Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So essentially faith is a 'belief' that is "strongly felt and unlikely to change".
So as the great Clinton Wiles aka "The Reverend Real" likes to say..............
"Faith is closing your eyes and balling your fists and believing something reeeaaaally hard and reeeeaaaally tenaciously...........despite all the evidence to the contrary."
This is why I'm not a strong believer in democracy when it comes to semantics. Give people freedom and they will each come up with their own definition.
______
For what it's worth, here are my two cents...
Faith and belief, although both stem from the same root, reflect different sides of a whole.
Historically, faith, in the context of religion, presupposes existence of God and/or revelation. In other words, and I'm slightly paraphrasing the Hebrew definition, to have faith in something is not knowing that something exists or knowing that this something will act, rather it is that the one with faith will act with firmness toward something's will and/or needs. Essentially, it is acting in a way that presumes that there is a god who wills you to act in a particular way. To act in such a way, one does not require evidence of god, just an assumption/trust that one exists. It is an external element to you, and in the Scripture - god's gift, i.e. it requires a personal relationship with god.
This seems to correspond to the Greek definition of faith and its scriptural usage, where faith does not come from the person but is a god's revelation that accords you with its will.
Belief, on the other hand, although distinct from faith, relies on similar trust but it assumes strong confidence in truth of a thing. It does not require personal relationship or even faith. Terry Pratchett made great use of this slight difference between the two terms when joking that some of the inhabitants of Discworld knew there were gods, they just didn't believe in them.
Quote:
Most witches don’t believe in gods. They know that the gods exist, of course. They even deal with them occasionally. But they don’t believe in them. They know them too well. It would be like believing in the postman.
I know there is a lot of quibble generally when it comes to the difference of belief and knowledge . Some consider the two to be mutually exclusive, others, like Dawkins, part of a spectrum. I guess, if the answers were so clear cut, we wouldn't need the whole school of epistemology dealing with these questions. Personally, I'm not decided. It is easier and much more convenient to think of the two as separate concepts but I suspect, as is with everything else involving philosophy, things are not as black and white and perhaps a spectrum could be more successful at bridging the gaps.
Last but not least, the subject of claim.
In logic, when a statement is made - it is an assertion of a fact. This fact can either be true or false. (There are some more esoteric types of logic that allow grey areas but overall the former stands when it comes to general debates.) A claim is just such an assertion. It is up to the person making a claim to convince the audience of it being true or false. Hence the burden of proof.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that we accept the very specific definitions you highlighted, and the forum adopts those particular usages, banning all other alternate definitions.
Does that help us, as a group, in any real way? Or does it simply help you specifically? You can than claim that you have faith in god, and everybody who reads the sticky, and understands the nuances, will understand that you have really said:
GoC asserts without any evidence (claims) a firm belief in something for which there is no proof (faith) in god.
Everybody else who does not read the sticky or remember those particular phrases will think you mean something much stronger.
I have an alternate suggestion, which might make things clearer for everybody. Why don't you stop using the words claim and faith , and use the phrases "assert without evidence" and "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" instead? That way we are all completely clear as to what you mean.
I have an alternate suggestion, which might make things clearer for everybody. Why don't you stop using the words claim and faith , and use the phrases "assert without evidence" and "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" instead? That way we are all completely clear as to what you mean.
Thanks, although I did not intend it at the time, my suggestion does relate to the earlier interchange you and I had.
GoC wants to regulate the use of a couple of words to his benefit and the detriment of all others. This seems to me to be a typically entitled viewpoint of theistic believers. My suggestion that he clarify his meaning instead of changing forum policy is not detrimental to anybody, although it may cause GoC to use a few additional keystrokes.
Same thing goes for religion in public life. Please believe what you like, but do not try to institutionalize your beliefs in society at large.
I have an alternate suggestion, which might make things clearer for everybody. Why don't you stop using the words claim and faith , and use the phrases "assert without evidence" and "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" instead? That way we are all completely clear as to what you mean.
So why don't you start with an example and say that,
"You as an Atheist, believe that God does not exist, and you assert this belief without any evidence.
And you have a firm belief that God does not exist, and for this firm belief, there is no proof."
I can sort of see where GoC is coming from and, though they say Devil's in the details, I can appreciate the effort to find a middle ground.
There are many forums online that guide users toward particular definitions of the most contentious terms. The Science forum, for instance, has a sticky on the subject of God, which I find amusing. Others tend to define agnosticism and atheism so that the two terms are not constantly pulled apart in the forum. I suppose the intentions are good but as you said in your previous post, people who are not familiar with those definitions or don't accept them will continue to use their own understanding of the terms.
Personally, I think it's a bit divisive and tend to ask people I exchange what they mean directly. It's easier and I avoid a lot of misunderstanding.
So why don't you start with an example and say that,
"You as an Atheist, believe that God does not exist, and you assert this belief without any evidence.
And you have a firm belief that God does not exist, and for this firm belief, there is no proof."
fair enough?
Burden of proof really, plus you are changing the wording of my beliefs.
As an atheist, I have not seen any evidence put forth for the existence of god, and without that evidence, I lack a positive belief in any god concept that has been presented to me. Put another way, I have a firm belief in the universe as I perceive it, and as science confirms it to be. My perception and science have not found god within that universe, so lacking any evidence to believe, I do not.
I never said that I have a firm belief that god does not exist.
This has been pointed out to you many, many times. Belief in god, or lack of belief in god, are not polar opposites.
Belief in god is a positive assertion, and one that is based on no evidence.
Lack of belief in god is a default, neither positively stating there is a god, nor positively stating that there isn't. Essentially the intellectually honest agnostic-atheist position is to reserve judgment until proof is presented. Once proof either way is actually presented, the positive assertion can be made.
Let's look at a slight variation of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. To recap, imagine a cat in a sealed box. In that box, there is a cyanide capsule, and that capsule will release its poison based upon whether a single element decays, and the chance of that decay is 50/50. We cannot look in the box without opening it.
Without opening the box, can you say definitively whether the cat is alive or dead? I certainly cannot. Yet you, as a theist, are making the positive assertion that the cat is alive. I, as an agnostic-atheist am simply saying that I do not accept your assertion, and I am withholding judgment until the box is opened and I know for sure.
You keep trying to say that I am defending the assertion that the cat is dead. I am not. I am simply not accepting your faith based position that it is alive.
Going back to your semantic distinctions, you are proposing a sub-forum decision on wording analogous to saying that for the purposes of this sub, the cat is alive. I am saying that we do not have enough evidence to move forth on that, I don't know if the cat is alive, and I am ok with people clarifying their thoughts on live vs dead cats so that we can have an unbiased conversation.
I can sort of see where GoC is coming from and, though they say Devil's in the details, I can appreciate the effort to find a middle ground.
There are many forums online that guide users toward particular definitions of the most contentious terms. The Science forum, for instance, has a sticky on the subject of God, which I find amusing. Others tend to define agnosticism and atheism so that the two terms are not constantly pulled apart in the forum. I suppose the intentions are good but as you said in your previous post, people who are not familiar with those definitions or don't accept them will continue to use their own understanding of the terms.
Personally, I think it's a bit divisive and tend to ask people I exchange what they mean directly. It's easier and I avoid a lot of misunderstanding.
I mean yeah. The middle ground is probably where the truth is. That omni thing they make up is pointless past an emotional need. "deny everything" is as pointless and also serves only to fill an emotional need.
and how one feels about religion does not determine how the universe works.
Burden of proof really, plus you are changing the wording of my beliefs.
As an atheist, I have not seen any evidence put forth for the existence of god, and without that evidence, I lack a positive belief in any god concept that has been presented to me. Put another way, I have a firm belief in the universe as I perceive it, and as science confirms it to be. My perception and science have not found god within that universe, so lacking any evidence to believe, I do not.
I never said that I have a firm belief that god does not exist.
This has been pointed out to you many, many times. Belief in god, or lack of belief in god, are not polar opposites.
Belief in god is a positive assertion, and one that is based on no evidence.
Lack of belief in god is a default, neither positively stating there is a god, nor positively stating that there isn't. Essentially the intellectually honest agnostic-atheist position is to reserve judgment until proof is presented. Once proof either way is actually presented, the positive assertion can be made.
Let's look at a slight variation of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. To recap, imagine a cat in a sealed box. In that box, there is a cyanide capsule, and that capsule will release its poison based upon whether a single element decays, and the chance of that decay is 50/50. We cannot look in the box without opening it.
Without opening the box, can you say definitively whether the cat is alive or dead? I certainly cannot. Yet you, as a theist, are making the positive assertion that the cat is alive. I, as an agnostic-atheist am simply saying that I do not accept your assertion, and I am withholding judgment until the box is opened and I know for sure.
You keep trying to say that I am defending the assertion that the cat is dead. I am not. I am simply not accepting your faith based position that it is alive.
Going back to your semantic distinctions, you are proposing a sub-forum decision on wording analogous to saying that for the purposes of this sub, the cat is alive. I am saying that we do not have enough evidence to move forth on that, I don't know if the cat is alive, and I am ok with people clarifying their thoughts on live vs dead cats so that we can have an unbiased conversation.
I don't think so fish. this forum is heavily bias to suppress anything, no matter how valid, that theist can use as a springboard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
