4 ms·
If that's how 'faith' is defined, then it completely trivialises the term; if having faith means believing something that you don't know absolutely, then every
by kremlin 13y ago
If that's how 'faith' is defined, then it completely trivialises the term; if having faith means believing something that you don't know absolutely, then every belief you have is 'faith'. Nothing has a probability of 1.
I prefer to define faith a bit more narrowly than that, so that it's actually meaningful when I call a belief 'faith-based'.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y agoWhen your opponent uses the term "faith", it's safe to assume that he means "belief without sufficient evidence", as opposed to "belief" for "considered to be true because of evidence, but subject to reconsideration when new evidence becomes available". Neither of those is to be confused with "proof", which means "incontrovertible truth derived from an axiomatic system (and only applicable in that axiomatic system)" and has little to do with empiricism. Your definition trivializes the term in so far as it makes it a synonym for "belief", which we do already have a word for, and makes it unnecessarily difficult to refer to "belief without sufficient evidence".