The Realist

Why do we always hear about it being a great quality for someone to have? To me it seems a weakness of the mind.
I have always taken faith to mean belief in something without any evidence or contrary evidence. This would seem to me a quality that indicates a person is unwilling or too lazy to engage in the mental gymnastics that lead them to a well founded rational conclusion.
I really get irritated when I see GW or other governmental leaders spouting off about faith and how great it is.
What do you guys think? Am I wrong in my definition of "Faith"? Am I missing something?

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: The Realist ]</p>

Bruce Wildish

Faith is, by definition, believing in the truth of a particular claim or idea in the absense of confirming evidence. There are of course purely intellectual arguments that can be made against this approach to the world, objections rooted in a healthy respect for reason and evidence. While I personally find it hard to understand why anyone would want to exercise faith (because I can take no emotional comfort in that which I don't know is true), I recognize that many people don;t seem to share this discomfort and find faith comforting. So be it. The problem as I see it is not so much people exercising faith, it is that so many people don't know how to exercise it responsibly or intelligently. Many people of faith, for example, use faith as an excuse to ignore evidence or any idea that contradicts what they want to hear. Thus many Christians reject evolution and accept creation in faith and with total disregard to the relevant evidence. But this makes as much sense as believing in a flat earth over a spherical one and then justifying that decision by appealing to faith. Faith is not an excuse to believe nonsense. But many believers have yet to learn this important fact.

The Realist

I agree completely, but how did faith get to the damn near revered position it has in American society? Are we really a nation that thrives on ignorance? I really would not want to believe that, but it almost seems the case.
From now on, whenever someone admits to me with pride that they have faith, I'm going to say "Why are you proud of being ignorant?"

Toto

I see two factors.

There was a very peculiar period of history in the 50's, which was dominated by an anti-Communist scare. Since Communists were atheists, anti-Communists insisted on faith - it didn't matter what irrational unprovable religion you belonged to, but believing in some God was a requirement to prove that you were a patriotic American and not a Commie.

And then there was the 12 step movement, in which surrender to a higher power was a requirement in controlling alcoholism.

RJS

What caused the big bang in your opinion, and why do you believe it?

wildernesse

In response to the big bang--I accept that science is still trying to understand what caused the beginning of the universe, and I accept their best guess until there is a new one. Just like the scientists. It doesn't take faith to believe in science--even science that you don't understand--because any science is based on provable tenets. It does require good faith in scientists a whole to do truthful work--but why so many Christians think that science is operating in bad faith is beyond me. Similarly, we believe that the AP wire operates in good faith to bring us correct and timely news updates.

On the first definition of faith that this thread really covers, I don't know why you need to compare faith with ignorance. Compare it with self-delusion, maybe, but not ignorance. My faith teaches me how best to live my life. If you don't agree with me, well, ok.

Am I unwilling or too lazy to think? Sometimes--but probably no more often than you. I'll admit to being unwilling to talk about something that challenges my beliefs--until I have some time to consider and read and research what the challenges are. And I do consider my faith a comfort to me in times of need.


--tiba

Liquidrage

What caused the big bang in your opinion, and why do you believe it?

This topic would seem to deserve it's own thread.

Why, whats this?
There is a thread on this topic? <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000160" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000160</a>

Wait a minute. That wasn't a set up was it?
Pretty sneaky.

*/
Why not just present what it is you obviously want to say instead of attempting to manipulate a discussion?

h

The definition of faith can also be: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing". I would imagine that apart from fundamentalist study-groups, one would generally use the word in this manner. For instance, I won't have faith in my pole vaulting abilities until I've trained sufficiently in the odd sport. Likewise, a true mechanic shouldn't place faith in a motorcycle he is repairing until he has scrutinized every part of the engine.
It seems kind of perverted to me that faith has assumed such a foundationless interpretation: No biblical character ever had ANY reason to doubt. Abraham stumbled into enlightenment and his supremely old wife gave birth to a nation, Paul was overtaken by the ghost of Jesus on his way to Damascus, Enoch walked with God, Moses carried on verbal conversations with a talking bush... but oh well, I guess that truth wasn't obvious enough.

The Apologist

Since there is no proof that God is nonexistent, do not atheists maintain their position on faith?

h

Apologist: that type of reasoning is incredibly lacking. An atheist just isn't a theist, hence [not]theist.