Talk:Faith

Faith is not about truth

"Faith is a profound belief or trust in a particular truth, or in a doctrine that expresses such a truth." Um, I was just browsing Wiki, and saw this. Faith doesn't trust in truth. Faith trusts in things that are not yet proven true. Religion is not a truth. If something is written into a document you can't just assume it's truth. Say, I write a religions text because of a dream I had last night. My dream was of the end of the world, unless you follow my standard. Now, I may be able to get followers, but that's not because the visions I saw are truly happenings in the world, but because they have faith that they will one day happen. Now you can have faith in a truth, such as "raccoons exist." But the most common idea of faith is for something that is not a truth. I suggest a change be made that the sentence look more like this: Faith is a profound belief or trust in a particular existence of a truth, or in a doctrine that expresses such a truth may have occurred or will occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.42.83 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the above argument, and since then have noticed the changes made to that sentence. I just wanted to say that I totally agree with the new changes, and thank whoever made them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.126.215 (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

William Ashley's Opinion

"In accordance, oneness, truth, belief" Faith is actuality of the future. Fides, Fidelity, it is accordance. It is only with doubt of faith that the connotations referenced in the article come into play. FAITH IS. Faith is seen as a societal occurrence. Different individuals or cultures may express different notions of faith. Faith is truth in being. The context of belief is just that idea of faith. The difference between personal faith and group faith is that personal faith is an individual belief, or undoubted notion for the future and what is actualized now, perhaps in view of the past; while, group faith is that which can be commonly agreed which shapes the common law, common knowledge or common practices, it in many ways is the people's practice, or basis of reason in their common occurrence. Faith when exercised is an unquestioned impowerment of belief, it is what allows belief to maintain. Major knowing worship is not required for faith, faith is worship as a basis to the constitution or unconscience of the person. Faith building is to fortify ones faith, and observance of 'the law' or the meaning of the person. Knowledge and Opinion stem from ones faith, and acceptance or paradigm. The difference between faith and belief is that faith is a emotional sense where belief is a form of knowledge which is unquestioned by the individual, it is. Faith interacts with belief and the spirit. Faith in many was is the personal spirits interpretation of knowledge. Where there is a question of faith, or question of the persons spirit belief may become challenged as an emotional test unfolds. Thus belief is at the core of faith, and only when concordance reveals conflict can faith or innate worship be questioned. The difference of worship and faith is that worship is an activity that stands beyond 'regular activity' while faith is all pervasive, it is just a question what is the faith. While some people may be one religion all their faiths may not be identical, their occupations may say something of their faith, or their personal stances on a particular religion may not align. Faith is intune with emotional, moral and ethical identities of the individual.

Faith in someone or something can be construed to be loyalty, that is following someone or something because it corresponds with your faith. Faith is not loyalty, faith is agreement. While faith can equate loyalty when it is faith in a person, faith itself is not required to be cultic in origin, that is, faith does not need to be worship of a person, but rather it is like a personal philosophy, but emotional rather than intellectual.

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)

Working Hypothesis, Explanatory Myth, and Faith

The contrast between what one person believes and another believes is one of the most problematic features of individual brains. Some people may believe that the Earth is flat, others that it is a sphere, and still others that it is only roughly spherical.

In my opinion, faith is the practice of voluntarily holding onto a belief. If I check my pockets frequently to assure that my keys are still there, it would be reasonable for someone to conclude that I have little faith that they will stay there. If I leave my money in a bank account for decades without ever seeing it, it would be reasonable for someone to conclude that I have a lot of faith that my money will stay there.

Since I view faith in this broad way, it is easy for me to get comfortable with the idea that there are wide gray lines between Working Hypotheses, Explanatory Myth, and Religion. In this view, a Scientific Hypothesis is a belief held onto very lightly for the duration of a scientific experiment. An Explanatory Myth might be held onto for years until a better explanation is presented. A Religion may be held onto very tightly indeed, and many intend to make it stay for more than a lifetime.

The difference seems to be a matter of degree or determination.

It seems subjective to define faith as only existing in one of these shades of gray but none of the others. A person who believes that they have seen penguins may hold onto that belief and then abandon it when someone points out that they might have been puffins. That would have been faith in a small degree or exhibiting very little determination. A person who believes that their prayers are heard and responded to by dieties may hold onto that belief, even when pain and suffering still plague them, or others ridicule that belief. That would be faith in a greater degree or exhibiting much more determination.

Faith seems to be a basic mental operation in some ways. In particular, it seems that some faith is necessary to any attempt to formulate a plan based on abstract concepts, memory, or the testimony of others.

The contention is about what specific beliefs different people hold onto and therefore place their faith in.

That seems valid. It seems entirely appropriate that many people will disagree about how hard one should hold onto any particular belief. After all it is only rarely that people can share a complete set of experiences and the same perceptions about those experiences.

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)

11 million Mormons, one third of which is active, and they get the bulk of this article?

This page has obviously been run over with Mormon content. Not proportionally representative of the varying views. It appears we have some zealous Mormon editors.

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

Faith and Evidence?

I heard something about faith and evidence. I forget what David Asscherick said in "Pascal's Wager" which was on 3abn a couple of nights ago. Something about faith isn't blindly trusting, but is based on evidence. Maybe, it was there is "no faith without evidence" or something. Thanks.

I think I found it.

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)

Lectures on Faith

Anyone interested in faith should read this - it might be a good idea for the article to quote from this lecture

Definition of Faith?

How about we start with a dictionary definition of faith to give us somewhere to start? It seems to me like we're just jumping in to the middle of the topic.

Eg. (from Dictionary.reference.com) !NOTE: I think this definition may be copyrighted!

faith (noun)

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

I don't think this article is especially neutral either. Or maybe that's just because I disagree with the first paragraph :P . My view of faith is as follows:

1. Faith is similar to belief, but it's more than just belief. It's conviction.

It can be applied to people: "I have faith that Bob will take my money to the bank."

It can be applied to objects: "I have faith that the chair will hold my weight."

It can be applied to abstractions: "I have faith in God."

2. Faith can be based on evidence such as previous experience or an "inference of suitability to purpose" (ie, a chair is designed to be sat on).

"Bob took my money to the bank ok last time."

It's a chair, of course it'll hold my weight."

"Well God helped me through a difficult time in my life, so I know that he will help me again."

3. Faith can be based on the word of another.

"That Bob, he's a trustworthy guy..."'

"Hey, look at this chair I made! It's ok, you can sit on it, it's perfectly safe!" (Hehe...)

I know God exists because one of my friends told he did and I know that what that friend says is true."

4. Faith is not compromised by circumstance or 'evidence' that could show it to be 'false'.

"I heard that Bob ran off with someone's money once..." "Did you? Well I still have faith that he will take my money to the bank."

"Haha, his chair just collapsed!" "Oh well, this one will still be ok."

"Evolution shows that there is no need for a God." "Yeah? Well then evolution must suck because I Know that there's a God."

The difference between belief and faith is that you can believe something, but not act on it "I believe that Bob's a good guy... But I think I'll take my money myself." Faith is belief that acts.

This view of faith fits with Paul's statements which have been quoted above by user KHM03:

"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)

(Note that in this passage, "Hope" is referring to a "solid" thing they're waiting for and looking forward to, not just some pie-in-the-sky maybe.)

Just one more area that needs to be cleared up. Jesus said, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed..." (NIV) If faith is a conviction, how can it be small? You are either convinced or you aren't, aren't you? As many Christians will be able to tell you, it's one thing knowing the truth and it's another thing acting on it. You can be fully convinced of something, but when "evidence" mounts up or difficulties or uncertainties arise, sometimes the reaction one actually has can be a response to doubts, not to faith. So when Jesus said "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you," what he was saying was, "Yes, you will have doubts. You will also have faith. But if you act in faith, no matter how great the doubts, you will get what you ask for."

"This section should contain a description, or at least a reference to the work of Dr. Michael Persinger, with appropriate reference." Should it? Why? That work has nothing to do with faith as far as I can see.

Just a few thoughts.  :-P ayteebee 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Faith in Judaism

I removed this comment:

Actually, it is deeply misleading to claim that Judaism is faith based, or that most Jews accept Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Belief, because this is not what the central thrust of Judaism is. Indeed, as is argued throughout the Rabbinic tradition, the main goal of being a Jew is to be a Mench (a good person), and it is not required to have a belief in a divine being. Faith really has nothing to do with this tradition at all, and is to Jews only a metaphore (as are all the stories in the Tanach). This is a concept that is hard for Christians to understand or believe (or have "faith" in) because their ideology is so focused on the literal interpretation of the text, and the faith required of them in order for that view to be possible to accept.

It reads more like a comment rather than an edit to the article. --Trödel 21:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitions list

I removed this list because I find it problematic, if only because it can be condensed to some general meanings: start with the elevated and stipulate that there are more casual uses. (Text below) -Ste|vertigo 08:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A typical dictionary definition would read:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. the definition belief is debated, and often misconceived as blind belief although it is debatable whether it means belief without evidence
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
6. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
7. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
8. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
9. Faith- believing without seeing.

Cites, please

This is obviously a highly controversial topic. The article makes a large number of assertions without cites. All assertions should be either cited or deleted. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- 201.50.126.220 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going.

In 2002 or, probably 2003, I read the book John Wimber: The Way it Was, by Carol Wimber, ISBN 0340735392, and I was pretty amazed, specially about the reports in pages 50, 74 and 78, because I had had similar experiences in 1988, when I was said to ask faith from God, aloud. How can I ask something to someone I don't know and don't believe in? was my reply. 'He's God! And He will answer.' was the response. So, I began to say, aloud: Did you really exist? If that saying is real, please let me know you! Give me that 'thing' people call faith! I felt ashamed and, though I always was alone when I 'prayed' that words, I blushed. I don't know if He answered the very first day, but I was aware a three months later, when I experienced the so called 'Tongues'. In the twinkling of an eye I was concerned that He was real!

Can somebody live without believing in God? Of course! But only when someone become a believer can knows, for sure, if it is necessary to believe or not to. One can try it, and then give up. Yet more, one can go back (for example: Franklin Graham). Or one can go along with the self thoughts. In this subject, I bet, the better one can do is be like a 'little child' (Matthew 25:26; Luke10:21-22). It's one's own decision. I like this: He's a shepherd (John 10:3-5)

I personally think that there are no 'formulas'. And that religions are more a barrier, and many times an obstacle, than a way that God can be revealed to someone (like 'man trying to reach God'). Rather I think like 'God in Search of Man': A Biblical example is Apostle Paul's testimony in Acts 9:1-9 and 26:12-16; Galatians 1:12 to 2:9.

During a four years, more or less, I spent a three or more hours of the day on reading the Bible, asking God to teach me, and let me know things I didn't know or understand, not questioning (no putting into doubt, but recognizing there were so many things that I had to learn, and I that I was an ignorant to that respect), but asking for more specific details, in so far as I was reasoning what I was understanding. Like 'I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them' Hosea 11:4). I guess one can find an example in the story of Jesus and Nicodemus, too, in John chapter 3:1-13; 7:50-52; 19:39.

Looking for material, I found what follows: For more than ten years, (Gary) Habermas had a deep uncertainty about key Christian claims and searched other religious and non-religious systems, especially naturalism. His studies centered chiefly on investigating various world views, occasionally getting close to what he thought might be the proper approach. During this time, as he explains, "The last thing I did at night was recall what I had learned that day to further my search. Early the next morning, it seems that the first thing that came to my mind was, 'Where did I end my studies last night?'" This continued for several agonizing years.

On several occasions, apparently starting in 2001, rumours circulated claiming that Flew had converted from atheism. Flew refuted these rumours on the Secular Web website.[3] In 2003, he signed the Humanist Manifesto III.

In December 2004, an interview with (Antony) Flew conducted by Flew's friend and philosophical adversary Gary Habermas was published in Biola University's Philosophia Christi, with the title Atheist Becomes Theist - Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew. Flew agreed to this title.[4] According to the introduction, Flew informed Habermas in January 2004 that he had become a deist [5], and the interview took place shortly thereafter.

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit". (John 3:8)

I bet that now Antony Flew can, literally, flow.

I better tell to whom it may concern that I represent no any religion or church, I'm just a believer 1 Corinthians 2:1-14 Bless you!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.239.209.62 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC). Oh, my God, I forgot to sign it!. --Elianita 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

definition / article innacuracy

My edit summary of 16:10 15th Feb 2007 does not make sense because i thought the citation was to a different work (i read the top of further reading section, not the reference section). sorry!

The actual citation is to an online dictionary, which defines faith (bold type added by me) as:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. —Idiom9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

As can be seen, these definitions refer to confidence/belief (expicitally mentioning despite a lack of proof, no.2, not a lack of evidence), and to faith as meaning religion. This reference fully supports my version, and does not agree with the ludicrous idea of faith meaning something opposed to evidence. There is NOTHING in the definition saying or even implying lack of evidence. Quite how the article reached its former silly innacurate definition of faith i do not understand.

129.12.200.49 11:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is self evident that faith (particularly in the existance of a deity) is opposed to logic, reason, evidence, proof etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shniken (talk • contribs) 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

You have no source and disagree with sources such as dictionaries, so your opinion is irrelevant. 129.12.200.49 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

An unbridled orgy of templates

At this point, these generic templates are next to useless for an article this evolved. If someone contests specific statements or specific sources, use the appropriate tags in the actual article:

• {{fact}} produces
• {{who}} produces
• {{vc}} produces
• {{POVassertion}} produces
• {{POV-statement}} produces

Drive-by editors slapping templates on articles are not conducive to actual progress or consensus. Rather than raging against the wiki, why not contribute to the article? I have removed the redundant templates and left {{cleanup}} - please be more specific. - WeniWidiWiki 20:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Faith vs. Evidence - Creationism

There is someone on this page trying hard to push the idea that faith is held despite "lack of proof, not lack of evidence." However, the very existence of Creationism, especially the variety of that creed known as Young-Earth Creationism, proves that faith is held in absence of evidence-- even in opposition to the evidence!

216.23.105.10 20:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. I cannot think of one example of faith that is in agreement with evidence or logic, this is because this type of thought goes by another name....scienceShniken 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The opening line has again been changed to say "not necessarily based on logic, facts, reason, or empirical data" I think that faith is "necessarily opposed to logic, facts etc" if it were based on the above then it wouldn't be faith. I am therefore changing the article to say as much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shniken (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

This is POV pushing and I am reverting it. Faith is not opposed to logic and rationality. The IP user's rationale is based on a very specific and very small minority, which is (ironically) not logical. Vassyana 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How could faith "associated with a transpersonal relationship with God, a higher power..." ever be associated with logic, facts, reason or empirical evidence??? Including "not necessarily based on.." implies that often faith is based on logic ect.

See http://www.answers.com/faith&r=67

1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust. 3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4) often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6) A set of principles or beliefs.

Only the first definition above could be said to based on logic (eg "I have faith that my friend Bob will not steal from me") But i think that trust is a much more appropriate word in this case. All other definitions are religious and are not based on logic, facts, reason or empirical evidence, and are opposed to (either by ignorance of or by a conscious decision not to accept) the facts. Even though a majority of the world's population have some religious faith "the truth is the truth even if no one believes it and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it". Maybe a section that includes logic based faith should be added? And the rest of the examples can be said to be opposed to the majority of the evidence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shniken (talk • contribs) 03:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC). Shniken 03:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I disagree with the edit you made to the article. Faith surely is informed by facts and reason to some extent, otherwise no thinking person would have faith, which runs contrary to the evidence of a lot of very thoughtful people professing faith. As the notion of 'logic' is better defined, then I could go along with the line that faith is illogical, but not that it is irrational or ill-informed. — Gareth Hughes 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you underestimate the ability of some people to ignore the facts or (to use a Dawkin's expression)somehow "compartmentalise" their mind to allow themselves to hold two contradictory ideas at once. There are a lot of thoughtful people who have faith, but most of these are theologians or chaplins, there are very few scientists that hold onto deep faith. This is undoubtably because they (for example) know of the facts of the big bang or evolution and cannot still believe there is a personal god as described in holy books.

I will leave the necessarily in for another week then I will remove it unless someone can show how a "transpersonal relationship with God, a higher power" can ever be based on "logic, facts, reason, or empirical data" I think that is more than fair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shniken (talk • contribs) 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC).Shniken 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not need to "push" the idea that faith is held despite "lack of proof, not lack of evidence" - It is in the cited dictionary source, so to delete this opinion, especially without any reliable source, is clear violation of wikipedia rules and procedures.

Your personal opinions are no doubt fascinating, but without sources are irrelevant. A dictionary is definition is relevant. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Note that my version mentions that faith is on the "basis of (real or perceived) evidence", which maintains neutrality. The discussion of creationism is irrelevant since no-one is asking wikipedia users to invent a definition- That is not at all what wikipedia is about (see wikipedia:No original research etc.) It already exists.

129.12.200.49 16:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

With the phrase 'not necessarily' the lead incorporates a nuance that can be developed further in the text. I think that a more clear cut statement incorporates bias from the outset and should be avoided. One representation of the appliance of the rational mind in upholding the existence of God can be seen in Existence of God#Arguments for the existence of God. On the whole, I find this kind of 'evangelical atheism', especially with name-dropping Dawkin, distasteful. As a rational and self-aware human being I have faith, a faith that I wrestle with according to inner reason and external facts. Many others or many religions, past, present and future, have done as I do. So, I find such smug misrepresentation of, if anything, a social reality distasteful. — Gareth Hughes 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your RVs to faith, I hope you are checking the discussion page (both "definition / article innacuracy" and "Faith vs. Evidence - Creationism" sections) before carrying out reverts in apparent contradiction of the dictionary source.

Regards, 129.12.200.49 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am maintaining the page as it was. You are changing it. The usual method to ask for verification is to flag the text rather than change it. Asking for a dictionary definition is a rather odd request, but a glance at the OED gives "Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority",[1] which suggests the action of reason and facts. — Gareth Hughes 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't beleive that a dictionary entry, though, is written in such a way to resolve this one way or the other. The existence of such enterprises as the cosmological argument, however flawed, shows the application of reason to the matter of faith. — Gareth Hughes 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed oppening line to read "Faith is a belief, trust, or confidence, not based on proof or material evidence" as this is what the cited dictionary definition is.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

There is no mention of 'not necessarily based on logic'etc This was a false citation, which has now been corrected Shniken 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"dramatic change in consciousness [...] in human history"

Please don't infer a dramatic, worldwide change in the consciousness of the whole humanity because one book happens to use a word more frequently than another. --131.111.8.102 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect definition of faith

From the introduction in the article... "in either case faith exists in opposition to rationalistic thought."

Way back in the 18th Century Jonathan Edwards wrote about the interaction between revelation and rationalistic thought. Arguing that to have 'faith' in revelation, it is quite reasonable/rational to make (scientific/logical) judgments about it.

I suggest a least a small change too "in either case faith exists in conjunction to rationalistic thought." although even that doesn't elegantly describe the interaction between faith and rationalistic thought.

I think it is very hard to argue that Faith in the 21st century is based on rationalism except where it means trustShniken 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of banners?

I think this article is quite a lot better than it was a number of months ago.. Should we remove the weasel words and cleanup banners? Will leave a couple of weeks for discussion....Shniken 07:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think my (our) recent edits clear up the bias of faith belonging souly to a judaeo-christian mindset. I included other examples such as alternate dimensions and realities. I believe both the 'weasel' comment as well as the subtext stating "There seems to be something profoundly deceptive and misleading...." can be removed. What do you think?

Does anything need to be cleared up? Made more concise? Added? Does it still seem like there is a bias? Steve Newport 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Shniken, your comment "This quotation is wrong it implies a belief that all things can be measured and explained scientifically this in itself is a statement of faith" is not correct.

This is the quote in question by yourself:

"[faith is] Believing in certain ideas despite the presence of contradicting scientific evidence. For example, religion & prayers:[1]"

Number one, this statement states that there is "present contradicting scientific evidence" to what this hypothetical person is [believing without reason]. So your comment doesn't exactly apply. But I see where you're coming from.

Your statement is a statement of faith: to believe that there may be things immeasurable and indefinable to science. Science is exactly this: the definitions and explanations to that which already exists. That which does not exist or has not been proven to exist is not science, it is theory, and therefor requires faith to believe in, science only requires understanding. We live in a physical world where everything that exists is tangible, and therefor, can be measured, proven and understood. We've never came upon something in our reality that cannot be measured, because that is an oxymoron, that which can be discovered is inherently already measured to an extent. That which exists outside the realm of human understanding/discovery (if you believe in that sort of thing) is inherently useless to us and should not even be discussed or considered in intelligent conversations and explanations. Imagine if every scientific proof ended with "but we could all be living in someone else's dream, so we can't be too sure that this is true." If we were to be living in someone else's dream, or if there where things that could not be measured or explained, who cares, it is absolutely irrelevant to humans. If it can be discovered, felt, seen, tasted, heard, or smelled (or any other sense we invent machines to interpret), it can be explained and understood. I won't insert this into the Wiki 'faith page, obviously, but even the fact of people believing in god can be understood. It doesn't prove god exists, but once the brain is thoroughly understood and coupled with genetics and sociology, we could scientifically see and understand why so many people feel the need to place their burdens and securities in a higher power instead of in ones self (although I do not think one must do too much research into figuring that one out).

In the end, the scientist and the rational believes that which has been proven, but understands error and accepts, even searches for, any future contradicting evidence. The faithful believes in that which has not been proven and will continue to do so despite current or future contradicting evidence.

Does this make sense? Did I explain it well? Let me know Steve Newport 13:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely.

My example of something that had contradicting scientific evidence was prayers, and I sourced a study on them. Someone else put religion in there too (although without pray what is there to most of the worlds religions? but that is a whole other story...) Shniken 09:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking summary to body of text

There isn't enough of a link between the summary and body of the text. There needs to be a two way information link between them, with the body being an expansion of the summary and the summary being a expansion succinct version of the body.

Moreover, the summary even in its current non reflecting state is in poor form. It doesn't give an even reflection of the concept, as has already been discussed here.

I will look at this and see what I can do.Harley 11:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

edit: error Harley 11:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Shniken 07:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)== Re: Linking summary to body of text ==

Harley, I believe the missing link between the summary and the body of the article is that most of the body was written by subscribers to a particular faith who believed that their definition of faith was unique to the 'generally accepted,' non-bias definition. Because of this, the body comes off pretty preachy and unrelated to the summary we've worked out at the top. I went in the other day to remove and replace some of the more preachy lines, but it would be a good idea for others to do the same and clean it even more so it is a non-biased, outside view of a particular topic. Get rid of the "we believe" and "our culture" etc. By all this I mean I think we have roughed out a pretty good, clear, descriptive and concise summary of 'faith,' and I feel the body is of lesser quality and could use quite a few more minds to edit it to a more perfect statement. Agree?

also, Shniken, it was me who inserted 'religion' into that section. Although I agree it wasn't the best addition, I was trying to find something better than prayer. The way it was written it insinuated that 'prayer' is a form of faith, instead of an 'act' of faith, based upon some sort of religion. The 'prayer' isn't faith, it's the result of faith. "the world is flat" is a good addition, but I feel having only that as an example is a bit of a cop-out to avoid conflict. Anytime anyone inserts anything dealing with religion/s into the summary someone comes and edits it out because they think it's a personal insult on them; in reality, it is merely the word 'faith' being explained and applied in full. Believing in a superior, mystical entity is an act of faith, not science. Science is based on the interpretation of the tangible, faith is based on the interpretation of emotions and feelings. I feel there needs to be an example of this added; I'll see what I can do.

Steve Newport 19:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

edit Steve Newport 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Yeah I guess neither religion or pray is a great example here, but we shoould find something better than "the world is flat" Maybe wording prayer something like "faith in the act of prayer"? Shniken 07:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I still think both summary and body need work. More references throughout. A more neutral approach. Yes, "the world is flat" is avoiding conflict - a Neutral_point_of_view is a wikipedia requirement. Prayer was not the best example because there are studies that show it to work as well as not work. Religion is not the best example because not all religions believe in superior mystical beings, some are atheist like BuddhIsm. I see your point that belief in a superior deity takes faith. This is a tricky topic. The majority of the practicioners of these religions see the religious texts of these religions as the proof itself. They believe the word of the people that wrote it (just as you and I believe the words of a travel guide to a place we have never seen to be true). I think that it will need to be well thought out if it is to be included. There may be a much better example than that the world is flat. But this example is obvious, generally universal (nearly everyone knows the world is round and that only a few people desperately try and think the world is flat). Harley 10:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Harley, your points are very much nonsense (no offense intended). To be neutral does not mean to avoid a given point due to potential disagreement, especially when the point is the largest application of the topic in todays world. Although faith is primarily a judeo-christian focus, it is a requirement of all religions that do not look to tangible reason to base their judgments. I could believe in a travel guide because I know the person who wrote that travel guide had been to these locations to be able to write it. If I put faith in the publisher and used this guide when I traveled, if they were wrong about any given point I could come back from my travels able to prove the publisher wrong. Believing in a book is not proof in it's self, it's the reason for believing in the book. A christian, for example, believes in a book because the book and his peers tell him to. I, on the other hand, would believe in a book because I know in order for a modern book to be published it would have to have some logical validity (at least in reference to travel guides).

Your point about Buddhism is not very well informed. Buddhism, aside from being a very contradictory religion (if you'd like to debate, email me outside of this talk page), requires immense faith in a variety of topics not limited to after life, rebirth, enlightenment (which is a very vague term used in Buddhism), etc. It believes in mysticism across the board.

You can argue all you want, but anything that believes in something that cannot be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelt is religious faith. This is the reason that 'emotions' are not considered a 'sense,' because they do not give us an actual interpretation of reality, emotions give us an abstract interpretation of reality. Reason and logic are not points of view, they are a factual reality. Picking up a seashell and saying that it is a seashell is reasonable. Saying there is a god, an after-life, an alternate reality, etc is not reasonable (i.e. goes against all of the senses and logic) and therefor requires a blind faith which is the primary implication of the word faith in todays society. This is the reason why I believe religious examples must be used in this article if, in fact, the point of this article is to give the reader an accurate impression of 'faith' in the year 2007. The article is not a debate column, nor is it an article whose validity should be hindered to avoid conflict. The article's purpose is to give a reader, ignorant to the topic, a useful definition of the term.

Bad definition of faith

It appears that the theologically unsupported Dawkinsian definition of faith has reached Wikipedia. Let me define faith with a quote from theologian, W.H. Griffith Thomas. " [Faith] affects the whole of man's nature. It commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart of emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned in the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct."

Dawkins is not a theologian.

-Kabain52 July 28, 2007.

Of course, he is not. He is a scientist. So what are we supposed to make out from that quasi-philosophical quote?--Svetovid 10:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

theological explanations should only be an appropriate fraction of Wikipedia definitions when necessary. However, Encyclopedias are a place for facts, and there is no such thing as a theological fact, so the definition must provide theological ideas as merely 'ideas' and not facts.

That said, Kabain, Griffith's quote is a fancy way of saying every choice we make is made in faith, this is wrong. There is a difference between taking a leap of faith (basing a decision on what you want to believe to be true), and using logic and reasoning to do such. The former you are lacking the appropriate evidence, the latter you gain appropriate evidence. To say that it's a leap of faith to drink a cup of milk that it might be sour is nonsense. We use our reasoning ability to read the expiration date, consider the temperature of our fridge and how long we've had it, then we smell it, then we taste a small portion, by that point we will know, not by faith, but by fact, if it is sour or not.

As said in an earlier post, faith denotes a loyalty, and more modern day it is used to describe the fact that you believe in something (evidence being unnecessary). To have faith you won't be hit by a bus on your way to work is nonsense. To mold your actions for the purpose of not getting hit by a bus is logical, but you can't still believe some moron bus-driver won't hit you. The world is full of options, good and bad, and it is our desires, I would assume, to mold our actions to receive only the good options, without believing the bad one's won't hit us once in a while too. To have faith bad things won't happen to you is both dangerous and idiotic. Therefor, Griffith was wrong, only the stupid live by faith, not me. Steve Newport 06:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It means that fideists accept internal evidence (eg. intuition, emotion, communication with a deity) as more important than empirical evidence, while those on the opposite end of the spectrum reject anything but repeatable empirical evidence. --Dawdler 00:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Memetics perspective

I read in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that faith could be considered a meme in an evolutionary arms race with reason. Perhaps this could be mentioned; Dennett suggested this analogy might be incorrect but worth investigating. I wonder if any further work has been done on this. Richard001 00:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity section

In my opinion, it seems that parts of the section on Christian faith show a clear Christian point of view - it refers to "sinners" and the section on "The Faith of Abraham" doesn't really seem relevant in the larger scope of the article. I think this needs some cleanup in order to be a description of the Christian view on faith, not a promotion of that view. It is probably worth considering that different Christian sects likely have different views on faith, which should be explained here. fraggle 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Agnosticism

On the evidence of much of the foregoing (and the heavily pro-religious-apologia article it discusses), as well as the endless stream of tell-'em-what-they-want-to-hear bestsellers defending Faith, one might come to suspect that intensely strenuous hyper-Humean agnosticism —- selectively applied to zombyize the brain's common sense — is the true heart of "faith". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.212.151 (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition

Traditional definition: "The characteristic of being certain in the absence of enough evidence to demonstrate an absolute truth"

Religious Definition: "The characteristic of being certain in the absence of enough evidence, in the absence of any evidence, or in the prescence of evidence to the contrary".

I am using evidence in the broad form as in the article evidence. I think this is a fair definition. What do you guys think? --Xer0 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We could also go with Bertrand Russell's definition, "We may define ‘faith’ as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of ‘faith’. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence" --Xer0 09:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"True Biblical Faith"

As opposed to what? "False Biblical Faith"? Yikes, but this section is irredeemably POV, lacks any WP:V, and uses WP:WEASEL. Well: WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. As it already has a {{NPOV-section}} tag, I'm removing it without discussion per WP:NPOV and WP:Bold. MARussellPESE 01:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Simplify the Meaning

I feel that this page is confusing. I think faith is not about the absence of evidence, but rather the complusion of the mind. To have faith in someone or something keeps you going back for more. Faith is sort of like Fung Fu, it is something you practice to get better at or more of whatever it is you are seeking. However, just like Kung Fu there are many different styles and forms within styles. I think it is inappropriate to list all of the different forms of Faith while trying to describe it. I do not believe that religion, aside from the word its self, even needs to be mentioned on this page.

The page could be useful to everyone if all of the attempts to own this word could be removed. Faith is the complusion to do something again, or follow a path for gain or reward. This is true whether is faith in a partner, a god, a religion, a science, a process, or an idea. All this talk of religions confuses the meaning of faith. And faith can be based on evidence and usually is. I have faith in my employment. I don't know that it will be there tomorrow, but I keep going back because it hasn't failed me so far.Lord Challen 15:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting definition, but I have never heard it before. Are you sure that this is anything more than your personal conclusion concerning the word "faith"? Arguments made earlier in the talk page, that different religious groups hold differing but specific views of what this word means, seem to me like they hold a lot of water. I posit that there is very little consensus in the world concerning what faith is; many who are religious hold a view of it that makes no sense to the non-religious, while many skeptics and atheists, among others, hold definitions which the many religious folk find inherently degrading. If we are going to discuss faith in Wikipedia at all, and not just leave it as an entry in Wiktionary, then we are going to need to document this dialog between different sets of people, and not just settle on one "simple" definition that only one side agrees with.

Ikrieg (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Faith is an important term, not owned any one specific religion, or even by religion. Most of the sections are religion specific. Maybe this should become a "disambiguation" page. That way, people can post their "Faith: Religious Name" and have space to define their idea of faith. Lord Challen (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad plan. I'm not experienced in drawing the line between separate pages and separate sections, but one of those does seem like the best course. There is probably also room for discussion about how "faith" is used in some kinds of inter-religion dialog, but that might end up fitting best under the religions involved. For instance, the insistence by Christians that "faith" can be based on evidence, and by many non-Christians that it is "blind" and perhaps even intentionally ignores facts, is a tension that deserves a clear description.

The page is also rather short on references, I think. That may not really be a practical thing to fix, but if we could, it would be good. I think most posters to this article have their own developed understanding of what "faith" is, and it clearly differs from poster to poster. Where possible, posters should cite or clarify existing definitions of faith that exist in authoritative, published literature, and explain who that literature speaks for. I am new to editing Wikipedia, but as I understand it, our own understandings of "faith", however clever, groundbreaking, or simply natural, have no place here unless we can establish that there is a significant group of people that hold that view, and we make it clear who that group is when we give the definition. This relates to Wikipedia:OR and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Ikrieg (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Separate article for Biblical definition

The Christian/Biblical definition of "Faith" needs to be a separate article as it denote only a faith in God in connection with the Word of God/Bible. The reason is that you can't link from Evangelical Christian related articles to the broad use of the term 'Faith' that includes secular and multi-religion views. I considered page titles such as; Faith in God (Christian), Faith in Word of God, or Faith (Biblical). Latter thought...'Faith (Christian Bible)' would perhaps be a best title.

Leprechauns (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Faith in Country

Faith in country is when someone has belief or believes in their own country to do something great for that country.

Faith in world religions

If all of the various Christian "faiths" protestant, Catholic, LDS, etc each use it to repeat a roughly similar view how will that help the article? I would think that the sections under Faith in world religions would contain distinct contrasts and/or clear refinements. This is why I deleted the majority of the LDS text as it was duplicates of old and new testament quotes which are already covered in Judaism and Christianity sections. --Faradayplank (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I did some quick research and cannot find references to how LDS faith is different at all from Christian faith, just what they have faith in. I've gone ahead and deleted the whole section because the one part left over that was actually from the book of Mormon "Although faith is a gift, it must be cultivated from infancy or a tiny seed until it matures into a great tree (Alma 32, Book of Mormon)." doesn't describe what faith is (aside from a gift) but more what you need to do to nurture it. --Faradayplank (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Faith of Abraham

Regarding the The Faith of Abraham section. It isn't very long section of the article, nor does it need to be, but someone with knowledge of Abraham's faith would be much appreciated and it might add a great deal to the article. Some of the questions I can't answer are

• Why is it a section under Christianity (and not under Judaism)?
• Does it even need to be included in the article since Abraham isn't a religion but a central figure?
• Is Abraham's faith unique?

Thanks in advance. Faradayplank (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Faith as commitment

Removed the section "Faith as commitment" because as it stands it is not well written section. If someone wants to re-write it, get the text from history.

(reasoning in italics): Sometimes, faith means a belief in a relationship with a deity. redundant.

In this case, "faith" is used in the sense of "fidelity." not explained

For many Jews, the Hebrew Bible and Talmud depict a committed but contentious relationship between their God and the Children of Israel. This is covered in "Judaism" with a link to "Main article: Jewish principles of faith"

For a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identity, for example a person who identifies himself or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. way to generic for an article that goes into so much detail elsewhere, maybe add to intro?

According to Michael Green (theologian) faith is "Self-commitment on the basis of evidence". unreferenced, if included it needs expanding and explanation.

Use of interchangeably instead of Standardly

"Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of either as "trust," "belief," or "hope"." I would like some clarification as to the use of the word 'standarly'. I don't believe the definition, which refers to a set measurement or standard or benchmark fits this sentence. Why not say "may be used interchangeably in place of either "trust" ..." I think the sentence would work better if it was rewritten slightly differently. Thanks. Light keeper (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Shouldn't the informal precede the formal use? As in: "Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea. Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of either as "trust," "belief," or "hope". Formal usage of the word "faith" is usually reserved for concepts of religion, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality." ? Tyciol (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Williams, The Anatomy of Spiritual Growth

The link needs to be fixed. It goes to a disambiguation page with many instances of Paul Williams, none of who seem to be this person. Googling for the book and author doesn't yield anything new, so we need this to be a real link to the person or book for it to be at all useful.

Chronic Ambiguity between "Faith" and "Belief" can and MUST be Solved

This article changes, but has been chronically weak in addressing the difference between our two different words of "Faith" and "Belief". The Webster dictionary has long had a solution that would greatly help this article. One of the definitions of "faith" is "2b1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof".http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith. Leaving this aspect of the definition of the english word out of this article creates much more reader confusion, where a lot less exists in the real world use of the language. Hence, we should start the article with "belief, characteristically without evidence." That is the character of the word that separates it from the character of the word "belief". Either way, the Chronic Ambiguity between "Faith" and "Belief" can and MUST be Solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weekendsolar (talk • contribs) 03:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Faith has many different meanings and is dependent often on the person and context of use. Your 2B1 dictionary def is not one that people with faith would use, but seems to be the common perception that people that are antagonistic to religious faith use. You're right that faith and belief are not the same, you have to have some type of conviction to have faith in anything or person and it takes evidence or a basis to have that conviction. It does not take evidence to have belief, its just takes a mental agreement to an idea. If you want to improve the article lets use real sources instead of dictionary defs. Hardyplants (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is rooted in the difficulty of the fact that this one-word article must integrate both the simple English word (more of a dictionary entry) and the human historical idea (with is more geared to an encyclopedia entry). It is unfortunate Wikipedia doesn't link better with Wikidictionary. As a non-believer, I perceive the faithful as believing something largely in the absence of proof, and they generally do not deny it. They accept their beliefs on "faith", without evidence. This was lacking in the article, but not the real world.