4 ms·

And you get from that "believing absent evidence"? I get from that that faith is where your confidence in the logical conclusions of your belief gives you impe

And you get from that "believing absent evidence"? I get from that that faith is where your confidence in the logical conclusions of your belief gives you impetus to turn your hope into action. Faith isn't to do with why you believe, its to do with what you do with that belief, and the separate question of why you believe of course involves evidence.

slothtrop 3y ago
> its to do with what you do with that belief No, that is simply what follows from having faith as is demanded of adherents. Faith in itself does not mean that. Faith is to fully believe by choice, and if one does, then it necessitates that they do what is demanded of followers.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
wredue 3y ago
No see. Now you’re taking a third definition of faith and mangling it to shift the goal posts. This is a constant thing we see among religion argument. I do agree with you that “faith” is often defined in this way, but it is absolutely not the definition we are discussing.
- kybernetikos 3y ago
  > I do agree with you that “faith” is often defined in this way, but it is absolutely not the definition we are discussing. Well yeah, because it's in the Bible that way, and a lot of the people you're talking about are Christian. It's fine for people to have different definitions of things as long as they agree when arguing. But just as I'm not talking about your definition of faith when you say 'faith', you're not talking about my definition of 'faith' when you say 'faith'. If you want to talk about 'belief absent evidence', I agree that's a bad thing, so there's probably no argument there. Furthermore, I think the vast majority of religious people think they do have evidence for their belief and don't agree that they have 'belief absent evidence'. Perhaps they're using the word wrong, but that's not a real area of disagreement.

slothtrop 3y ago

> its to do with what you do with that belief No, that is simply what follows from having faith as is demanded of adherents. Faith in itself does not mean that. Faith is to fully believe by choice, and if one does, then it necessitates that they do what is demanded of followers.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

wredue 3y ago

No see. Now you’re taking a third definition of faith and mangling it to shift the goal posts. This is a constant thing we see among religion argument. I do agree with you that “faith” is often defined in this way, but it is absolutely not the definition we are discussing.

kybernetikos 3y ago
> I do agree with you that “faith” is often defined in this way, but it is absolutely not the definition we are discussing. Well yeah, because it's in the Bible that way, and a lot of the people you're talking about are Christian. It's fine for people to have different definitions of things as long as they agree when arguing. But just as I'm not talking about your definition of faith when you say 'faith', you're not talking about my definition of 'faith' when you say 'faith'. If you want to talk about 'belief absent evidence', I agree that's a bad thing, so there's probably no argument there. Furthermore, I think the vast majority of religious people think they do have evidence for their belief and don't agree that they have 'belief absent evidence'. Perhaps they're using the word wrong, but that's not a real area of disagreement.