Faith Defined (religion, science)

[(Q)]

Once again we must clarify terms – faith. It can be interpreted differently by definition.

Faith:

1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
2. Complete confidence in a person or plan etc.

Note that the first definition is faith in the supernatural so it is NOT based on evidence or observation. The second definition however IS based on evidence and observation.

The first is the faith in which religion is based while the second is the faith scientists use to make predictions and create theories.

There is a distinct difference between the two definitions but many confuse the two when discussing scientists’ agenda. Quite often, the first definition is implied but is entirely incorrect. If you choose to use faith when discussing science, please make sure your use of the word ‘faith’ is appropriate.

Many thanks!
Q

:smile:

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Number 1 requires no evidence and is not testable

Number 2, within science, forefills those requirements.

[Ceridwen018]

it could even be:

1. Faith
2. Logical conclusion

[Mr Spinkles]

Hmmm, Ceridwen I do not think that #2 is quite what (Q) meant to imply...I think (Q) attempts to create a distinction between religious "faith" in something, and the other kind of "faith" which is more or less a synonym of "confidence".

[Ceridwen018]

Ah yes, but where does that confidence come from? If you have confidence that your friend will hit a grand slam when he gets up to bat, it is (more or less) because you have logically reasoned to that conclusion by evaluating the fact that he usually hits grand slams and is playing well for this particular game, etc.

[Mr Spinkles]

Hmmm, good point! I withdraw my comment...here, have a clapper :

[Lightkeeper]

I'm not sure faith is a synonum for confidence. When I walk I have a certain amount of faith that I will get where I am going, but it's not a sure thing. Even confidence takes faith.

[Mr Spinkles]

If you have walked there many times before, and have always gotten where you are going, then it is perfectly logical for you to "have faith" or be confident that you will get where you are going. There is no need for a leap of faith, in the spiritual sense...it is a hypothesis with a lot of support behind it.

[(Q)]

Lightkeeper

I think you're missing the point.

There is faith in that which you know to be true - when you walk, you have faith that you will get to where you're going based on the fact that you have walked to places your whole life. What you're now referring to is 'statistics.' For example, there is a very good chance you'll get to where you're going but you may be hit by a bus on the way. Getting hit by a bus can potentially be a high probability, comparitively speaking.

But what are the chances you will ever see your God? A very low probability, dont ya think?

[The Voice of Reason]

Q,

I am certain that your first definition of "faith" is designed to address "revealed faith" as it is applied to religious beliefs. For the sake of clarity, I would probably contrast this with Logical probability:

Revealed Faith (sometimes called Revealed Truth) - not based on logic or rationale, rather it is based on revelation.

Logical Probability - well defined by Ceridwen above, but I would suggest that it is a Logical Probability as opposed to a Logical conclusion.

This should prevent the zealots from using the two terms interchangably, assuming that they don't want to intentionally muddy the waters.

Which brings me to my biggest criticism when trying to carry on a conversation (or an enlightened debate) with the overwhelming majority of Theists and Deists - It's like they have never even heard of logic, taken a class in logic, or understand the most basic fallacies in a logical argument. The classical fallacy of appeal to authority is almost automatic for most of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). If they aren't quoting God, then it's the Supreme Court or the Founding Fathers (or whoever else agrees with their position). My favorite is when they quote a flake "scientist" or even better, when they misquote a respected scientist. They still don't understand that this is just another case of committing the fallacy.

Very frustrating indeed.