This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I need a definition of faith that is precise.

#11cyclonekrusePosted 1/12/2013 4:16:38 PM
My $0.02.

Faith is belief without proof. And by "proof" I mean evidence or argument that is sufficient to warrant/justify belief.

Perhaps more precisely, faith is the "thing" that makes up for the insufficient evidence. In that way, you can speak of faith-based beliefs versus evidence-based beliefs. And it's really a continuum. You can have blind faith where you believe in the face of no or even contrary evidence. And you can have an airtight argument that requires no faith to believe. Or anywhere in between. The more evidence you have, the less faith you need to push you over the edge to belief.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#12OrangeWizardPosted 1/12/2013 4:50:00 PM
From: cyclonekruse | #011
Faith is belief without ...evidence or argument that is sufficient to warrant/justify belief.



Then how does one come to the belief in the first place?

If one is simply told that X is true, and then it follows that one believes X is true, is not the act of "being told" one's sufficient evidence or argument to justify one's belief?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#13cyclonekrusePosted 1/12/2013 7:04:47 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #012
Then how does one come to the belief in the first place?

If one is simply told that X is true, and then it follows that one believes X is true, is not the act of "being told" one's sufficient evidence or argument to justify one's belief?

It gets a little bit fuzzy there. If one of my friends is intoxicated and claims X, there is a good chance that "being told" in that instance is not sufficient evidence to justify belief. Similarly, if a layperson makes a claim about physics, it will offer less justification that if a physicist makes a similar claim due to the physicist's greater credentials and (at least perceived) knowledge.

And then there's the matter of the claim itself. If you told me that you had toast today for breakfast, I would likely be justified in believing you just based on "being told" by you that you ate toast. However, if you said you ate dragon tongue for breakfast, or something of the like, I probably wouldn't be justified in believing that claim simply by "being told" it's true.

What really throws a wrench in this, though, is that what I take to be sufficient evidence might not be exactly the same as what you take to be sufficient evidence. That is, even if we're presented the same evidence, one of us might think belief is justified based on the evidence whereas the other person might not. And in a lot of cases, it's difficult to say who's "right."
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#14OrangeWizardPosted 1/12/2013 7:29:35 PM
From: cyclonekruse | #013
It gets a little bit fuzzy there. If one of my friends is intoxicated and claims X, there is a good chance that "being told" in that instance is not sufficient evidence to justify belief.


If you believe in it, IT EVIDENTLY IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE!

If you don't believe in it, THEN WHERE DOES FAITH COME IN?

I apologize for shouting. Lately, people have been saying head-slappingly illogical things.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#15cyclonekrusePosted 1/12/2013 8:07:52 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #014
If you believe in it, IT EVIDENTLY IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE!

You make the mistake of assuming that the only reason one would believe is because of "being told" X. Going back to a drunk friend, or at least one that has been drinking, if s/he says "I'm good to drive" is that sufficient evidence to justify believing s/he is good to drive? If s/he's had 6 shots of tequila in the last hour, the answer is no, I'd say. But if s/he's only had 2 in the last hour, s/he might be okay depending on body weight and strength of the drinks and other such factors. And so it might be sufficient evidence. But you'd also be checking for slurred speech or an unsteady walk or a flushed face. So the amount of faith required to believe your friend varies depending on circumstances. It would take a LOT of faith (probably misplaced) to believe your friend in the 6-shot instance whereas it might take very little faith (though still some, since you can't jump into their consciousness and directly experience whether or not they're impaired) to believe your friend in the other case depending on the available evidence.

I apologize for shouting. Lately, people have been saying head-slappingly illogical things.

I don't see why what I said was so illogical.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#16LastManStandingPosted 1/12/2013 9:58:05 PM
Faith is so a huge subject. Reading a book about faith it takes a long, long time. In faith you look at the world differently,
---
Divine Mercy - God Loves you as a sinner.
Christ Said: Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy. (Diary 1588) Day of Mercy was declared in 2000
#17SirThinkALotPosted 1/12/2013 10:31:34 PM(edited)
I've often said before that I think of 'faith' as effectively synonymous with 'trust.' So to say 'I have faith in God' is equivalent to saying 'I trust God'

A statement like 'I have faith in God being real' is a funny usage of the word, and one I dont hear very often. Although I suppose it could be being used to mean that one trusts the bible or religious leaders when they tell them God is real. *shrugs* I suppose you'd have to ask the person using that phrase what it means...

I also think(and I believe I have said this in the past too) that faith needs to be distinguished from belief, which is simply acceptance that a given proposition is true. I'd go so far to say that its at least hypothetically possible to believe in God(that is to acknowledge he exists) without having faith in him indeed I've encountered more than a few atheists who have said that if God(as described in the Bible) existed, they wouldn't worship him. Which is really just another way of saying they wouldn't trust or have faith in him.

Now obviously the converse cannot exist, since trusting in something implies that you think it exists.
---
Learn real history and economics at liberty Classroom
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/dap/a/?a=1305
#18OrangeWizardPosted 1/13/2013 8:42:45 AM
From: cyclonekruse | #015
You make the mistake of assuming that the only reason one would believe is because of "being told" X.


It doesn't matter.

My hypothetical is that X is TOLD to you.
You believe X, based on the EVIDENCE of someone telling it to you.
It is SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, because YOU BELIEVE IN IT, DON'T YOU?
Therefore, it's not based on faith.

Your definition is simply inadequate.


if s/he says "I'm good to drive" is that sufficient evidence to justify believing s/he is good to drive?


If you believe it, YES.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#19cyclonekrusePosted 1/13/2013 9:46:37 AM
From: OrangeWizard | #018
It doesn't matter.

My hypothetical is that X is TOLD to you.
You believe X, based on the EVIDENCE of someone telling it to you.
It is SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, because YOU BELIEVE IN IT, DON'T YOU?

That does not follow from my definition. It's possible for instances like this to happen, but it is hardly necessary. Remember that I said you can believe based on evidence and faith. So even if you get evidence for a proposition and that pushes you to belief, it might only be part of your justification for believing. The evidence by itself might be insufficient to make you believe but your faith in addition to the evidence might bring about belief. So believing something based (partially) on evidence does not mean it's sufficient evidence to justify belief.

If you believe it, YES.

In a vacuum, though, you wouldn't believe your friend is okay to drive. Or rather, in the circumstances of seeing your friend drinking a lot, you probably wouldn't believe your friend is okay to drive.

Let me put it this way, if you had absolutely no faith in your friend's words or did not trust him/her at all, would you believe based solely on his/her claim that s/he is okay to drive?

Fake edit: Upon some reflection, perhaps some of this confusion is based off what I am thinking it takes to "justify belief." I was kind of thinking in the mathematical or logical (at least deductive) proof sense where, if it's a valid proof, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#20OrangeWizardPosted 1/13/2013 12:21:59 PM(edited)
From: cyclonekruse | #018
That does not follow from my definition.

Your definition is:

you
Faith is belief without ...evidence or argument that is sufficient to warrant/justify belief.


If A tells you X, and you believe it because you trust A
A is now the sufficient evidence that you use to warrant/justify belief in X
Otherwise, if you do not believe X, faith never even enters into the picture, because you need to have a belief first.

You can't believe in ANYTHING without having evidence or argument that is sufficient to warrant/justify belief.
Therefore, under this definition, faith doesn't even exist, since you can't believe in anything without this, and if you don't believe, there's no faith.

See?

Let me put it this way, if you had absolutely no faith in your friend's words or did not trust him/her at all, would you believe based solely on his/her claim that s/he is okay to drive?


No.
Your point?

perhaps some of this confusion is based off what I am thinking it takes to "justify belief." I was kind of thinking in the mathematical or logical (at least deductive) proof sense where, if it's a valid proof, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.


Me too.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face