The knowledge is that the weather report does (or does not) correlate to weather. If that knowledge wasn't there, under normal circumstances, given that scenario, there would be no question of considering taking the umbrella.
Yes, I know that the report attempts to forecast the weather. That is through definition of the report in question. My confidence in it is based on empirical evidence. At no stage do I have knowledge that what the report says is true. Until after the event, at any rate.
No, faith correlates to action.
Then we differ on our understanding of what "faith" is.
There may be various degrees of confidence, but the faith one is placing in a certain thing is necessarily singular, one way or another: it either is or it isn't. At the end of the day, you either have faith or no faith in the weather report, as characterized by either taking the umbrella or not taking the umbrella. There is no halfway or sliding scale since you cannot partially take the umbrella. There is no middle ground.
I disagree with this notion of faith. To me faith is quite simple: strong, or even absolute, confidence in something. That is how I use it, and your usage is new to me.
I am also not sure what this has to do with knowledge.
Knowledge that the weather report is or is not reliable in regard to weather.
I don't know it. I do know that they might be right. I also know that they might be wrong. At no point do I know if the weather report is reliable. I know it tries to be and empirical experience suggests that it is better than simply guessing.
Just to be clear, in that example faith either manifests in a yes or a no, as characterized by the decision to take or not take the umbrella. If you have faith, you take the umbrella. If you don't, you leave it behind. All sorts of ideas can come and go before or even after making that decision to act, but once you act, you have determined your faith (at least you have determined it, at that moment).
Again, I disagree, based on my understanding of faith. at no point do I have strong or absolute confidence in the weather report. I take the umbrella because it (as the only source of information) introduces doubt to my expectation of a bright and sunny day. I weigh that doubt against my willingness to get wet. I don't have faith, as I understand it, but I do have some confidence in the report. Hence I don't dismiss it out of hand, hence I take my umbrella.
Where is your notion of faith from?
In case you haven't worked it out yet, I am in the process of describing three different nuanced approaches to defining faith, as characterized by action. People (especially atheists!) commonly talk of faith in a singular sense when they are often mixing and matching things to suit the current form of their arguments.
Sure, and none of them so far do I recognise as being about faith. But continue, by all means.
To go back to the umbrella eg, the "completeness" of the confidence in the weather report begins and ends at the point of taking or not taking the umbrella. That is the point it is defined as an "act of faith" (in this case, in relation to the weather report).
Again, not my understanding of the phrase. There is no personal sacrifice involved, no testing, there is simply a weighing up of information and being pragmatic: weighing the perceived risk of rain with the willingness to get wet. To me there is definitely no faith in the weather report involved in taking the umbrella. It is simply a matter of confidence,
The point is that you trust that they won't, unless there is some untoward behaviour (at which point you would instantly disregard whatever protection painted lines, etc offered).
IOW the knowledge here is a certain prearranged agreement on traffic signs, road paint etc. The consequent action is adopting a "standard behaviour". Unlike the umbrella scenario, which culminates to a momentous yes/no, this sort of faith is stronger, and runs as a perennial flow in the background (and delivers an instant erraticness if it is broken or wavers in any way).
Just to be clear, the act of knowledge is not "knowing other cars won't crash into me", but rather acting for all intents and purposes like they won't (the specific act being flying through a green light at an intersection or quickly passing oncoming traffic on a narrow road).
I'm not talking about acts of knowledge but about actual knowledge. I certainly have confidence that people will not drive on the wrong side of the road, and I have confidence in my understanding of the norms, and all "faith" seems to be here is a degree of confidence. Yes, I accepted up front i know definitions (of the Highway Code, for example) but adherence to those (by myself and others) is just a matter of confidence, not knowledge,
Even though this faith is stronger, it tends to develop at a painstakingly slow rate (think of a person taking their first driving lesson) and if it is severely undermined can potentially be damaged irreparably. There is some space in this definition to introduce a spectrum (unlike the example with the umbrella)
If I read "confidence" where you write "faith" then I would agree. But I'm sure you don't think faith is just synonymous with confidence?
The very fact they are termed "accidents", suggest there is a standard of knowledge already at the fore. IOW calling them an "accident" is to identify the precise point the knowledge is transgressed.
Again, already accepted from the outset knowledge via definition.
At which point, our trust is broken.
Our confidence in the ability of other drivers is likely diminished, yes. But this speaks nothing with regard knowledge.
You can sit back in your armchair and get all cerebral about it, but the field of activity demands an instant response.
If you do have faith in the weather report, you do take an umbrella.
If you don't trust an oncoming car doing donuts on the wet road, you adopt evasive action and don't rely on the road markings, etc to grant you safe passage.
It may or may not rain.
You may or may not be involved in a traffic incident.
But that is neither here nor there when faith demands a follow up action.
I remain confused as to your use of the term faith. We are/were talking of knowledge, were we not? Very little of any of what you have said has actually seemed to be about it, but rather about a notion of faith that on one hand I find synonymous with confidence, and on the other just frankly quite odd. But I have no doubt that the issue there is mine, in sticking to the simple understanding I have of faith as simply being strong /absolute confidence in something/one etc.
Then you sleep in and you miss your flight or get fired.
Hasn't happened so far. But of course I don't know that it won't ever happen.
Sometime later, you have another similar development on your calendar. Science has, as yet, not discovered immortality (or even a means to avoid missing a flight or getting fired), so once again you ruminate on the inherent impermanence of life as you contemplate setting or not setting your alarm. What do you do?
What I've always done... go to bed and wake up the following morning when I need to. I've never had a problem with doing so. You may want to pick another example. And while science may not have discovered a means to avoid getting fired, owning your own business tends to be an easier option.
