Jump to content

Talk:Faith/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Original meaning

The origin of the word faith is the word loyalty. All of the instances of the word faith in the bible refure to the concept of Loyalty. it is based on the Greek word (pistis) and modern religious fanatics have misunderstood it's meaning and turned it into a synonym for "belief". when one is faithful, they are loyal.

Click Here and check out all of the instance of the word faith in the bible, and you will see the true meaning of this misunderstood word. --68.107.111.10 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

depending on the context faith often can mean trust. Often in the Holy Scriptures God is asking us to trust him. in (Exodus 14:31) people put faith in God as well as Moses. Kljenni 19:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Loosing faith in Wikipedia

The use of the words "we" and "us" are disgusting. today or tommorow, expect to see them removed. i will be doing a time consuming overhaul that i wont be able to describe completely before hand. if it is unwelcome, revert and i will leave (and cry silently for my people). let's really just refrain from using alienating terminology like we. think. this is however, my small grievance. much more importantly, (and this will be difficult to convince a large portion of contributing community that this is possible) a scientific approach needs to be the core of this and all other articles. i am obviously not trying to remove the discussion from the context of religion and any comments like, "how can you speak of faith w/o religion will be ignored. statements like, "what is believed concerning god, is a matter of faith supported by facts" is a lie and therefore will be removed. i might reword "dcumented" to something less assumed as reliably accurate (in comparison to truth) in complance w/ NPOV. the quote that appears (duplicated) "faith without work is dead just as the body without the spirit is dead because just as the body needs the spirit to give life, so does faith need the holy ghost. while faith is not 'perfect' knowledge there must be some spiritual evidence to qualify as faith" assumes a slew of things and is decievingly used as though it isnt a quote from a religious text but rather bona fide fact. what the *heck* is spiritual evidence? (ha) i am at a loss for faith in this communities ability to reason and their commitment to what wikipedia is. a source of Information, not a vehicle to push unsupported ideas. although the missinformed authors apparently believe that there is evidence to support faith in god. Cite some! Cite some scientific (there is no other kind and that is not oppinion) evidence to support claims that appear unjustified or dont claim them as "true." if someone finds some, please tell the intellecuals as they would probably be excited to hear that there is reason to jump on the faithwagon. until then, please stay off this article or any others you plan on impossing your anti-scentific POV into. the world needs philosophers (but maybe not mystics) however WP needs scientists and good writers. this is a source of info, not theology. to present a theology in question as it presents itself is noble when also paired with science and when science overwhelms it, should be the default. this article is the opposite of scientificPOV/NPOV (which are undisputibly the same thing... synonyms). Faith must be presented as unfounded. it is the only way to introduce a reliable set of citations into the article. if the article offends theists in the long run (after they read the sections that they agree with) because "too much science" is involved good. they and only they have chosen to have faith. faith iscontrary to science (despite what a minority exclusive to those who have it have said here and elsewhere). the scientific method is science. faith needs to be related in these terms. i am cold to the FPOV and do not wish to seriously debate any real evidence that a spirit exists... and if you say it weighs 21 grams...well... you might wanna go smoke about 21 grams you sorry gullible being. -Antip8ri8-Dec9 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antip8ri8 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

i still havent done the *threatened "overhaul." it's in the works. i need to look into the terms for deletion of uncited info. the statement about Einstein appears to be a misreprsentation of his beliefs as i know of him thruogh dozens of his own quotes to be strictly scientific, giving no "due respect" to any kind of faith. he was a self proclaimed athiest... or agnostic if you wantto split (incredably thin) hairs. Antip8ri8 01:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Faith isn't just about religion

This article seems to only mention religious faith. But faith isn't limited to believing in the supernatural. In its most basic definition it seems to be putting one's trust in another (Ex. A faithful friend or the phrase "I have faith in you".) Plus, even religious faith involves trusting the word of another (trusting that the person/people who taught/brought you up in that religion in the first place is telling you the truth)

Maybe the content of this article should refer to "religious" faith. For the other types of faith would be more like trust in others, or belief in the truthfulness of a statement. 

         Faith is believing something you know cannot be true. jdoherty
No, it most definitely is not: that's a far too simplistic view. 'Belief that' is similar to 'know that', but lacks incontrovertible evidence. For example, I may believe that the train standing at platform 3 is the train to Geneva, but, because I cannot see its destination board, I do not know that it's the train to Geneva. Therefore, 'belief that' is a conviction that can be shared through persuasion, which may include factual information, but cannot be considered incontrovertible. In fact many 'knowledge' statements are belief statements because we cannot eliminate doubt completely. Karl Popper went so far as to say that all science is ultimately a belief system, in that it has to be based on certain assumed axioms. Moving on from 'belief that', there is 'belief in', which involves a substantial amount of trust to overcome basic doubts in the main statements of the overall theorem.
Perhaps this article should start with such a philosophical view of what faith is. There could be some mention of the vague, general use of the word in the realm of 'faithfulness'. Then there are at least three religious definitions of 'faith' — personal belief in a deity or central religious tenet, a religion itself (e.g. the Christian faith) or a certain orthodoxy (e.g. 'the true faith'). Even though there is a non-religious use for this word, it is rather vague and certainly not as nuanced as its religious use. — Gareth Hughes 21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Older discussions

My sentences are logical. I'm sorry D Clayworth finds logic inflammatory.Barbara Shack 16:00, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Larry, this text is much improved. If you don't mind I'll change the essay, so that the existential view of religious faith is not the only one presented.

I'd also like to re-write the definition of fideism, to include a more philosophically defensible view, which is actually held by some Christian philosophers...

Fideism, on this account, is simply the claim that "faith" includes beliefs which are either above, beyond, or against reason. The difference between radical fediesm, and moderate fediesm is that the moderate fediest qualifies reason in various ways. If you are amenable, I'll develop this more, and dig up the sources necessary to attribute this to the relevant philosophers... MRC

No problems, Mark. This is definitely not my area. --Larry

In many situations in life, there is a large body of circumstantial evidence supporting a given point of view, without actually having concrete proof, and faith can often play the deciding role in the acceptance or non-acceptance of such a point of view.

I removed this, not because I think it definitely shouldn't be in the article, but for the following reasons. I am skeptical that "faith" is the correct term to apply in such a situation. I'm not sure what the force of the claim is that "faith can often play the deciding role" in situations where the evidence is inconclusive. Is it a statistical claim about human psychology, viz., that when evidence is inconclusive, some people just leap to one position or another based on "faith"? Or is it a semantic claim, saying that the sorts of belief just described really ought to be called "faith"? Or is it, perhaps, an epistemological claim, saying that it's OK to leap to one position when the evidence is inconclusive (since everybody does it, presumably)? Moreover, however exactly it is to be understood, is this just a statement of personal opinion? As far as I know, the other views mentioned in the article (at least, when properly clarified) can find supporters among theologians and philosophers. And, for all I know, the above too can find such supporters. So, if you put the claim back into the article, it would be nice to see a source for it.

I am not (really!) trying to start a debate here. I am just trying to explain my reasoning. Feel free to put it back. --LMS

I don't much like that statement either--it doesn't really say much, and what it does say is wrong. I, personally, don't have much use for faith of any kind, even in "reason" or "science"--I consider every decision I make at every point in my life a gamble. Indeed, that's what "life" is to me--dead things are predictable, life is about taking chances. I certainly seek to find the best odds, and I make commitments to one proposition or another. I've decided to put my money on a certain horse like "science" rather than "mysticism", I think I have good reasons for making that choice, and I'm willing to face the consequences of that choice, but that doesn't mean I have anything like "faith" in it. --LDC

Perhaps it needs revision based on the neutral point of view idea. I know people who tell me that, given circumstantial evidence, they make a final decision based on faith in some belief one way or the other. I can see there being plenty of philosophical discussions on such an action, and I won't pretend to be a theologian. Does such a statement need to have the endorsement of a recognized philosopher to be included in the article, or can it be preceded with "many people think...". I don't think it is an uncommon point of view. --Alan Millar

As far as I'm concerned, when some view on an abstract religious topic isn't endorsed by an actual theologian or philosopher, it might bear mention, but only as a matter of anthropological interest. Actually, I'll bet you can find a representative for your view here, but I'm not sure. --LMS

"It is known that faith in one's abilities, particularly logic and language, is an unsupported logical prerequisite to any skeptical or critical action. Thus, at least this limited form of faith must be accepted by any skeptic, or the skeptic must admit that the skepticism is without substance."
I found this statement out of place. The contention that "this limited form of faith must be accepted by any skeptic" is anything but neutral.
  1. the author of this paragraph assumes an argumentative tone, which is not suited for an informational article
  2. there is no reference to groups or individuals who hold this belief, other than the author
  3. there is a complete absence of a balancing perspective
The phrase "it is known" implies knowledge, yet there is no reference to academic research or other supporting evidence. Perhaps with changed wording the point the author was trying to make would be more clear.
After the reference to Kierkegaard, the long section added under the title "The definition of faith in Scriptures" has the tone of a sermon rather than an encyclopedia article. Distinguishing between quotes, paraphrases, and explanations is no longer possible because the references to Biblical passages may refer to the most recent sentence, or possibly the previous two sentences, or . . . well, it's difficult to tell.
It is understandable that elaboration of this topic is of particular interest to the religious, but in my opinion the bulk of this article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. There is little point in arguing whether the inclusion of several kilobytes of quotes should be deleted or severely cut back since the contributor may well add them back. With all respect, I fear that most readers will be discouraged by both the length of the article and its tone, and those who might otherwise be interested in the history of religious faith will look elsewhere for a balanced view. --Rethunk

This article should be renamed Faith in Christianity. Since faith in general is a philosophical discussion of its own. Faith in general simply is unquestioning trust transcending empirical knowledge. This definition applies to all uses of the term, however Christians, Jews, Hindus, Scientologists, Buddists, Confucists, Mormons, Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, Scientists, all have different spins and additions based on their particular lifestyle and philosophy. When I wrote my entry I was trying to focus on an objective discussion of the common elements of what faith is an how it influences acceptance of religious theologies in place of concrete ignorance. --Jonathan--

But the present article isn't just about faith in Christianity; it is a philosophical introduction to the concept, inevitably informed Christian examples of theories of faith because that's what most of us are familiar with. Anyway, details about faith in other religions are more than appropriate. Why not? The notion that faith "transcends empirical knowledge" is not particularly clear and sounds like your theory about what faith is, not an uncontroversial starting-point that can be used to identify various theories about what faith is.

This is not at all to say that an article called faith in Christianity would be inappropriate--we definitely should have one, eventually. --LMS

Perhaps Faith in Religion would be best if a sufficiently broad spectrum were to be represented (this seems to be the way you are leaning). Obviously my baseline position is simply observing the difference between operating knowledge which is scientifically derived and operating assumptions otherwise derived. Commonly the latter case would be accepted as faith whether or not it was religiously related and the former is thus distinguished from faith. I'm not sure that I understand the sticking point. --Jonathan--

Now that you have heard our views, I recommend that you change the article, if you think it's incorrect; if necessary, I will change it back explaining what I think is incorrect. I'm interested in discussion on this page only insofar as it results in improvement to the main page. From what I've heard from you so far, however, I really don't think you have studied the concept of faith very much. --LMS

I would have described "faith" in much the same way you do if asked to scribe an entry 25 years ago as I first started studying the philosophy of religion. After years of study and anguishing thought I realized that faith and religion have some simple commonalities which became the clearly defining distinctions from what those things were not. What is faith? That without fact is the simple answer. However it is apparent that those with "Faith" are more interested in the nature of the particular ideas making up that "Faith" than simply defining "faith". Since my intent was only to provide insight, and not to irritate, I will abdicate from my failure to communicate. --Jonathan-- :-/

I do think that some religious folks believe based upon evidence (sometimes a'priori arguments, and sometime empirical evidence) and I'm pretty sure they don't constitute an extremist minority. The belief that faith should not or cannot be based on evidence finds no place in Christian thought before the twentieth century, and even thin it has become popular only in industrialized countries, so it is certainly not the majority opinion amongst Christians. My knowledge of Jewish and Islamic thought seems to indicate that many practitioners of these faiths are willing to provide evidence for their beliefs, so I think the definition of faith as belief without evidence is not as broad as you seem to think. At the very least it does not apply universally across the monotheistic religions.

However, it is a popular view amongst pantheists, as well as certain groups of Christians who express an extreme form of fideism. I believe that some modern Jewish existentialists would also fit quite easily into this camp, so the view should certainly be included with a thorough explanation of it's historical context and some documentation of its proponents. However, it should be clearly defined, and clearly delineated from other contemporary views of the meaning of faith. MRC

Well put, however, I guess my definition of empirical evidence is simply too stringent to be compatible with that which has, and is, been used as a basis for "Faith" or more generally "faith". After all a drought is clear empirical evidence of an angry god. --Jonathan--

The content for Faith, as mentioned by others, should be moved to a Christian oriented article. Faith is common and central to all religions. Buddhist myself, faith is saddha (conviction). I was going to contribute but there is no room? Usedbook 21:03 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

As I understand what's discussed above, the article ought to aim toward becoming more general and inclusive. Its present state is just a stage of development. Mkmcconn 21:09 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

The current version is vastly superior to the mess that preceded it. However, the subsection within the Protestant view titled "Faith is a kind of knowledge" still attempts to equate "faith" with "reason". The reference to John 10:38 makes no sense to me in that vein, and the other reference uses the translation "believe" or "belief" instead of "faith" in both the NET Bible and the KJV. "Belief" can refer to either faith or reason, so I'll leave it to the Greek scholars to disambiguate, but in either case the idea the faith is based on knowledge does not seem to follow. Even if that interpretation can somehow be justified from the text, no book is completely reliable and that one is particularly flawed. "Faith" is essentially an antonym of both "reason" and "knowledge" and no maneuver to obfuscate that relationship can be allowed. Fairandbalanced 8/17

Reorganize or rewrite

Jews, Christians and Muslims hold that there is adequate historical evidence of God's existence and interaction with human beings
Many use the term faith as a way of affirming a belief in an idea for which one has no evidence. Most modern Jews, Chrisitans and Muslims would admit that they do not possess evidence that God exists, yet for a variety of reason they still believe in God.

The second statement is nonsense in light of the first, and in my opinion the second statement is as irresponsible as the first one is irrelevant. This is just one example of the quagmire in which this article is entrenched. It's another of those articles, of which there are many on Wikipedia, that pretends to be about a topic but is actually only the transcript of an argument between atheists and fundamentalist Christians. If all articles here followed this pattern, I am persuaded that Wikipedia would not be worth the investment of time to read, let alone to edit. Mkmcconn 20:07, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that it is nonsense. Rather, the problem is that people are using the same word ("faith") to mean two different things. This fact used to be more explicit within the article, but recent edits have mucked things up again. This isn't a bad article; it just needs some clear organization, and a recognition by all editors that people are using the same word in different ways. See the article on revelation for a good example of disambiguating how different religious believers use the same word. RK 23:59, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't know how to account for the difference in opinion, here, RK. I don't see any forthright way to reconcile the statements
  • a = Jews, Christians and Muslims hold that there is sufficient evidence ...
  • b = Most Jews, Christians and Muslims admit that they do not possess evidence ...
Oh, that kind of thing? That is an inconsistency, due to the typical "too many chefs" phenomenon. We simply should edit the article to remove this kind of logical error. Be bold in updating pages! RK
The article seems to have two sub-arguments sustained throughout. 1) A discussion of the problem of belief predominates, going back and forth on the subject of whether belief rests on evidences. 2 ) Second, there is a not very convincing effort to avoid the identification of faith with belief, by denying (for example) that the Old Testament concept of faith implies any notion of trust in God as the source of truth, through Scriptures or doctrines. The article is vague and evasive throughout: even the sermonic Christian portion, while detailed, rests on a very unlikely, and rather uncommon rendering of Hebrews 11. None of it rings true. Mkmcconn 18:35, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Let's take a whack at things thing. RK 22:13, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Your revisions at least make the article less exhausting to read. I'll let it rest for a while, and see how it reads with a fresh start. Thank you, RK. Mkmcconn 22:36, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I rewrote the introductory section, to make it more inclusive of the spectrum of views as I understand them. The previous version was somewhat alien to me, so I was unsure how to incorporate the existing material. I had particular trouble reconciling sentences that began "Most ... believe", "Some ... believe". I didn't know what the frame of reference was, for these statements. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not contentless, vague "belief" that "God exists". "Faith" in these religions incorporates specific content, versions of history and ways of life. What it means, in that light, that "most ... admit that they believe without evidence" is beyond me. If what is meant, is that there is a difference between the conclusions of scientific, experimental proof, and religious belief, then the article should simply say this (which I tried to do). Since I couldn't fully understand the previous version, I expect (and welcome) a revision of my re-write. Mkmcconn 19:20, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Some content has been moved to Forty-nine charismatic virtues. Peter Manchester 13:20, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Faith (NPOV definition)

Faith, in its most neutral connotation, is the trust placed in a conviction of (or confidence in) a truth founded upon evidence.

For example, one may be thoroughly convinced that there are penguins in Anartica, not based upon the first hand experience of actually seeing them there, but based upon other evidence (written accounts, testamonials, pictures, etc.) that penguins inhabit Anartica. Thus, if a person should say, "I am convinced that there are penguins in Anartica," it cannot be concluded (absolutely) from the statement that it is a statement of faith, for it may well be that the person making the statement has acutally been to Anartica and observed penguins living there. However, being "convinced" something is true is not quite the same as "knowing" something is true, and perhaps, "believing" something is true connotes something less than being "convinced" something is true.

The fact is, faith is directly related to evidence. Faith must be founded on evidence to be connoted as such. For example, one may say, "I have faith that carrying a rabbit's foot will bring me good luck." However, without evidence that such is actually the case, such "faith" could properly be called "superstition." The fact that such a one might actually carry a rabbit's foot in the hope of having good luck has no bearing on the validity of the hope.

The act of "believing" is not properly faith either. One can believe that the moon is made of cheese, but that does not make it so. One could even act upon that belief by making a journey to the moon without food "believing" that they could eat the cheese of which it is made when they got there.

It is probably safe to say that nothing can be known to "absolute" certainty. Thus, to some extent "knowing" anything involves some element of faith. Thus, if one sould say, "I know the sun will rise tomorrow." That "knowing" has within it some element of faith. Since the rising of the sun has occured without fail for many trials, the weight of the evidence provides a strong possibility that the sun will, in fact, rise tomorrow. Thus, the greater the body of non-contradictory evidence upon which faith is based is the measure of the strength of the conviction.

In summary, one can believe (or be convinced or convicted) that there are penguins in Anartica based on a body of evidence, but that alone would not be faith. Faith involves placing one's trust in that convicition based on evidence. Thus, if one should say, "I believe that there are penguins in Anartica, and that I would see them if I went there." would properly connote faith.

BroLeeLove

Rubbish. Faith is believing without evidence, or completely against evidence. Reason -- deductive or inductive -- is based on evidence. Faith and reason are not the same thing. Period!!!!!!!!

Can there be reasons for faith?
If there was a good reason for faith, you wouldn't need a separate word to distinguish it from Reason.

There are penguins in Antarctica. I have been visited them. At least a great deal of evidence indicated I was there and that they were penguins. I never had a scintilla of faith in it, but I was convinced by the evidence. The difference between absolute proof and available evidence is doubt. The arbitrary elimination of doubt is either "faith" or "madness", depending on how much harm it does and the social status of the believer. Fairandbalanced 01:38, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to talk about faith in a NPoV way, we must be willing to accept that there are many conceptions of faith out there. Some (mostly Atheists in my experience) do take Fairandbalanced's stance that faith is believing what you know ain't true, i.e. faith and reason are incompatible. Others argue like BroLeeLove, saying that faith is based on evidence. Others will define it differently. I would say something similar to BroLeeLove, that faith is the basis for reason.
Using the penguin example, Fairandbalanced says he's been to Antarctica and has seen penguins there. But can he answer the question, "Are there penguins in Antarctica?" with absolute, 100% certainty? Only if he is in Antarctica, looking at a penguin with his own eyes as he answers the question. He can't know for sure otherwise, he would only be inferring from his previous visit and other bits of info he picks up along the way if he says that indeed, there are still penguins in Antarctica. This is not to deny that he has sound, logical reasons for making this inference, in fact he does have quite an array of evidence ranging from the reports of experts and his own experience. I merely point out that this inference, while rational, relies on knowledge he does not have and could not have unless he was a god. For all he knows, I went over to Antarctica and evicted every last penguin, and so there were no penguins in Antarctica. (David Hume would give one a lot to think about when it comes to induction!)
My point is that to remain fair, we should keep a balanced, NPOV by not simply calling other's conceptions of faith ‘rubbish’. I personally feel that Fairandbalanced's definition of faith is 'rubbish,' but name calling and merely asserting a definition of faith all must henceforth use helps no one. I personally would rather learn how others define faith and try to see where they are coming from, find where I personally agree and disagree with their definitions, and so grow in knowledge and understanding. It doesn’t seem like it would be helpful to anyone, least of all me, to immediately reject anything I personally disagree with.
OracleofTroy

"Faith means believing that everyone else is wrong". A brief reading of this article shows that this is a long way from everyone's interpretation of faith. It's also inflammatory. DJ Clayworth 15:45, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And inaccurate and overly-broad. Niteowlneils 16:22, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that if you "know" something, you can't have "faith" in it. If you are looking at penguins in antarctica, it would be silly to say "i have faith that there are penguins in antarctica." But i think that one can have faith in anything less than knowledge. Like i could say before a football game "I have faith that the Steelers are going to win." Then when they are up by 21 with 2 minutes to go i could say "I have faith that the Steelers are going to win." In the second case, my faith is a lot more likely to turn out true, but both cases are faith. But after the game, it wouldn't make sense for me to say "I have faith that the Steelers won." Of course, it is difficult to say what "knowledge" is, and i'm sure some people think true knowledge is impossible and therefore think that everything is faith. i dunno. TheTruth12 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

for this reason, i dont understand when people claim to "know" God exists. for one thing, it is impossible to know this (unless you met God in person i guess), and secondly, if you "know" he exists, then you can no longer have faith in him, and if faith is the requirement for heaven then you are better off not knowing.TheTruth12 09:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you believe, or whatever faiths you hold, you must admit that a great deal of faith lacks evidence. Although we may have faith that Penguins live in the Antarctic on the basis of evidence - say, pictures of them waddling across snow-covered landscapes - billions of people on this planet also believe in God on the basis of their parents' beliefs, and not on the basis of any evidence that they have ever seen. One can view such faith as sound or unsound, but the fact nevertheless stands that it does often denote willful belief in an unfounded claim. --Thucydides411 08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just passing through and thought I'd leave a comment. All the examples and debates above suggest to me that - as in the original definition - the issue of "trust" is central to any (broadly acceptible and NPOV) meansing of faith.

I have faith (trust) the Fairandbalanced is telling the truth when he says he's been to Antarctica and seen penguins.
People who base their religious faith on their own visions/personal experience of God are trusting that their senses were working and that they were not imagining things.
People who base their religious faith on what others say or write are trusting that those people are reliable witnesses (not mistaken or deceitful).
When TheTruth12 says he has faith that the Steelers, he is trusting that (his assessment of) their past performance indicates they will win this time.

Saying (as some have) that faith means "believing without evidence" is IMO wrong, while "believing without proof" is too simplistic. 

 Remember: evidence is not the same as proof.    IMO, faith is about trusting that the evidence for something (your senses, other people's testimony, etc) is sufficient to justify believing in that something. Wardog (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of ugly but correct editing by Barbara Shack and Andries

I have removed the following sentences which I think are ugly but correct. "Even though the existence of an altered state of consciousness acquired by intense sadhana (spiritual excercises) is undisputed, the concept of moksha is an unproven supposition rejected by atheists and freethinkers and most non-Hindus alike." We don't need to say over and over again that a concept is controversial. Just stating that a concept is Hindu (or Christian, or Muslim) is enough to let the reader know that a concept is controversial. Andries 11:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Faith and identity

Shouldn't we state that a person's identity depends to some extent on a person's faith? For some people this is a very important aspect of a their identities. This should be stated in the article. Done Andries 11:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs a thorough cleanup. For example:

  • Translation of "faith" to Hebrew is wrong - emet means "truth", not "faith".
  • The process of obtaining faith is called conversion. This is the strangest definition of conversion I have ever read.
  • The section on "loss of faith" seems worthy, but its contents are encyclopedically implausible.
  • The See also section needs to be looked into as well
  • Faith in other religions are missing (Islam, Hinduism, Budhism, as a minimmum)
  • The book references are wrongly formatted and information missing.

--Zappaz 22:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I agree that the contents is not good but please do not remove section headers so others will know what to write and where to expand. This is standard practice. Andries 23:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, can you write down what the relationship is between conversion and faith? There is clearly a strong relationship, which should be stated in the article. Andries 07:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will get to this in week or two. This article needs cleanup and tuneup. --Zappaz 15:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Eduardo, What is the difference between faith, hope, and believe not contextually but deriving from its nature?

Not be Proven

So could it be said that, according to Christians, Jesus or God could never be proven, since faith is what helps man transcend into heaven? Of course, this depends on the Christian definition of "faith". Can someone get more in depth into this issue?

From the article:

Most Jews, Christians and Muslims admit that whatever particular evidence or reason they may possess that God exists and is deserving of trust, is not ultimately the basis for their believing. Thus, in this sense faith refers to belief beyond evidence or logical arguments, sometimes called "implicit faith".

Could there be possible references to the above statement? I'd like to prove that statement.


Thomas Aquinas talks about this, but he's not representative of "most Jews, Christians, and Muslims," as he is primarily read in Western Christianity (and even there, primarily by the Catholics). Is it permissible to just put a citation of Aquinas in?

sir or ma'am, please note that st. aquinas is the example if the disrespected quack philosopher who does not follow the established rules of logic to 'arrive' at his proofs. all secular colleges condemn his "5 proofs of the existance of god" as "begging the question" (using the assumption that you are right to prove you are right). he's silly.

-antip8ri8-/-dec9,06- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antip8ri8 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

"POV" vs. perspective

I reverted the Aug 15 edits of Aaarrrggh. He made those edits with the tag, "Removed POV absurdities", but much of what he deleted was explanatory of how various groups (notably Protestants) view the issue of "faith". One doesn't have to agree with a particular perspective on faith in order to allow an explanation of faith. The article doesn't say, for example, that Protestants are correct, only, "This is how they define faith...". Thanks...KHM03 11:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This page has far too much of a religious bias. It seems more like an apologetics for various different forms of faith than an account of what faith actually is. In my opinion, the page needs a radical overhaul. Aaarrrggh 11:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to post a proposal for a "radical overhaul" here. Of course, you're dealing with a pretty religious subject, so religious discussion is bound to be a part of things. But I for one would be open to considering your ideas. KHM03 11:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Khmo3. To elaborate slightly, I think there are many implicit examples of quite substantial religious (mostly christian) bias on this page. Describing 'faith' in itself, and then going on to talk about what faith may mean and how it is applied to varying religious sects and beliefs is all very well, but when we have statements such as:
"Sometimes, faith means a belief in the existence of God, and can be used to distinguish individual belief in God from belief in God within religion. However it can also be used in context of belief in God within religions. Many Hindus, Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that there is adequate historical evidence of God's existence and God's interaction with human beings. As such, there is no need for "faith" in God in the sense of belief against or despite evidence; rather, they hold that evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that God certainly exists, and that particular beliefs, concerning who or what God is and why God is to be trusted, are vindicated by evidence and logic."
We have a problem. Firstly, there is the implicit assumption that 'God' is a relevant thing to believe in, as opposed to 'Gods'. Using the word 'god' in the singular gives prominence to monotheistic religions such as christianity, and makes it sound as if the object, 'God' exists in an objective sense, and is dissacociated with the act of faith itself. This is misleading. The belief in god is a result of religious faith. Dissasociating religious faith from 'God' implies that god itself exists in an objective sense. The term 'dieties' is therefore far more neutral. The whole page is littered with points such as this, and as I said above, it feels like a page made up mostly of apologetics that defend the notion of religious faith rather than presenting a neutral account of what religious faith is. Aaarrrggh 12:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me address your points one at a time...

  1. "...there is the implicit assumption that 'God' is a relevant thing to believe in, as opposed to 'Gods'." I agree with your observation here; faiths such as Hinduism or Buddhism do not necessarily affirm one deity. Perhaps an NPOV change would be to mention belief in "the divine" or "the supernatural" or "God or gods", or, as you propose "deities". That would seem fair to me.
  2. The whole page is littered with points such as this, and as I said above, it feels like a page made up mostly of apologetics that defend the notion of religious faith rather than presenting a neutral account of what religious faith is. That may be true, though, as a Christian, that isn't so obvious to me (I admit that my bias may well be clouding my "NPOV eyes"!). A page describing the phenomenon of religious faith is certainly in order. Also in order, however, is how religious groups define faith. For example, "faith" to Protestants is an important theological point. So, separate sections can deal with the different usages of the word "faith". Also, there is the Christian tendency to refer to Christianity as "the Faith". An NPOV encyclopedia can still mention this without condoning it.

Hope this helps a bit. KHM03 12:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this KHMO3. I will make more edits to the article when I have more time to spare. Nice to see you have a genuine interest in creating a more NPOV article. Thanks ;) Aaarrrggh 13:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Spinozistic Definition of Faith

FAITH is belief that an external object will cause a change in your probability of Perpetuation and your Peace-of-Mind. The intensity is proportional to the change. Yesselman 16:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Neurobiological addition

This section should contain a description, or at least a reference to the work of Dr. Michael Persinger, with appropriate reference.

Basically, Persinger has been able to induce what many of his subjects describe as a "God experience" by stimulating a specific area of their brain with a strong magnetic field.

See for example:


Persinger, Michael A. (1987). Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs. New York: 

                             Praeger.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html

http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-314.htm

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0275926486/104-8089134-9930353?v=glance&n=283155

64.28.54.218 06:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Dr

Paul's def of faith

The section on Christian faith quotes the Bible, but there is another passage in another of Paul's letters where he says something like "faith is evidence where there is no evidence." I can't find it, but maybe someone would like to find it and put it in the article with the other bible quote. TheTruth12 08:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of Hebrews 11:1...
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (ESV)
or
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (KJV)
KHM03 11:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello. I am now registered, but was not at the time I added the reference to Romans 8:24-8:28 (KJV)to the page (Faith).

FYI: Goodsoul (formerly IP 71.113.208.158 prior to registering today) added back the last three
words (not mine) previously found in the first paragraph of the same page, i.e "to spiritual) eyes."
apparently truncated by a later revision.

I hope/trust/have faith :c) that my comments are not unwelcome or found intrusive. I welcome any future dialogue.

Paul was the Apostle to the Romans so the entire epistle is germane to his definition of faith. These particular passages are, in my mind, especially coherent and have special implications for the meaning of faith (despite the potential for contemporary linguistic subterfuge introduced by the word "hope"). (It might even be argued that the word hope is today effectively deprecated as a diluted form of "faith" although I see that as a linguistic issue only).
Much searching through various translations, particularly later than (KJV), strike me as blatant obfuscations precisely because of these implications. Just as one might refer to the corporeal, the social and the spiritual, in both the passages above and in Romans, we might refer to "hope for ourselves", "faith in spiritual principals" and "love of all things working together for good".
At a very objective level it is possible to infer that:
  1. Adherence to certain principals can not be seen as immediately beneficial to ourselves, however necessary they are for our common welfare.
    • 8-24: For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
  2. Faith, as evidenced by patience, especially in times of adversity, arises from the emotional acceptance of those principals.
    • 8-25: But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
    • 8-26: Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
  3. Our common vulnerabilities and motivations i.e. infirmities make it impossible for us to fully rationalize such principals, but that, in context, the doctrines of Christianity provide a framework for living compassionate, peaceful and responsible lives (I would contend that other religious doctrines provide similar frameworks).
    • 8-27: And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints (I understand "saints" to be in specific reference to Christians) according to the will of God.
    • 8-28: And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

As I have signed correspondance for nearly 25 years, I will sign here.

Work hard, do good work and have faith.

Goodsoul 08:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Faith/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Under the sub-head Christianity, the content should be more objective and historical, with some notes on how Paul and the Church Fathers viewed faith. As it reads now, it's very slanted toward a modern Protestant view.

Last edited at 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Faith/Archive_1&oldid=718317748"