Can people live without faith?

[FarWanderer]

Non-believers often cite faith as a poor justification for belief. However, believers often accuse non-believers of their own beliefs being faith based.

Are they right? Is a reliance on faith something inescapable for all of us? And if it is, what ought we put faith into and why?

[dianaiad]

Non-believers often cite faith as a poor justification for belief. However, believers often accuse non-believers of their own beliefs being faith based.

Are they right? Is a reliance on faith something inescapable for all of us? And if it is, what ought we put faith into and why?

First, 'faith' is being defined differently by the believer and the non-believer.

the NON believer defines 'faith' as "belief in a religious idea without any evidence." they define 'evidence' as the strictly empirical sort upon which the scientific method relies: solid, physical, hammer on a rock type.

If we go by that definition, then faith isn't a justification for belief; faith IS belief without evidence.

Many confuse 'faith' with 'belief," making them synonyms. They aren't.

Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially
: a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>



Please notice the constant use of the word 'trust."

Full Definition of TRUST
1
a : assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something
b : one in which confidence is placed
2
a : dependence on something future or contingent : hope

As you can see, "faith" and "trust" are synonyms...but 'faith' and 'belief?" Not quite. One can believe that something might be true and not trust it.

When you have faith in something or someone, you trust it. You act upon it; you depend on it. You act as if the thing you believe to be true is true.

...................but before you can have faith, you first must believe. That belief may be based upon the slimmest of reasons or the strongest of empirical evidence, but unless you depend upon its truth and act upon it, it's not faith.

It's easy to trust in something you KNOW to be true...the problem is, there aren't a whole lot of things that we know to be true. Shoot, I'm looking out the window right now and I don't even know that the sun is shining. I know that it was shining eight minutes ago, but I don't KNOW that it's shining right now.. I'm going, however, to show faith in the idea that the sun still is shining. It's a fairly safe bet.

Now...does everybody 'live by faith?" In one sense, absolutely. We all depend upon and trust in things we don't yet know to be true, but only believe to be true, such as the fact that the sun is shining right this second. We trust that the leaves we see are the same green as the green everybody else sees when they look, so we use paints to reflect that in the expectation that everybody else will recognize the color.

We type on forums like this in the faith that someone will actually read our deathless prose.

We go to sleep at night in the faith that we'll wake up in the morning.

For some of us, that faith will go unrealized. We'll be wrong.

But we do it anyway, in the expectation, the hope, that we'll be right.

So yes, we ALL 'live on faith.' in that we behave according to our expectations of truth, which just might not work out.


The problem here is that non-believers don't like that idea. At all...and they figure that if they do not accept the evidence for something, then it's not evidence at all; it doesn't exist. They expect the believers to agree with them that any evidence that the non-believer dismisses isn't evidence at all.

I think that's a bit on the arrogant side, myself, but then I'm a believer, so what can I tell you?

ANYWAY, at the end of things, if non-believers get to define the word 'faith,' then they are correct. However, if believers and the dictionary get to define it, then they are not. I'm of the opinion that those who openly admit to having faith get to define it, and that the dictionary should be good for something. You know, like defining words.

That's pretty simple, yes?

[Divine Insight]

Faith does not stand alone. In fact most concepts don't.

What has been recognized by many supporters of reason is that there is reasonable faith and unreasonable faith.

It's reasonable for us to place our faith in science for many reasons. For one thing science is based upon a very reasonable method of inquiry. But far more important is that it has a historical track recording of being highly dependable. There are a few causes where scientific knowledge has been wrong, or in some cases simply incomplete. But overall, science has been very dependable, and therefore it is reasonable to place our faith in science.

Also, faith placed in science is reasonable faith in that it often comes with some doubt. It's not always rock solid faith. In other words if we build a technological device and have faith that it will work we may ultimately be disappointed. It may indeed fail. However, even then it almost always turns out that the reason it failed was not because of bad science, but rather because of bad engineering or a defect in manufacturing, etc.

For example, when we build an large passenger jet we can have a high degree of faith that it will take off fly and land safely. In fact, this works so well and people have placed so much faith in this system that we have built an entire economy around using jumbo jets as a standard means of transportation. Yet even though we place reasonable faith in this system, if does unfortunately fail on occasion. Often resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people.

When we place our faith in this system we are not only placing our faith in science, but we are also playing our faith in engineers, manufactures, air traffic controllers, pilots, and so on. We are actually placing our faith in many different things simultaneously. It's still reasonable faith. It's reasonable faith because the airline industry has a pretty good safety record in spite of the fact that accidence still do happy.

But the bottom line is that it is still faith that can be wrong should we happen to board a jet that is destined to crash.

So even though we have reasonable faith we also realize that it's not 100% trustworthy. Faith does not mean that we are absolutely certain that things will work out as planned. Faith is often nothing more than a willingness to accept the risks based on the known odds.

Religious faith is quite different.

Religious faith is unreasonable faith because it require trusting in things that are highly unlikely to be true. Things for which there is no evidence to support them. And things that don't even have any success rates associated with them. When we place our faith in religion it's a total stab in the dark.

Ironically with a religion like Christianity the religion itself predicts that it is a stab in the dark. In other words, even if Christianity is 100% true, Jesus tells us that only very few people will "Not crash" in this religion. The vast majority of people will go the way of everlasting punishment and only a few will make it to life eternal. So even if we place our faith in the idea that the religion is true, that's only the first part of the faith. The second part of religious faith in this religion is to also have faith that we'll be among the few who are saved from eternal damnation.

In other religion is almost like placing your faith in the idea that if you buy a lottery ticket you'll be certain to win the lottery. And that would indeed be unreasonable faith.

But religion is even worse than this. At least when we buy a lottery ticket we know the lottery exists and someone will indeed win. Even though the odds that it will be us is extremely slim. But at least we know the chance is real.

In religion it's like buying an invisible pretend lottery ticket when you aren't even sure that the invisible pretend lottery even exists.

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 1 by FarWanderer]

Interesting point. First faith.

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

No...non belief doesn't require faith. Non belief is based on evidence, reason and logic and a careful review of empirical evidence...faith has no evidence, if it did, it wouldn't require faith, as it would be fact. If it was fact, it would be taught in public schools, but it isn't...thankfully.

Science is the antithesis of faith. Science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks, balances, and safeguards against human bias and error. Science has a built in corrective mechanism..hypothesis testing...that weeds out false claims. Claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are held as tentatively true by scientists..unlike claims of faith that are held as eternally true with zero evidence. Related to this, claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are falsifiable, that is, there is a way to show the claims are false. This is not the case with faith claims. For example, there's no way to falisify the claim that the norse god Loki was able ot assume other forms.

Scientists try to prove claims false (falsification), unlike faith leaders who unequivocally state their faith claims are true. If a scientist can demonstrate that a popular scientific claim is false, he or she can become famous, get tenure, publish books, earn more money and become respected by her or his peers. If a preacher states that the claims of his faith tradition are false, he's excommunicated, defrocked or otherwise forced to abandon his position...the stifling of growth and enlightenment basically.

Science is a method for advancing our understanding. It is process we can use to bring us closer to the truth, and to weed out false claims. Science thus is the best way we've currently found to explain and understand how the universe works...unlike the religious leaders who base it on a superstitious fictional book put together and sold to the masses. greatest scam ever pulled on mankind.

Faith IS the delusion, belief without evidence. Faith is pretending to know things that you dont know. To say "I have faith in god" really means "I pretend to know things I don't know about god"....THINK about it, you dont know, you HOPE. Faith is an epistemology. It's a method and process people use to understand reality. Faith-based claims are knowledge claims. For example, "I have faith that jesus christ will heal my sickness because it says so in Luke" is a knowledge claim. The utterer of this statement is asserting jesus will heal her. Those who make faith claims are professing to know something about the external world. For example, when someone says "jesus walked on water" (matthew 14:22-33), that person is claiming TO KNOW there was an historical figure names jesus and that he, unaided by technology, literally walked across the surface of the water. This is a knowledge claim...an objective statement of fact.

Your religious beliefs typically depend on the community in which you were raised or lived. The spiritual experiences of people in ancient greece, medieval japan or 21st century saudia arabia do not lead to belief in christianity. It seems, therefore, that religious belief very likely tracks not truth but social conditioning.

Faith is a failed epistemology. Showing why faith fails has been done before and done well. (Bering 2011, Harris 2004, Loftus 2010, 2013, McCormick 2012, Schick & Vaughn 2008, Shermer 1997, 2011, Smith 1979, STenger & Barker 2012, Torres 2012, Wade 2009 etc)

If a belief is based on insufficient evidence, than any further conclusion drawn from the belief will at best be of questionable value. This can not point one to the path of truth. Here are five points believers/non believers should be able to agree upon.

1) There are different faith traditions.
2) Different faith traditions make different truth claims.
3) The truth claims of some faith traditions contradict the truth claims of other faith traditions. For example, Muslims believe muhammad (570-632) was the last prophet (Sura 33:40). Mormons believe Joseph Smith (1805-1844), who lived after muhammad was a prophet.
4) It cannot both be the case that muhammad was the last prophet, and someone who lived after him was also a prophet.
5) Therefore: At LEAST one of these claims must be false....perhaps both....

it is impossible to figure out which of these claims is incorrect if the tool one uses is faith. As a tool, as an epistemology, as a method of reasoning, as a process for knowing the world, faith cannot adjudicate between competing claims. The ONLY way to figure out which claims about the world are likely true, and which are likely false, is through reason and evidence. There is no other way......yet

[dianaiad]

[quote="goodwithoutgod"]
[Replying to post 1 by FarWanderer]

Interesting point. First faith.

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

<snip to end>

Thank you for illustrating my point, made in my previous post.

.....which, of course, you obviously did not read.

Faith does NOT mean 'the belief in something without evidence."

Not according to any reputable dictionary.

Given that you have the wrong definition, the rest of your post makes no logical sense.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 1 by FarWanderer]

Interesting point. First faith.

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

<snip to end>

Thank you for illustrating my point, made in my previous post.

.....which, of course, you obviously did not read.

Faith does NOT mean 'the belief in something without evidence."

Not according to any reputable dictionary.

Given that you have the wrong definition, the rest of your post makes no logical sense.

When you go to bed at night, faith in waking up the next morning is based on what? It's based on the fact that the last 10,000 times or so you went to bed, you woke up the next morning. You can use the word "faith" to describe this perfectly reasonable extrapolation from extensive empirical data, if you want, but don't expect the "reasonableness" of the word "faith" in this context to bleed into the use of the word "faith" when used to describe belief in zombies, angels, leprechauns, etc.

"Faith" based on a reasonable assesment and extrapolation of tangible data: Good

Faith based on childhood indoctrination into a belief system devoid of any evidence whatsoever: Bad

[ttruscott]

Non-believers often cite faith as a poor justification for belief. However, believers often accuse non-believers of their own beliefs being faith based.

Are they right? Is a reliance on faith something inescapable for all of us? And if it is, what ought we put faith into and why?

Faith as defined in the bible as the essence of hope of unseen / unproven things would make it cover just about any belief in the future and working to fulfill or create the fulfillment of that belief...and such choices are as inescapable as they are natural.

Peace, Ted

[atheist buddy]

Non-believers often cite faith as a poor justification for belief. However, believers often accuse non-believers of their own beliefs being faith based.

Are they right? Is a reliance on faith something inescapable for all of us? And if it is, what ought we put faith into and why?

Faith as defined in the bible as the essence of hope of unseen / unproven things would make it cover just about any belief in the future and working to fulfill or create the fulfillment of that belief...and such choices are as inescapable as they are natural.

Peace, Ted

Well, the Bible's definition of fiaht is rather vague and useless in te context of the OP's attempt to differenciate between religious faith and rational faith

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 1 by FarWanderer]

Interesting point. First faith.

Faith - the belief in something without evidence

....

This is not the Christian definition of faith which can be found in Heb 11:2 Faith is the essence of hope, the conviction of things unseen.

Since no Christian will believe without evidence, you present a straw belief that is meaningless to us.

Peace, Ted

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 5 by dianaiad]

Open your eyes dear,

Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially
: a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Now put your comprehension cap on...what would "firm belief in something for which there is no evidence" mean? = Belief in something without evidence.

no evidence, and without evidence is the same thing. Was that really your attempt to discredit my post? If so, you may want to go back to school and seek an education in theology, in which I happen to have a degree in.

Uhoh, an atheist who not only grew up the son of a minister and knows the delusion from the inside out, has spent 30 years studying the myth, but also has that (BA in Religion) as one of my degrees of study, from Saint Leo University no less. Try harder next time...good luck.