How do Religious People understand "Faith"? There various dictionary definitions for the concept of "faith". For example: Merriam Webster dictionary: Wiki: The Free dictionary Dawkins define it as "believing something without evidence" (listen to the 702 interview for example). The Catholic view is: The Bible states it as follows: To my understanding, and I would argue this is traditionally how most religious people view faith, faith is believing something that a person cannot discover on his own or fully understand but nevertheless believes it to be true. The very concept of "believing something without evidence" appears to be nonsensical. I don't think there is ANY person that actually believes something, anything, without evidence. Maybe someone can provide an example of a belief that is generated without any evidence. I haven't come across such a belief or a person that has such a belief. I would argue that every single belief is based on SOME kind of evidence. Be it sensual or an intellectual abstraction. The point is not to discuss whether the evidence of beliefs are valid or not. It may turn out that beliefs are based on faulty or incorrect evidence. The point is people generate beliefs based on some kind of evidence and not no evidence at all. So I would like to ask a few things regarding the concept of faith. 1) Is there ANY religious person out there that has a belief that is based on no evidence whatsoever? Could you point out what belief you have that is not based on any evidence at all? 2) How do religious people view faith? How would you define the concept of faith?
Faith to me is primarily about Trust. Having Faith in God is trusting God. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
I don't have faith in gravity because I know it's there. Faith is not just trust, but trust in something that wouldn't ordinarily deserve it.
I don't know if i do.. I guess i must have some information somewhere that i believe without evidence. Everyone would have instances like that. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Yes, that is why I would argue that to have a belief based on no evidence is nonsensical in the first place. Every belief is based on some kind of evidence irrespective of the ontological truth of the evidence. So I would be particularly interested in a person that claims to believe something based on no evidence whatsoever.
When i was talking about deviance i was also thinking of the kind of situations where you have a friend and you ring them up and they are not home, you ring later and they answer the phone and you ask them why they did not answer the phone before. They tell you they where out having dinner at (insert any eatery you want). Now you have no evidence that they where out, you have no evidence that they where out for dinner but you may believe they where out and having dinner simply because you trust in their word and you have no reason to doubt them. So it might be said that in this case a person believes something without any evidence. But the evidence is that they have been told something and they believe the report because they trust in the person who is giving them the report. So it is evidence but not the kind of evidence some people would define as evidence. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
One of the most simplest yet to the point explanation I've read in a while. I'm not even an Atheist and this makes sense. lol