4 ms·

This topic has lots of problems with mismatched definitions, but there is an actual problem hidden in all of that - namely, one side tends to use inconsistent d

This topic has lots of problems with mismatched definitions, but there is an actual problem hidden in all of that - namely, one side tends to use inconsistent definitions, while the other does not. Your definition of "faith" for example seems to be "anything you believe even though you are not completely sure about it"? By that definition, some fundamentalist's belief in god is not faith, but when some physicist tells you that some house exists, say, then that is faith? Sounds like a pretty useless definition to me - plus I doubt that that is the actual definition you use, outside of providing a definition?

jerf 13y ago
"Your definition of "faith" for example seems to be "anything you believe even though you are not completely sure about it"?" andrewflnr just told you what his definition of faith is, and that was manifestly not it. Try reading again. I notice this easily because I favor this as the most useful of the myriad definitions of "faith" in real life. It isn't the only one, and it isn't the most popular one, but it's the most useful one. And that is the beginning and the end of the definition; it simply does not encompass "what you believe in even though you know it isn't true" or anything like that; it is an action-based definition that pays little attention to what people say, which, in this particular domain, is a major virtue. To see what someone has faith in by this definition (which, again, is not the only one), watch their actions.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
  No, he didn't, he only gave an example, and I extrapolated from that. As for your definition, I don't think it's particularly useful, because there already is a word for that, but well ... @"what you believe in even though you know it isn't true": that strikes me as nonsenical. How could anyone consider something to be true ("believe" it) while knowing it isn't (thus presumably believing that it isn't true?)?
  - andrewflnr 13y ago
    Actually, jerf understood me perfectly.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
      Given that I obviously did not, then, you might notice that that is a somewhat pointless reply.

jerf 13y ago

"Your definition of "faith" for example seems to be "anything you believe even though you are not completely sure about it"?" andrewflnr just told you what his definition of faith is, and that was manifestly not it. Try reading again. I notice this easily because I favor this as the most useful of the myriad definitions of "faith" in real life. It isn't the only one, and it isn't the most popular one, but it's the most useful one. And that is the beginning and the end of the definition; it simply does not encompass "what you believe in even though you know it isn't true" or anything like that; it is an action-based definition that pays little attention to what people say, which, in this particular domain, is a major virtue. To see what someone has faith in by this definition (which, again, is not the only one), watch their actions.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
No, he didn't, he only gave an example, and I extrapolated from that. As for your definition, I don't think it's particularly useful, because there already is a word for that, but well ... @"what you believe in even though you know it isn't true": that strikes me as nonsenical. How could anyone consider something to be true ("believe" it) while knowing it isn't (thus presumably believing that it isn't true?)?
- andrewflnr 13y ago
  Actually, jerf understood me perfectly.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
    Given that I obviously did not, then, you might notice that that is a somewhat pointless reply.