The religious might claim to be using a priori evidence, though, so I think what you mean is empirical evidence. But doesn't that presuppose faith in the truth of empirical experience? To get through regular life, everyone requires faith (meaning belief without evidence) in a number of basic ways. I think the difference is that faith is basically pragmatic for the atheist, while for the theist faith can override reason. So it's for the theist that faith is superior to reason, while for the atheist faith fills the areas reason can't solve.
The originally posted question defines faith as belief without proof, well that is a fine definition by me. Faith needs no proof, no definition, it is faith. My contention is that faith can not be defined, only experienced. At Kay's suggestion that we REASON this out let me clarify my previous posts flippancy. The value of faith lies solely upon the individual. I have no desire to argue definitions with you esteemed members of sciforums. Yet my heart goes out to souls sitting by their computers searching for the meaning of faith. There is no meaning to faith. Faith in God, faith in the justice system, faith that you can walk the intersection without being hit- There is no need to analize faith. Maybe the true question here is How can I believe without proof? Here is a leap outside the box that no explanation will suffice, but wanting to believe is a great step toward faith, and I sincerely hope you discover the capacity within yourself to cease explinations and questing after why. It is a valuable but over-rated experience. Maelhavok
Well said Maelhavok, and welcome to the group. Faith is a tautology. Such-and-such is a truth because I believe it is a truth. Faith based truths might or might not have validity outside the confines of the mind of the believer. C.P. Snow defined science as: "The refusal to believe on the basis of hope (faith). However, G.K. Chesterton observed that: "Reason itself is a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all." For some time I've been trying to come to grips with these apprently opposite viewpoints. I see good arguments for both sides. Few of us doubt the overwhelming utility of science and reason, yet few of us today are so naive as to view any given sytem of logic, mathematics, or even reason itself as capable of producing an ultimate truth. Perplexing... Michael
I have something to ponder: Does part if not a majority of that faith in a partner or friend come from your strong feelings for them? Like an "equal and oppisite" idea, because you have strong feelings and are trustworthy you assume they are.
That sounds to me like you're trying to stamp your beliefs on someone else. They either live up to it, or lose your love? Screw that. I'm for freedom. The idea of monogamy is a useless hangover from a time when such a practice was required to "try" to ensure that a man's child was his own, and his wife was property. Unfortunately, the brain washing stuck so well we now regard it as being normal. How sad for the human race, that we can't unlearn.
That sounds to me like you're trying to stamp your beliefs on someone else. They either live up to it, or lose your love? Wow wow wow, no no no. I meant when you believe someone loves you or has feelings of friendship for you that belief, that faith in them is based on how much of the same you have for them. Not some kind of standard to live up to.
I feel that faith is beyond such things as "truth". "Truth" to me is a concept of reason. Faith can't be described in that realm, matter of fact, can't be described at all... "Describing" itself is within the realm or reason. Whoa, getting to friggin' deep here. Couldn't agree more here. I'd like to add. Reason comes from deductive and inductive reasoning. All dedcutive reasoning eventually comes from inductive reasoning (I can explain this further if someone wants me to). All deductive reasoning comes from general observations. For instance, every day of my life the sun has risen, so I can infer that tomorrow the sun will rise. This is an inductive argument. It takes faith to say that the sun will rise tomorrow. Safety comes from past observation, but you don't know for sure that it will. All of inductive reasoning is like this; it's based on faith. Then given above, Reason in general is based on faith. What do you guys and gals think? -Xenu
