Godless Wonder

As far as I can tell, faith is telling yourself that you're more certain (often, that you're completely certain) about the truth of some assertion than the evidence warrants.

How is that not dishonest?

What evidence is there that Jesus is one and the same as the cause of the universe? There is no such evidence. There is the Bible, but the Bible is not evidence, the Bible is the claim. Taking the Bible as "evidence" is mistaking the claim for the evidence of that claim. Yet many take it on "faith" to be true, and they will tell you that they are100% certain of this. How is this honest?

I don't doubt that they actually believe it. I am simply noting that the manner in which they arrived at that belief, through faith, is fundamentally dishonest.

Gurdur

Example: assume I have a (sexual and emotional) partner.
I might have complete faith in her, and faith she would not betray me.
Since I am not actually going on anything that constitutes scientific evidence leading to proof, it is faith.
Faith gets used a lot in daily life --- trust without evidence between people.

IOW, the limiting of faith to describe only religious faith is already a bad start.
You would be better off criticising how the religious can abuse faith, which is where they are really vulnerable.
It's not dishonest to have faith unless you defend the faith thingy dishonestly --- unles you ignore the evidence. And it is on that point where the religious are extremely vulnerable.

Pyrrho

In my opinion, you should not trust her until you have evidence, which would generally be in the form of knowing her character based upon experience in dealing with her. It is foolish to trust people whom one does not know, and when one trusts people whom one knows, and whom one knows to be of good character, the trust is not faith, but belief based upon evidence.

THX1138

But evidence in this context is still not an absolute guarantee. There is always the possibility, regardless of her standards, regardless of how well you might know her, your trust could still be betrayed.

Yes...

but "faith" & "trust" are the same - this is why "belief in the existence of a deity" does not equal "faith." "Faith" implies not a belief "about" someone existing, but trust in that "someone." While that trust in that someone may (or may not!) be based on actual "evidence," human beings are not as trustworthy as say, scientific measurements - the "evidence" not so exact & hence the place of "faith" or "trust" in a relationship.

J

reprise

Isn't one essential difference between "faith" of the religious kind and the confidence or belief we have in respect of other issues (the sexual fidelity of our partners, the likelihood of the Sun rising tomorrow, etc) that we explicitly acknowledge that our "certainty" about the latter may be misplaced?

Gurdur

Correct, though we may not feel it is misplaced.
But this is exactly the point where often relgious abuse "faith", and exactly the start where they are most vulnerable.

truthie

Billie knows that spirits, magic or any other supernatural entity/stuff do not exist, however, she believes in them.
Is this an act of faith too?

T.

Gurdur

It is rather difficult to be 100 % sure with character assessments, and practically we often do with far less than 100 % -- like almost 0 % knowledge sometimes.
Not necessarily. To some extent I do it every weekday in business life, and every day in social life.
That is correct, but character assessments IMHO are never totally accurate nor complete.

Heathen Dawn

Is getting drunk for forgetting one’s troubles dishonest?

Gurdur

Not necessarily. But it may be counter-productive at times if over-extended; if it becomes a trouble in and of itself.