. We must believe that the response is immediately sent WHEN we pray. Faith is like the confirmation slip in our hearts that the goods are on the way. We have that confirmation slip instantly from God. We sense it in our hearts. The manifestation of those goods, the answer received, comes later as long as we are patient and do not throw away our confidence. (Hebrews 10:35-39; Hebrews 6:12)

Faith is like a cheque. All you have to do is hold on to the cheque, go to the bank to present it and you can confidently expect the money to appear in your account after a certain time. If you throw the cheque away the money will not be put in your account. God is trustworthy and always has resources to back his promises.

Living faith always has corresponding actions. We talk what we really believe, and we act according to what we really believe. The heroes of faith like Abraham were considered men of faith because they acted on what God showed them. They acted on their faith. (Hebrews 11:17-38, James 2:21-23).

To live in faith means to do and say what you believe is right, without doubting.

Faith is a rest. It is compatible with inner peace. It is not "trying to believe". To say that you are "trying to believe" God is to say that you don't believe Him. The man who is "trying to believe" may be sincere, but he does not have faith in that area yet.

I post this to show how important faith is to christians, how christianity needs it, in order to have hope for those things "we can't see". As far as staying on topic, comparing "regular" faith with "religious" faith is and should be part of the discussion. I understand you wanting to separate it to make a point, but without the comparison, we lack real perspective into your OP.

Lastly, we are not trying to irritate you, but this is a religious debate site, all things point to religion here. What you have to appreciate, though, is that you will not be able to convince everyone of your views or set every perameter to suit your position.

[JohnnyJersey]

I'll address the OP directly.

All people live on faith.

This is not a valid statement unless you properly define faith.

...which I did by providing the dictionary definition.

It seems that by faith you mean believing that something is true without definitively knowing that it is true. My own definition of faith is close to that. Everything that we believe to be true, we have a degree of certainty associated with that belief. My belief that the car will run this morning is not as certain as my belief that the sun will appear to rise in the east. Faith, to me, is having a degree of certainty about a belief that is not warranted by the evidence, reason and logic. Thus, it takes no faith to believe that the sun will appear to rise in the east this morning, but it takes faith to believe that there will be a resurrection of the dead. To me faith is a bad thing, it distorts priorities and probabilities. I endeavor to maintain a proper match between the degree of certainty that I have for my beliefs and the supporting evidence for that belief.

You make a leap in logic in there. It does take faith to believe that the sun will appear to rise in the east the next day. It also takes faith to believe that it has appeared to rise in the east for every day in the past which you have not personally witnessed it. You truly don't have proof of something that hasn't yet occurred or something that occurred according to a report from another source; the exception to this is when you define "proof" in such a way as to accept such sources, and many people do this. However, the fact remains that even in those cases the "proof" itself is actually either an assumption or faith in the credibility of the sources.

Faith is not a bad thing, because without faith, people would not trust many actions to be repeatable. If people needed to have it proven each time that their brakes would work every time they apply them, they would not be driving; it can't be proven that the brakes will always work, but at best it can only be reasonably assumed based on experience and data and the accompanying faith that the equipment will work predictably according to that past experience and data.

Now, if someone were to argue that faith CAN be a bad thing, that faith CAN be based on evidence that is insufficient and/or incorrect, I'd agree. Certainly this is the case every day when people get scammed or "conned" ("con" being a word coming from "confidence", a variation of the word "faith"). There are many people who even have faith with plenty of evidence, faith that most or all others would deem very reasonable, and they still get burned by reality.

I realize that you say you present your own definition of "faith" here; but that's the problem. The word is taken and defined on an individual basis and then thrown around to mean something which its intrinsic meaning does not mean. I'd love to redefine words and throw them back in people's faces also but to maintain some kind of academic integrity I'm not at liberty to do so. However, if other people are going to continue to do it, I will call it out, and/or I will do it myself, in the hopes that one way or another I make my point. It seems that what I meet with, though, is pure intellectual stonewalling or "head in the sand" mentality, basically the argument being "Well this is how I define it so this is how it is," with no open-mindedness to discuss it.

Ren Descartes explored this idea and determined that the only thing that we can truly know is our own thoughts. Je pense donc je suis he wrote in 1637, I think, therefore I am.

...I disagree. We use the word know to describe those things that we have the greatest certainty of their being true. The degree of certainty is never perfect, however.

Right, and this concerns knowledge, which is a different topic, really, so I will not get into the topic of knowledge on this thread.

From my own point of view, it is irrational for theists to claim to know God, when it is faith, a distortion of the degree of certainty required for that belief, is required.

Again, this is about "knowledge" as opposed to faith. For this thread it is sufficient to talk about the faith that theists have in their deity/ies; whether that constitutes knowledge or not is a different issue and one that needs to be discussed in the philosophy subforum as it is epistemology.

Most of what we know, we know from others. What others tell us, we can test with reason, logic and evidence as well as the testimony of others.

Notice the circularity there. You learn through your own senses and from what you hear from others, and then you test it against own senses and what you hear from yet others. While this implies that there is a lot of reasoning and consideration (and no doubt there is) given to a belief, the fact remains that it is rooted in sources that are themselves accepted on faith.

If the belief withstands the tests of reason, logic and evidence and it has a virtual consensus from the people we trust, then that belief should be considered to be more certain than one that is illogical, unreasonable, against the evidence and not universally believed. One such belief is the belief in the Christian God.

Again, "people we trust" = people in whom we have faith. So testing beliefs is done on standards that are themselves accepted on faith and that really reduces the belief to being faith-based, ultimately. That's not to mention the faith we put in our own reasoning and logic which is proven to be prone to error (or does someone want to claim his logic and reasoning is impeccable? I doubt it, and even if someone made that claim, the claim itself would be enough indication that his logic is far from impeccable).

We know that other lands exist.

Only by faith in what we hear and what we believe our senses and logic tell us; all of those are also proven to be prone to error, so the only way to accept is to have faith that when we use those sources they are not in error in that particular case.

There is valid and consistent evidence that Australia is such a land. On the other hand, we do not know that any spiritual beings exist.

There is valid and consistent evidence that spiritual beings exist as well. It is not all the same type of evidence that we have for the existence of Australia, and perhaps you don't accept or approve of the evidence, but there is evidence. Much of the evidence IS the same type of evidence, however; particulary testimony and reports from sources we trust (i.e. place faith in).

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?

Yes, I do.

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.

[BwhoUR]

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

I don't know why they don't just embrace the pure definition instead of trying to change "faith" into "blind faith". That's why there is a term called "blind faith"; it differentiates faith with no evidence from the more common form of faith that everyone lives by, that with evidence.

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

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. 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.)

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?

[Grumpy]

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

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

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

Grumpy