Faith

[Immanuel Can]

Fair enough. I didn't mean to sound like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy there. I just don't think that with that understanding of "faith" anyone could be really sure what one actually believed.

One is believing something contrary to all evidence, or knowing that is was untrue? In what sense, then could we even say one "believed" it (or "had faith in" it, if you prefer)? But you're quite right, of course: ordinary folks get all sorts of things confused from time to time.

But it's also true that if we want to put a serious question to a point of view, we're always well-advised to select the most articulate and intelligent proponents, rather than selecting the most philosophically naïve version and kicking the straw out of that, as you suggest.

[ReliStuPhD]

Fair enough. I didn't mean to sound like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy there. I just don't think that with that understanding of "faith" anyone could be really sure what one actually believed.

One is believing something contrary to all evidence, or knowing that is was untrue? In what sense, then could we even say one "believed" it (or "had faith in" it, if you prefer)? But you're quite right, of course: ordinary folks get all sorts of things confused from time to time.

But it's also true that if we want to put a serious question to a point of view, we're always well-advised to select the most articulate and intelligent proponents, rather than selecting the most philosophically naïve version and kicking the straw out of that, as you suggest.

In your defense, I wasn't taking your comments as a logical fallacy so much as potentially leading us down the path of categorizing "real Christian" as one having correct belief on more than a few fundamental issues. I don't think that's what you intended (and your response here only serves to confirm that), but I've seen too many try to do that and just wanted to "go on record," as it were.

As for the more technical part of your response, I agree. The New Oxford American Dictionary offers two definitions of "faith":

Code: Select all

1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

It's clear it's the second definition that's on trial here, but even then, this apparently strict separation between "spiritual apprehension" and "proof" strikes me as misguided, especially when "proof" is defined as

Code: Select all

"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: 'you will be asked to give proof of your identity' | 'this is not a proof for the existence of God.'"

At best, there's terminological slippage here, especially given the usage examples the dictionary provides.

[Immanuel Can]

Indeed.

Certainly Oxford suggests by its definitions that "faith" is not anti-evidentiary or non-evidentiary. Surely confirmation of one's identity is not a matter unrelated to evidence. In fact, even one's "faith" in politicians, if it has been "restored," as the dictionary suggests, can only be so restored if there is some evidence to warrant such a restoration, no?

And if any of that's right, then the definitions we've been offered by earlier interlocutors are their own personal inventions, or products of what they wish to believe about belief, rather than the products of any sort of consensus definition of the kind Oxford would recognize.

But I think we both knew that.

[ReliStuPhD]

But I think we both knew that.

Indeed.

[duszek]

Would "having faith in a politician" mean "trusting a politician" ?

A politician clearly exists. So one can trust him or not.
Whereas trusting God or a god presupposes that one believes in His existence or sistence.

Can we have faith in love ? Or trust love ?

[ReliStuPhD]

Whereas trusting God or a god presupposes that one believes in His existence or sistence.

So does trusting in the politician, so the point here is apparently not whether one believes in the existence of the being in which faith is placed.

[duszek]

I formulate in a new way then:

If I trust a politician everyone can see that he is there.
If I trust God some doubt whether He is there.

The second trusting has a different quality, I think.
You trust not only that He is good but also that He is there at all.

[ReliStuPhD]

I formulate in a new way then:

If I trust a politician everyone can see that he is there.
If I trust God some doubt whether He is there.

The second trusting has a different quality, I think.
You trust not only that He is good but also that He is there at all.

The question then is whether "some doubting" means that those who do not are somehow trusting in some lesser sense? That doesn't necessarily follow. Insofar as the Christian can claim (perhaps rightly) that belief in God is properly basic, then trust in the politician and trust in God are of at least the same quality. If not, then it is trust in God that is of a greater quality, because (1) God has revealed "Him"self to the Christian whereas the politician may not have [I've never met Barack Obama to confirm he's not an elaborate ruse] and (2) the politician is contingent upon God whereas the reverse is not true. That is, one can trust in God in a far more robust way than one can trust in the politician.

This is, of course, the Christian position. If I've ranged too far abroad, let me know and I'll try to reign myself in.

[Immanuel Can]

Well said. I think you're onto a subtle and important distinction.

There are two acts of faith pertaining to God there: firstly, His existence, and then His character.

But then, the Bible is quite frank about this. It plainly says, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God; for he who comes to Him must believe that He is, and that He is the Rewarder of those who seek Him."

One is not going to "believe" in someone who one thinks doesn't exist, nor is one going to have any reason to put trust in Someone who refuses to be found, or who intends one ill. So I don't think this is a fact from which Christians have any motive to hide. It's actually mainline theology for them.

But back to the issue of the relationship between evidence and faith. We should then ask, "Is there any evidence to warrant any belief either way?" And of course, this is a question that has already been much discussed, both here and on many other sites. Thinking Christians do, of course, maintain that there is: and hence, regardless of whether one agrees with them or not, it is not true to say their belief is non-evidentiary. They do indeed refer to evidence.

Hence the original definition of "belief" was not a good one here. It does not describe mainline Christian theology on the matter.

[raw_thought]

The OP was obviously not a strawman. The analogy fits perfectly with conventional Christianity.

I think what ReliStuPhD is pointing out is that your "conventional Christianity," and indeed, your description of what you consider "faith" would not be recognizable to any real Christian.

He's correct.

If we accept the term "faith" as you seem to want to define it, then the question you ask is simply no longer worth asking; for then the proposed "definition" would itself pretty much constitute a rational defeater for "faith" -- except, perhaps for the extreme irrational mystic, and very few Christians are that.

So then the question would be unnecessary, since rational persons could not even entertain a controversy there.

I admit that I wasn't hopeful...but I did want to give your question the benefit of the doubt.

So you are saying that conventional Christianity does not believe that faith in Jesus and God is not necessary for salvation?

[raw_thought]

True, Unitarians/Universalists do not believe that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation. I was raised in that faith. However, the majority of Christians believe that faith in Jesus/God is necessary for salvation.

[David Handeye]

So you are saying that conventional Christianity does not believe that faith in Jesus and God is not necessary for salvation?

Conventional Christianity... dunno.
In Italy, christians believe salvation is already here, for everybody, thanks to Redemption, that is Jesus' sacrifice. Faith is to believe all this is true.

[Immanuel Can]

So you are saying that conventional Christianity does not believe that faith in Jesus and God is not necessary for salvation?

How did you get this from what I said? It doesn't follow at all.

[raw_thought]

I live in the USA. Here Christianity is not as sophisticated. Most clergy here will tell you that faith in God/Jesus is the only path to salvation.

[Immanuel Can]

No, you're right about what Christianity requires...but I think somehow you're understanding "faith" differently than Christians do.