Talk:Faith/Archive 2

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 Citing_sources and 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: 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 - please be more specific. - WeniWidiWiki 20:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * produces
 * produces
 * produces
 * produces
 * produces

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 Attribution. 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 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. 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", 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. As it already has a 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 OR and 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 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 Thanks in advance. Faradayplank (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?