Faith isn't a bad thing.

[McCulloch]

Faith isn't a bad thing.

Is faith a good thing or a bad thing?

What is faith anyway? I think that we are discussing definition (2) below.

faith [feyth]
–noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith (accessed: January 09, 2007).

[Confused]

Faith isn't a bad thing.

Is faith a good thing or a bad thing?

What is faith anyway?

Why do you do this to me?
Never fails, open mouth, insert foot.

Ok: faith is a belief held without proof. That is the most simplistic definition I can use. It can be good and it can be bad. The biggest problem I see with faith is that it gets abused. People take advantage of those with it.

On the logical side, faith is illogical. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but perhaps it may answer the question Camus never got to answer: what is it that makes life worth living? Perhaps it is faith in a better tomorrow.

[McCulloch]

I would argue that faith is a bad thing.

Faith says that demons cause disease and that getting the elders of the church to pray is the cure for whatever ails you. [James] Faith reduces the incentive and the drive to find out how things work by claiming that certain things are of God and beyond human understanding.

[Confused]

I would argue that faith is a bad thing.

Faith says that demons cause disease and that getting the elders of the church to pray is the cure for whatever ails you. [James] Faith reduces the incentive and the drive to find out how things work by claiming that certain things are of God and beyond human understanding.

Perhaps religious faith. But faith in general? I would argue just the opposite. (Yes, I know this is the part that you actually tear me apart at, but what can I say, I am glutton for punishment). There is no proof that if you turn on your water faucet, water will come out, until you do it. Before that, you had faith that water would come out. If you lack the faith, you will never turn on the faucet.

[otseng]

If we use definition 2, faith is a "belief that is not based on proof", then I would say we exercise faith all the time. And I would also say it's necessary to have faith in order to live life. There's no way we can expend the time and energy to "prove" everything before we can believe it.

I've used this example before. When I drive in my car and go through a red light, I have faith that the drivers at the crossroad will stop at their red light. I cannot necessarily "prove" that they'll stop, but I believe that they will.

Or another example, when I go out to eat, I have faith that my food hasn't been poisoned, either intentionally or unintentionally. If I were to have to prove every time my food was not poisoned before I eat it, then I wouldn't be able to eat out at all.

There are degrees of faith involved in practically all that we do. Some might require little faith, some might require more faith. But, I think almost everything we do generally requires some faith.

[Furrowed Brow]

I would argue that faith is a bad thing.

Faith says that demons cause disease and that getting the elders of the church to pray is the cure for whatever ails you. [James] Faith reduces the incentive and the drive to find out how things work by claiming that certain things are of God and beyond human understanding.

Ok faith can be a powerful motivator. For good or bad. However I think faith is an anaesthetic.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Otseng

I've used this example before. When I drive in my car and go through a red light, I have faith that the drivers at the crossroad will stop at their red light. I cannot necessarily "prove" that they'll stop, but I believe that they will.

I ride a bicycle. In town. I have no faith that I'll be seen, or even if I am seen that the motorist will actually stop. Ok, if I'm at a crossroads and I see the car stop I might deem it safe to cross. And I suppose that needs a little faith to believe they were not toying with me and won't immediately put their foot on the accelerator as soon as they have me in their sights. But that little bit of faith takes less energy than the paranoia that goes with believing they're out to get me. (Saying that I do try to look every motorist in the eye just to make sure they have seen me, and to gauge what they are going to do next. If I can't catch their eye I always assume they have not seen me and their next move will be to attempt a manoeuvre that will likely kill me - though I don't take it personal ).

[McCulloch]

If we use definition 2, faith is a "belief that is not based on proof", then I would say we exercise faith all the time. And I would also say it's necessary to have faith in order to live life. There's no way we can expend the time and energy to "prove" everything before we can believe it.

In a formal sense, yes. But in an informal way, we do not believe things without evidence. In fact, there is a sliding scale if you will, of the degree of confidence we have.

I've used this example before. When I drive in my car and go through a red light, I have faith that the drivers at the crossroad will stop at their red light. I cannot necessarily "prove" that they'll stop, but I believe that they will.

And that belief is based on evidence. You were taught that it is the law and safe practice to stop at a red. You have the evidence of repeated experience that other drivers stop on the red. But you still, if you are a defensive driver, do not have absolute confidence in the fact the they will stop. You and I both know that sometimes drivers run a red. We base our behaviour on our own estimation of the probability that others will stop. That is not faith.

Or another example, when I go out to eat, I have faith that my food hasn't been poisoned, either intentionally or unintentionally. If I were to have to prove every time my food was not poisoned before I eat it, then I wouldn't be able to eat out at all.

In my city, we have evidence posted in every restaurant that inspectors have found the food to have been prepared in accordance with safe practices. But even with that, we all know that occasionally food goes bad or has harmful bacteria. Spinach with e-coli, for example. We estimate the probability and base our behaviour on that. No faith there either.

There are degrees of faith involved in practically all that we do. Some might require little faith, some might require more faith. But, I think almost everything we do generally requires some faith.

Perhaps. A necessary evil because, as you say, it would take too much of our time to prove all things?

[Confused]

If we use definition 2, faith is a "belief that is not based on proof", then I would say we exercise faith all the time. And I would also say it's necessary to have faith in order to live life. There's no way we can expend the time and energy to "prove" everything before we can believe it.

In a formal sense, yes. But in an informal way, we do not believe things without evidence. In fact, there is a sliding scale if you will, of the degree of confidence we have.

I've used this example before. When I drive in my car and go through a red light, I have faith that the drivers at the crossroad will stop at their red light. I cannot necessarily "prove" that they'll stop, but I believe that they will.

And that belief is based on evidence. You were taught that it is the law and safe practice to stop at a red. You have the evidence of repeated experience that other drivers stop on the red. But you still, if you are a defensive driver, do not have absolute confidence in the fact the they will stop. You and I both know that sometimes drivers run a red. We base our behaviour on our own estimation of the probability that others will stop. That is not faith.

Or another example, when I go out to eat, I have faith that my food hasn't been poisoned, either intentionally or unintentionally. If I were to have to prove every time my food was not poisoned before I eat it, then I wouldn't be able to eat out at all.

In my city, we have evidence posted in every restaurant that inspectors have found the food to have been prepared in accordance with safe practices. But even with that, we all know that occasionally food goes bad or has harmful bacteria. Spinach with e-coli, for example. We estimate the probability and base our behaviour on that. No faith there either.

There are degrees of faith involved in practically all that we do. Some might require little faith, some might require more faith. But, I think almost everything we do generally requires some faith.

Perhaps. A necessary evil because, as you say, it would take too much of our time to prove all things?

Somehow I knew the bite in the asks was coming. When you go to sleep, do you not have faith that you will wake up in the morning or do you make plans every night before you go to bed just in case. When you drive home every night after work, do you not have faith that your wife will be home waiting for you, and do you not have faith that your job will still be there the next day?

[otseng]

But in an informal way, we do not believe things without evidence. In fact, there is a sliding scale if you will, of the degree of confidence we have.

Yes, there is a sliding scale. Sometimes there are a lot of supporting reasons to back up a position, sometimes there are not. But, in almost all cases, there is still an element of faith.

We base our behaviour on our own estimation of the probability that others will stop. That is not faith.

I think there is a distinction between "blind faith" and "faith". Per our definition 2, faith is a "belief that is not based on proof". It says nothing about a total lack of evidence. Whereas a total lack of evidence I would consider "blind faith".

A necessary evil because, as you say, it would take too much of our time to prove all things?

I would not classify it as "evil". I would say faith by itself is neutral, neither good nor bad. However, the consequences of acting by faith could result in either good or bad.

One example. I went bungee cord jumping some years ago. I was hoisted up in a cage several stories high. Attached to me was one end of a bungee cord. While the other end was attached to the cage. I paid good money for the opportunity to jump off of that cage platform. I didn't take any steps to prove to myself that the cord was not too long and that it was strong enough for me. I needed faith that the bungee cord would hold me and that it was not too long. There could've been two possible consequences of my acting in faith. Either I'd get the bad result of smashing myself on the concrete floor below or the good result of a rush of excitement of having survived jumping off that platform.