Typhon

What is faith?

One of the frequent posters has recently been falling back on their belief in their god as being entirely based on faith. But what then, IS faith?

A quick look in the dictionary comes up with a not entirely satisfactory definition:

faith
n.
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. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith (Christianity). The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Focusing on #2, "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" I am still left wondering how this is seen by anyone, as being a sound way of making decisions about the nature of the world. Looking at belief, and the definition of faith, why would ANYONE, feel comfortable, except out of ignorance or delusion, that a belief based on faith, was a reasonable proposition?

be·lief
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

It seems to me, that what people are arguing when they argue the validity of a point taken on faith, is for a position that is either illogical (see faith, #4) and/or does not posses any testable evidence of its claim.

An example:

I put my glasses on in a room where no one else is present. I however, am aware that I placed my glasses on my own face, with my own hand. I then step into the next room where you are, and claim that a supernatural force placed the glasses on my face. I take this fact on FAITH.

In this instance, my faith is clearly illogical belief. I myself KNOW that I placed the glasses on my face, but I believe, based on faith, that a supernatural force did the act.

OR

I exit the room and then notice that my glasses are on my face. I remark to you, that I have no memory of having put them on when I first got up. I can't prove that I placed them on my own face, as no one else was in the room with me. I put on gloves, carefully take off the glasses, and send them to lab. The lab can't tell if I did or did not put the glasses on my face, and finds no other traces of material evidence (such as someone else's fingerprints, strange radiation, etc.) that can tell me who placed the glasses on my face. I choose to take on FAITH, that some supernatural force placed the glasses on my face.

In this instance, my faith is based on a lack of material evidence. This may seem strange, as there is nothing that tells me what happened, but I choose a conclusion all the same.

Both these cases seem examples of highly dangerous judgment making. Especially if my example is combined as often is done in cases where people attempt to argue their point from a position of faith.

If I have no material evidence, and/or my conclusion is AGAINST LOGIC, I am more likely it would seem, to be wrong, than to be right. Worse still, as there is no evidence to compare or use to either verify or dismiss my assumption, I have no way to ultimately assure I have come to the right conclusion. All I have is FAITH, which would appear, to be basically nothing at all, except illogical, unsubstantiated, opinion.

I for one, have no wish to go through life risking myself and others based upon such a poor tool for decision making. Therefore I reject FAITH entirely, as any form of valid investigation of the universe, and challenge anyone who routinely uses it to defend their point, to explain why they would base anything on such an apparently faulty tool, as faith.

I'm curious what other posters feel about the nature of faith. Have I overlooked some key element here? Is my logic faulty? Thanks in advance.

.T.

Daydreamer

I hate to be pedantic, but how do you know there really was a pair of glasses on your face? How do you know that your sense are telling you the truth? Etc.

You have to take a few base assumptions on faith, but when it comes to making decisions on what I believe and how I will act, I completely agree.

Philosoft

Hmm. Is it actually possible to hold a sincere belief that material things don't exist or do we just say that such a thing is possible? What are the possible outcomes? 1) The material world continues to exist despite your best efforts to believe it doesn't; I would imagine only the truly insane could continue to hold a belief of material non-existence in this case. 2) The material world disappears from your perception as soon as you reach a sincere belief that it doesn't exist; as far as I can tell, this hasn't happened in many years of sentience. Consider The Matrix. Even those characters couldn't fully believe that the world they could empirically prove was computer generated was, in fact, computer generated. They had to believe it was real on some level to be able to interact with it.

<strong> What happens if I don't take these 'few basic assumptions' on faith? If taking these assumptions on faith is a logical possibility(!), then it must be logically possible not to have faith, correct?