Definition of Faith

[Mister Bill]

Thanks for your views everyone. While we're on the subject of proof I'll pass on something else. On the site where I got "definition", when the unbeliever demanded proof of God I nicely demanded proof that there wasn't one. The atheists came out of the woodwork and basically told me that a negative couldn't be proven. My question to them is that if non-existence of God can't be proven as they say why are they so willing to accept that? I'm not talking popular opinion or someone's idea. I'm talking the kind of proof they expect believers to provide. Seems to be a double standard. If anyone has a comment or thinks I'm wrong I'd be glad to read it.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Mister Bill

[Enoch2021]

Years ago someone posted this on a different site after someone demanded proof of God's existence. I liked it so much that I copied it so I could share it with others. - not only is there no proof, faith demands no proof. It is not science. Faith by nature and definition is destroyed by proof, for then it is something different: fact. So, in effect,you want a Christian to give you something he or she cannot if they are true to God or if they do, simply prove that they are not true to their God.-

 

 

==============================================================================================

 

not only is there no proof, faith demands no proof.

 

This is Factually Incorrect.

 

First lets define "Biblical" Faith:  (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

"Blind" Faith--  Belief without substance.

 

The Lord also warns against "Blind Faith"; by proxy:  (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

So the claims (In TOTO) that are made concerning "Faith", as the poster outlined above, are nothing more than an erroneous Extrapolation off an Equivocation (Fallacy).... with the word "Faith".

 

Moreover....

 

(Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

 

So the Invisible things are "clearly seen".  What could those be?  IMHO they are Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, "CODE"/Information (DNA).

 

Additionally, You only have 2 choices as to HOW we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information, Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?

Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- 2 things that are contradictory can't exist @ the same time (or do you disagree?).  It's better stated as: either Randomness or Intelligent Design Created us and the Universe. This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

 

The Final Step is outlined here:

 

 

Faith by nature and definition is destroyed by proof

 

Factually Incorrect.  They ("Faith" and "Proof") are not Mutually Exclusive

 

"Proof" does not Preclude the NEED for Faith (and Vice Versa).....as Evidenced by Peter (and many others):

 

(Matthew 14:25-33) "And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.  {26} And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.  {27} But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying,  Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.  {28} And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.  {29} And he said,  Come.  And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.  {30} But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.  {31} And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him,  O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?  {32} And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.  {33} Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

 

Peter, as eloquently portrayed above, had AAA+ "Proof" and still faltered.  He still needed Faith, in other words.

 

 

It is not science

 

So they're saying Faith isn't Science?  Mostly because they're two different words.  A tantamount statement would be Bananas aren't Strawberries.

[LuftWaffle]

I think the reason why we have word [in a religious context] like 'faith' is to convey the trust one might have in something that they often times can't show to someone else. So for example, I can share the experience [evidence] of seeing the sunset or sunrise with anyone I want. Can we do the same with 'faith' in prayer or 'faith' that a spirit being is interacting with one's life? There are all kinds of distinct views on the supernatural and a supposed afterlife. The reason these [often times conflicting] views can be held is because they aren't able to show concrete evidence one way or the other. We don't see this same behavior with the sunrise, we can all objectively see it.

The reason we don't see people having faith in sunsets is because generally nothing is ventured on sunsets. Faith is an act of trust, when something's at stake.

 

If you we're to venture something on a sunset, then it would in fact make sense to say you have "faith" regarding the sunset. Suppose for instance you and I had a bet that if it's overcast tomorrow at sun down time I get to throw you into my dungeon (what, you don't have a dungeon?!), but instead if it's clear skies, and thus, a sunset, I'll let you go free.

Now, suppose you're a meteorologist and you're quite certain that it'll be clear then it would make perfect sense for you to say, "Sure, I have faith that there'll be a beautiful sunset tomorrow!"

 

Faith, thus isn't a claim of epistomology, but rather a claim about what you're prepared to venture on what you know.

[LuftWaffle]

Except that this is very wrong.

I'm assuming proof here refers to evidence. The notion that faith is destroyed by proof is a product of modern romanticism and anti-intellectualism in churches. Unfortunately many atheists also perpetuate this incorrect notion of faith.

Faith isn't something that exists in the absence of evidence and withers when exposed to it, but rather faith is an act of trust in what one has good evidence to believe is true.

 

I understand and partially agree with your critisisms. However, I think the original author of the quote in the OP is saying something that has more truth to it than you are giving credit (although, the wording could be a little bit misleading). Most importantly, by proof, I don't think he means evidence, because God certainly gave us evidence as you pointed out. I think he is using proof/prove in the mathematical sense, in that, given A = B and B = C, we can know, know, know that A = C. I would never say, I believe A = C, because when you have proof in this sense there is no place for faith.

 

I agree that one cannot prove the existence of God with 100% certainty. There's in fact precious little that can be proven that way.

I think generally when unbelievers claim that there's no proof for God, they don't mean "proof" in the sense of certainty.

 

[LuftWaffle]

 

Then who am I speaking to almost constantly? Who is answering my prayer, in an awesome, (and miraculous way last week ). Who is answering with such exquisite timing?

 

Who is sending me (last Sunday), a direct and simple answer within a minute of my prayers?

 

What more proof of existence of God do I need?

 

A photograph? A written plan for my life and that of the world? (that I already have in the Bible, which alone is proof enough).

Just my 2 cents on your post for what it's worth. What do you conclude if your prayer doesn't get answered as you hoped? If you simply conclude "it was God's will", then you are utilizing an interpretation of daily life that where you can't possibly be wrong. For me, that would be a bit troublesome.

 

 

While falsifiability is important in science, you'll find there are plenty of things that you believe in everyday life that aren't falsifiable...such as the belief that things that can't be falsified are troublesome.

 

Persons do not typically respond mechanistically to requests. Likewise God, being a person and nit just a force according to the Christian worldview, doesn't respond mechanistically to human beings' requests (prayers) to Him.

[Bonky]

The reason we don't see people having faith in sunsets is because generally nothing is ventured on sunsets. Faith is an act of trust, when something's at stake.

 

If you we're to venture something on a sunset, then it would in fact make sense to say you have "faith" regarding the sunset. Suppose for instance you and I had a bet that if it's overcast tomorrow at sun down time I get to throw you into my dungeon (what, you don't have a dungeon?!), but instead if it's clear skies, and thus, a sunset, I'll let you go free.

Now, suppose you're a meteorologist and you're quite certain that it'll be clear then it would make perfect sense for you to say, "Sure, I have faith that there'll be a beautiful sunset tomorrow!"

 

Faith, thus isn't a claim of epistomology, but rather a claim about what you're prepared to venture on what you know.

I am using scientific data to give me confidence in my answer though right? It's not like I'm reading tea leaves or having faith that a benevolent being will help me in this matter.

What are you venturing with regard to prayer? What are you venturing with regard to the idea that a powerful benign being is watching over you? I mean one could easily conclude that you may be wasting your time, but it's not like we know there is some hefty consequence if you're wrong about your belief in God etc.

Anyway, my point is that there's definitely a difference between material claims and supernatural and I think the supernatural claims are why we have a word like "faith". I don't see why there has to be something ventured or at stake.

[Bonky]

While falsifiability is important in science, you'll find there are plenty of things that you believe in everyday life that aren't falsifiable...such as the belief that things that can't be falsified are troublesome.

The logic we employ in science can also be employed outside of science. I would think one wants to embrace logic when they try to make sense of the world around them. Do you deny that it's very possible that people "count the hits" and regard the misses as "God's will"?

 

Persons do not typically respond mechanistically to requests. Likewise God, being a person and nit just a force according to the Christian worldview, doesn't respond mechanistically to human beings' requests (prayers) to Him.

This suggests something even more dubious. A prayer might be answered a year after the request. All that much more time for things to "pan out" as one wanted naturally. How do you tell the difference, that's my point.

[LuftWaffle]

I am using scientific data to give me confidence in my answer though right? It's not like I'm reading tea leaves or having faith that a benevolent being will help me in this matter.

Sure, but notice that the word faith is compatible with evidence, whether the evidence is scientific, historical, philosophical, experiential or something else. That's my point

 

What are you venturing with regard to prayer? What are you venturing with regard to the idea that a powerful benign being is watching over you?

It depends. If you're asking why I'm trying to live a Christian life instead of basically doing what I want, it's because I have conviction that the Christian view of reality is true. This might not be good enough for you, but that doesn't mean that my faith isn't based on reasons that I think are good. Likewise if you ask me whether I'll be okay in the end, and that my many moral faillings won't cost me my soul, I'll say that I have faith that what the disciples reported regarding Jesus' work on the cross is true, because I have good reasons to think that those things actually happened. Again these reasons might not be good enough for you, but it doesn't mean that my faith is a random act based on nothing.

 

Anyway, my point is that there's definitely a difference between material claims and supernatural and I think the supernatural claims are why we have a word like "faith"

Faith most definitely is not limited to supernatural claims. I have faith in my car's airbags and I assure you that that faith isn't rooted in the supernatural.

[LuftWaffle]

The logic we employ in science can also be employed outside of science. I would think one wants to embrace logic when they try to make sense of the world around them. Do you deny that it's very possible that people "count the hits" and regard the misses as "God's will"?

 

You've gone from saying "If X isn't falsifiable then it's troublesome" to "Embracing logic when trying to make sense of the world around you is good". I'm not sure how disagreeing with the former can be seen as disagreeing with the latter?

 

 

Do you deny that it's very possible that people "count the hits" and regard the misses as "God's will"?

Not at all. I think it's quite possible, but how does the possibility of counting the hits and regarding the missed as God's will, make the entire prayer enterprise "a bit troublesome"?

 

How would does one falsify the belief that "things that can't be falsified are troublesome"?

 

 

This suggests something even more dubious. A prayer might be answered a year after the request. All that much more time for things to "pan out" as one wanted naturally. How do you tell the difference, that's my point.

I ask my wife to make me a sandwhich. Sometimes she does, sometimes she doesn't, and sometimes she makes one a year later. How do I tell the difference? I don't, that's what relationships are about.

Does this make my requests for sandwiches dubious?

[Bonky]

Sure, but notice that the word faith is compatible with evidence, whether the evidence is scientific, historical, philosophical, experiential or something else. That's my point

Yes there are different uses for the word faith, the context I used earlier on specifically mentions a "religious" context.

 

 

It depends. If you're asking why I'm trying to live a Christian life instead of basically doing what I want, it's because I have conviction that the Christian view of reality is true. This might not be good enough for you, but that doesn't mean that my faith isn't based on reasons that I think are good. Likewise if you ask me whether I'll be okay in the end, and that my many moral faillings won't cost me my soul, I'll say that I have faith that what the disciples reported regarding Jesus' work on the cross is true, because I have good reasons to think that those things actually happened. Again these reasons might not be good enough for you, but it doesn't mean that my faith is a random act based on nothing.

No that's not what I'm asking. What do you lose if your faith in the Christian view of reality is misplaced? I'm offering that it's very possible you don't lose much of anything.

 

 

Faith most definitely is not limited to supernatural claims. I have faith in my car's airbags and I assure you that that faith isn't rooted in the supernatural.

It isn't, we can use the word faith in different context. The context I am addressing is one used in religion. I think it's a good bit different than the type of faith that is used for airbags.