i was wondering if it's actually possible to define what faith is in a simple, logical, unambiguous way.. .
i have a theory that words which cannot be defined in a simple, logical, unambiguous way do not really mean anything specific, and therefore should probably be avoided.. .
i know there have been books written on this subject, but i think that anyone who has to write an entire book to define a simple word like faith, does not really understand what it means.. .
LilyPie, faith and trust may be the same thing in the Christian context, but then you have to define trust.
How about this definition?
"Faith is a decision making process in the mind, in which various pieces of evidence are accepted or rejected, leading to a degree of certainty."
i was wondering if it's actually possible to define what faith is in a simple, logical, unambiguous way.. .
i have a theory that words which cannot be defined in a simple, logical, unambiguous way do not really mean anything specific, and therefore should probably be avoided.. .
i know there have been books written on this subject, but i think that anyone who has to write an entire book to define a simple word like faith, does not really understand what it means.. .
Perhaps I should explain why it's so important to me that this word is well defined...
I once asked religious people a question like this:
If the most open minded, and intelligent people in the world spent their lives researching all the world's religions, evaluating all the evidence for and against each religion, and used statistics to determine the most likely true religion, do you think you would join the religion that they chose, or would you stick to what your own mind tells you?
The most common answer was something like "Religion is a personal choice, and I would stay in my religion, because of my faith."
Of course the problem with this answer is that it does not matter how much evidence you show these people that they're in the wrong religion, they're in their religion because of their "faith". No amount of rational thinking, logic, or evidence will change their mind, and it's pointless trying to debate with them.
If they're able to define what faith means, I could attempt to debate whether or not their faith is accurate.
i was wondering if it's actually possible to define what faith is in a simple, logical, unambiguous way.. .
i have a theory that words which cannot be defined in a simple, logical, unambiguous way do not really mean anything specific, and therefore should probably be avoided.. .
i know there have been books written on this subject, but i think that anyone who has to write an entire book to define a simple word like faith, does not really understand what it means.. .
Tammy, I don't believe you can understand something if you can't define it.
In other words, I see understanding and defining as being the same thing.
i was wondering if it's actually possible to define what faith is in a simple, logical, unambiguous way.. .
i have a theory that words which cannot be defined in a simple, logical, unambiguous way do not really mean anything specific, and therefore should probably be avoided.. .
i know there have been books written on this subject, but i think that anyone who has to write an entire book to define a simple word like faith, does not really understand what it means.. .
Ding, your definition could be scientific, e.g.
Hypothesis: If I test move steering wheel, wheels turn.
Theory tested 1000 times in the past, each time test passed.
I can therefore conclude that there is 100% chance (proof) that steering wheel turns wheels.
Now you have proof... but therefore no faith, right?
Alternatively
If you conclude that there is approximately a 99.9% chance, you then know that there is only a 99.9% that it will work, however you decide to risk it anyway... is that faith, even though you aren't 100% sure it will work?
i was wondering if it's actually possible to define what faith is in a simple, logical, unambiguous way.. .
i have a theory that words which cannot be defined in a simple, logical, unambiguous way do not really mean anything specific, and therefore should probably be avoided.. .
i know there have been books written on this subject, but i think that anyone who has to write an entire book to define a simple word like faith, does not really understand what it means.. .
There's a interesting looking google advert when I look at this page:
Clear Scientific Facts Say Yes! Read this Free Booklet for Proof.
Of course, if there is proof, then we don't need faith, right?
i was wondering if it's actually possible to define what faith is in a simple, logical, unambiguous way.. .
i have a theory that words which cannot be defined in a simple, logical, unambiguous way do not really mean anything specific, and therefore should probably be avoided.. .
i know there have been books written on this subject, but i think that anyone who has to write an entire book to define a simple word like faith, does not really understand what it means.. .
I don't see how hope and faith are related. I hope I'll win the lottery, but I know there's a very small chance that it'll happen.
i was wondering if it's actually possible to define what faith is in a simple, logical, unambiguous way.. .
i have a theory that words which cannot be defined in a simple, logical, unambiguous way do not really mean anything specific, and therefore should probably be avoided.. .
i know there have been books written on this subject, but i think that anyone who has to write an entire book to define a simple word like faith, does not really understand what it means.. .
By "delusion", I meant that the person is deluded that the certainty is 100%, when in fact the certainty is less than 100%... I'm not referring to whether the object of faith is actually true or not.
Confusing stuff.
I like:
Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true...
Although it ignores the "without proof" definition.
I also like:
Faith is a type of perception of reality. Perception changes, but reality is a constant.
The sun thing seems to make sense... however:
I know the sun exists, but don't have proof, because the evidence I have is 8 minutes old. In other words, I am deluded into thinking that the probability of the sun existing is 100%, when in fact the evidence in my mind suggests that it is only 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999%... although, now that I've brought that evidence to my conscious mind, I now only believe that the probability of the sun existing is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999%. I am therefore not 100% sure, and don't have faith???
Same goes for the spouse hypothesis... I believe that my wife is not cheating on me. Based on the evidence that I know of, there might be a 99.999% chance that it's true. My belief would therefore not be 100%, but 99.999%. I could choose to trust her, unlock her chain and let her out of the house for a little while, and not worry, but does that mean that I have faith? Not necessarily, because the evidence in my mind tells me that there is a 0.001% chance that she could cheat on me. I would have to be deluded to believe that there is a zero percent chance that she will cheat on me.
Lets say that I didn't know that light has velocity. I could then prove that, because I can see the sun, it exists. I have proof, therefore no faith... right?
i was wondering if it's actually possible to define what faith is in a simple, logical, unambiguous way.. .
i have a theory that words which cannot be defined in a simple, logical, unambiguous way do not really mean anything specific, and therefore should probably be avoided.. .
i know there have been books written on this subject, but i think that anyone who has to write an entire book to define a simple word like faith, does not really understand what it means.. .
Thanks for that Tammy.
2 questions for you:
1. I don't understand your first definition -> How does one choose to be sure? Isn't being sure the result of one's understanding of evidence, rather than a choice?
2. Regarding your second definition, would you say that faith is being 100% sure, or can one be 70% sure, and still have faith?
the not willy truthful bible put out by the witless says it was 41 ce.
i am wondering just why they the wtbts saus ot was 41 ce instead of much later in 60 or even later ce.
if anyone has any info on this i would much appreciate this.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew):
Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100. [ 95 ] [ 96 ] [ 97 ] [ 98 ] Ignatius seemed to have knowledge of four Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Matthew", [ 99 ] which gives a terminus ante quem of c. 110. The author of the Didache (c 100) probably knew it as well. [ 6 ] Many scholars see the prophecy of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem [ 100 ] as suggesting a date of composition after the year 70. [ 101 ]
A minority of scholars believe that the Gospel could have been written as early as 63. [ 71 ]
Of course the oldest manuscripts which we have today were written / copied hundreds of years later.
i was wondering if it's actually possible to define what faith is in a simple, logical, unambiguous way.. .
i have a theory that words which cannot be defined in a simple, logical, unambiguous way do not really mean anything specific, and therefore should probably be avoided.. .
i know there have been books written on this subject, but i think that anyone who has to write an entire book to define a simple word like faith, does not really understand what it means.. .
I was wondering if it's actually possible to define what faith is in a simple, logical, unambiguous way.
I have a theory that words which cannot be defined in a simple, logical, unambiguous way do not really mean anything specific, and therefore should probably be avoided.
I know there have been books written on this subject, but I think that anyone who has to write an entire book to define a simple word like faith, does not really understand what it means.
I tried getting a definition out of someone once, and so he quoted straight out of the bible: Hebrews 11:1...
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Of course this is a very ambiguous definition, so it doesn't solve my problem:
Does this verse mean that every single thing that blind people are sure of is faith? Of course not... so, let's try to find a more accurate definition...
Here's a nice one from dictionary.com:
"belief that is not based on proof"
Sounds good, but if one thinks a bit, one might realize some problems...
1. It is not based on proof. This means that if you can prove what you believe in, you don't have any faith.
2. What about if there's no evidence at all... is that faith? Believing in something with absolutely no evidence, is what I would define as stupidity, and therefore not faith.
3. What about if there's evidence, but it's not conclusive? This seems to be a good definition... so if there's any kind of evidence, and that evidence makes you anywhere between 0.00001% sure, or 99.99999% sure then you have faith? Well this conflicts with "being SURE of what we hope for...", because being sure, means being 100% sure.
4. Lets say that #3 is the correct definition, and the bible definition is not quite correct, but you are only 40% sure... this probably means that you are 60% sure that it is not true, therefore you don't really have faith, so perhaps faith means you have evidence to show that it's between 50.00001% and 99.99999% certain.
5. Lets say the above is true, ...e.g. you have evidence which makes you 60% sure, ... therefore you have faith. Someone comes along and gives you evidence against your belief which is 20% certain. Weighed up, this could make your belief drop down to 40%, which means you are uncertain, and no longer have faith.
In order to solve my problem with understanding faith, I used to define it as having enough evidence that you act on that evidence. For example, if you are 1% sure that Jesus exists, and you are baptised because of it, then you have acted in faith, and therefore you have faith in Jesus. Of course this conflicts both with the bible definition and #4 above.
Another concern about the definition of faith is that it is personal. This means that evidence in favour of what a person believes is usually accepted, and evidence against is rejected. I believe that this can also be defined as closed-mindedness, or stupidity.
Presuming that faith could be open-minded and unbiased, would mean that it is the most likely outcome of evidence which has been thoroughly investigated and tested by intelligent, open-minded individuals. Obviously that is not faith... that is science.
And so this leaves me to think at the moment that faith can be defined as follows (and feel free to share a better definition):
Faith is the delusion, that although one does not have enough to evidence to be 100% sure, one is sure anyway.
