Arising_uk wrote:Hi Notvacka
Notvacka wrote:...I think that you found the heart of this little debate, and it's made of language. Evangelicalhumanist's position would have been more reasonable in my native language, Swedish, since here the word for "belief" and "faith" are one and the same. In English, you can settle for atheism not being strong enough a belief to qualify as a faith. However, I think evangelicalhumanist tries to define "belief" in stronger terms, more akin to "faith". On the other side of the scale you have "opinion" which I would consider a weaker form of "belief". ...
I found this most interesting. So in Swedish how do you refer to what in English is called 'faith' as my understanding is we think it a belief without need for evidence. A total conviction of knowledge, so to speak. Whereas a belief is something that has shades of being knowledge, so to speak. Is it that the religious belief would be described in Swedish as not knowledge as you say knowledge is a belief and can never be assumed to be absolutely true? Sorry if this is unclear but its hard to say without using 'faith'.
I do think it interesting about English that because its an amalgamation of French and Anglo-Saxon that we pretty much have two words for every concept and thing that the originals had only one for. Makes it a pretty confusing but powerful language is my thought.
Yes, language is the most interesting thing. And here in Sweden we get by pretty well with a language containing roughly half the ammount of words compared to English. There is always a way to say what you want, though sometimes you need to use more than one word, when in English one would suffice.
It's also funny how most philosopical debates boil down to arguments about definitions, which are usually not precise in common language. This topic is typical, since the original proposition takes the form of "this is not that" (atheism is not a belief).
Language is how we express our thoughts, and (as Typist is in the habit of pointing out, quite correctly) thought is inherently divisive. The problem we face, is that the dividing lines are often arbitrary. While the line between earth and sky is pretty obvious, in the realm of abstract concepts things get more ambiguous, and people get emotional about their definitions.
Now, as for your question:
Arising_uk wrote:So in Swedish how do you refer to what in English is called 'faith' as my understanding is we think it a belief without need for evidence. A total conviction of knowledge, so to speak. Whereas a belief is something that has shades of being knowledge, so to speak.
Language is indeed the most wonderful, frightening thing!
I find that I can't answer your rather straightforward question in any simple manner. And, I must confess, I was not aware of the distinction between "belief" and "faith" you mention regarding evidence, though I believe my grasp of the English language to be quite firm.
First I had to check. TheFreeDictionary offered me these:
Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Belief: 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
The Longman Modern English Dictionary, which I usually put my
faith in:
Faith: 1. trust/confidence in somebody/something [uncountable] a strong feeling of trust or confidence in someone or something.
Belief: 1. the feeling that something is definitely true or definitely exists.
Well, dictionaries only get you so far.
To me, blief can be based upon any ammount of evidence or none, while faith is a stronger sort of conviction that needs at least some foundation, though not necessarily in the form of evidence. A strong feeling or some sort of internal reasoning (rational or irrational) could be enough.
- A practical example:
I know that this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed it before, and it held then. Though this evidence from experience is not an absolute guarantee that it will hold my wight again, it's enough for me to claim knowledge.)
I know that this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed one just like it, and this should be no different. That's enough for me to claim knowledge from experience.)
I believe this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed it before, and it held then. But I'm cautious and won't claim knowledge until I'm actually on the ladder.)
I believe this ladder will hold my weight. (It looks sturdy enough, and that's good enough for me.)
I believe this ladder will hold my weight. (Perhaps it doesn't look all that sturdy, but I'm brave and don't mind taking chances.)
I have faith that this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed it before, and it held then. That's the foundation of my faith.)
I have faith that this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed one just like it, and this should be no different. That's the foundation of my faith.)
I have faith that this ladder will hold my weight. (It looks sturdy enough, and that's good enough for me.)
I have faith that this ladder will hold my weight. (I saw in a dream that I climbed it, and in that dream, it held.)
All these are acceptable uses of the words in question, I think. And these examples show that the distinction you mention is far from obvious in the English language. To me, the difference is not so much about the evidence as about the level of conviction:
"I believe it won't rain today" is rather non committal. I might still bring an umbrella, just in case, while "I have faith that it won't rain today" means that I won't bring an umbrella.
Edit: Both "belief" and "faith" translates as "tro" in Swedish. However, in many cases "faith" translates as "tillit", which in turn translates back as "trust" in English. Maybe that's the reason why I interpret "faith" as a belief that you trust, for whatever reason, while I see "knowledge" as a belief that you trust also, but in this case the reason is evidence of some kind.