Talk:Faith/Archive 3

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. And I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to look to the very concise dictionary definitions for clues to the major human concepts around a word. This concept appears as one of two or three major concepts in the dictionary definition, because it's important to the human language as we use it. That is certainly worth referencing as it brings a large dose of clarity to the conflict with the word "belief". Thank you.


 * "believing something largely in the absence of proof" that is true of of most every thing in life and not limited to religious systems. A person has religious faith because they have evidence that they believe in, most people have a belief in god or gods but few have faith. Put anther way - one can have belief that a bridge is going to remain standing while you cross, you do not have to know why or how it works, if one has never seen a bridge before and is asked to cross it, they might not, but if they see others crossing it safely they will believe it can be done and they may even have faith they can do it too, as they cross it there belief is reinforced and the next time they come to that bridge they have confidence and trust they will cross it, they take it one faith that the result will be the same. Faith comes from belief and evidence that produces enough conviction to cause action.  Your right that many confuse faith and belief, they say they have faith when they mean they believe in something.  I will find some sources and add more info to the article, here is one to start with from a Christian perspective:, will see if I can find some from a philosophical perspective too. Hardyplants (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to look to the very concise dictionary definitions for clues to the major human concepts around a word" - because we are writing an encyclopedia that covers a topic so people have a better understanding of that topic. Have you noticed that dictionaries give many, often different meanings to the same word- why do you think that is so?Hardyplants (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To be faithful is to hold a belief despite the lack of evidence (or even in spite of evidence to the contrary). You can show evidence that you hold a belief on the basis of faith, but if there were evidence for the truth of the belief, then that faith would not be needed. I could believe the sky is blue on faith alone, but I actually believe it because I can see the sky and it's obviously blue. To believe in Jesus, however, requires faith. Spotfixer (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And speaking of faith, Hardyplants appears to be acting in bad faith. He just falsely accused me of vandalism when I reverted his unacceptable content change. In the meantime, he has not responded to the reasonable objections made both here and on my own Talk page. In short, he's ignoring consensus while edit-warring and throwing out false allegations. Not good. I will gladly report you. Last time I filed a report, blocks were handed out all around. Want to try two for two? Spotfixer (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In will give you a time to come up with a reason for reverting; because you do not like the referenced text is not a reason. Your opinion does not matter and that is all that you have given do far, find your sources and your reasons why the information is not correct. the only bad faith that I see is your reverting clearly supported text beacuse you do not like what it says and it contradicts your personally held opinion. Hardyplants (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the text in question: Faith is the confident belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. It is also used for a belief, characteristically without proof. Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of "trust", "belief", or "hope". For example, the word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes.

The English word faith is dated from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem, or fidēs, meaning trust, akin to fīdere to trust.

Faith is often used in a religous context, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality, or else in a Supreme Being and said being's role in the order of transcendent, spiritual things. In Christianity it derives from the Greek pistis or root word peitho, meaning to trust, to have confidence, faithfulness, reliable, to assure. In the Jewish scriptures it refers to how God acts toward His people and how they are to respond to him:

Deuteronomy 7:9 (New American Standard Bible) "Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, (the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments; Hardyplants (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (reset indent)

With all due respect, this isn't just bad, it's unacceptable. To show you why, I'm going to quote from m-w.com: 1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions 2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs 

As you can see, this contradicts the emphasis that Hardyplants would like the article to put on the word. To add to the problem, Hardyplants has been engaging in edit-warring and an abuse of warning templates. He seems to think that disagreeing with him is tantamount to vandalism, which is insulting. Spotfixer (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So you do not have a reason, except that the concept of faith is not one simple dictionary definition? I find that a self evident fact, because we are working on an encyclopedia and our purpose here is to cover all the prominent positions and content of a topic. So if you cannot find a real reason why the text is incorrect, I am restoring it.  Feel free to contribute content that you think is missing (with references); but rejecting referenced information on a topic, especially the primary meaning of the topic is POV pushing and violates Wikipedia policies. Hardyplants (talk)


 * If you continue to edit war to make changes against the consensus, you will be blocked. That's the only warning I'm giving you. Spotfixer (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

-

"But I'm waiting for a sign (evidence) from God?" "Oh Ye of little faith."

How about this compromise? (I never did like the split into two sentences.) (This simply puts the without proof in the middle of the sentence to give it the balance that is closer to middle of the road usage. It's a little long, but not too bad considering the weight of the word. Seems much stronger).


 * Faith is the confident belief, characteristically without proof, in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of "trust", "belief", or "hope".  For example, the word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general.

As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes. Weekendsolar (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good start and I approve of the first two sentences. The third, while correct, might not be in the best place. Spotfixer (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you are combining two different meanings derived from different perspectives. The person that has faith is already convinced that there is reason to trust, this is what sets it apart from belief, faith involves belief but is more than belief because it is confident assurance in the one or thing or idea believed in. One can argue that the reasons for any kind of faith are wrong or misplaced but not that the faith is not dependent on evidence, the person who has faith already has enough evidence to satisfy them.

This quote from Jesus you are using is taken out of context when you mix those two verses, but its a good illustration of what faith is and is not: the opposite of faith is fear Just as those passages show: Matthew 8:26 "He replied, "You of little faith, why are you so afraid?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves" see also Matthew 6:30 and Matthew 17:20. Thank you for engaging in a discussion weekendsolar. Hardyplants (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Simpley put faith is trusting that someone is going to act a certian way, of course because it has not happed yet there is no proof that it will happen because we can not see into the future. Hardyplants (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's just your personal, Christian view of the word. Unfortunately for you, this is not Christopedia. 01:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about providing some evidence for your POV, I have used five already - have you checked them out? Hardyplants (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a POV, I have a dictionary. I suggest you consult one about the meaning of faith instead of relying on your Bible.  This is not like mulch, a topic you actually understand and few consider controversial.  Spotfixer (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes it hard when you you have a closed mind and will not look at evidence, please try reading threw the dictionary entry that I provided - to make it easy here is the link:.  Hardyplants (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The word you were looking for is "through". If you "threw" the dictionary, then that would explain much.
 * Look, I pasted the entire m-w definition here and you had nothing persuasive to say against it. My mind is wide open but you're just blowing smoke. Spotfixer (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, then we agree that my text was correct (since it was taken straight from a dictionary source), if there are modifications, please state them here and on Monday I will restore the intro. Hardyplants (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

The current opening conforms to the dictionary definition and is both neutral and informative. If you change it to insert a Christian POV or any other bias, I will simply revert your changes. WP:NPOV is not negotiable so we're not negotiating. Rather, I am informing you of what the foreseeable consequences of your actions will be. Do with this as you like. Spotfixer (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:NPOV yourself? "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides." Hardyplants (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it hard to believe that the dictionary from which I quoted the entirety of the definition of faith is deeply biased, so I'm going to stick with its view on the matter. Its view, while fully acknowledging the Christian take on faith, do not put Christianity above all other things.  This is quite distinct from your approach, which is why I've been forced to revert your biased changes.  It doesn't help that you've thrown out false accusations of vandalism and edit-warring, in direct violation of WP:AGF.  At this point, I find nothing at all compelling about your arguments, so I am compelled to dismiss them. Spotfixer (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not know were your getting the idea that anyone thinks the "entirety of the definition of faith is deeply biased" in the source given?  Being selective is biased, but I am aiming for a balanced and complete view of the topic, and would like to know what you would recommend for sources and combined do be used. I am not censoring any view point but wish to cover them all as NPOV demands. I have asked  you for input and still do, please try to provide some, so we can build this article. Hardyplants (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your Christian-centric view is as unbalanced as it is poorly written. As it goes against the consensus of the editors of this article, it will be reverted. Spotfixer (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "unbalanced" now we know that its you that thinks the source is "deeply biased". Look, all you have to do is present your view with sources, so we can include it some were. Please try to have NPOV view, if makes life easer.Hardyplants (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We already did that. The article, prior to your unwanted changes, is comprehensive, balanced and well-cited.  That's why we'll be removing those changes and reverting to the last good version.  So far, you have gone on and on and on, arguing endlessly, tossing out false accusations and edit-warring.  What you haven't done is to sway consensus even a little bit. Therefore, your changes are doomed. Spotfixer (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am beginning to think that you do not understand what NPOV means, plucking one meaning out a reference and excluding all others, is not NPOV. Also you might want to take a look at what consensus means, it does not mean that your one view point overrule mine, and it does not mean a vote ether. Your language use also becoming grating and its uncivil. Hardyplants (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

Apparently, you understood nothing of what I said or what WP:NPOV means, so you've once again tried to insert your bias into the article. Rest assured, it will wind up reverted, as will all such changes. Spotfixer (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a very simple problem to resolve. The word "faith" is distinguished from "belief" because it has the connotation of trust and loyalty, which mere concurrence with an idea does not. For example, I consider my relationship with my wife "faithful", but I don't hold that despite evidence to the contrary. As it is, the introduction to the article, relying on one minor shade of meaning of the word, is not WP:NPOV. -- De Guerre (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's even simpler than that: the word has multiple meanings. This article, however, is only about one of them. Spotfixer (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Auto-archiving
I've boldly added auto-archiving for threads 30+ days stale leaving a minimum of five remaining so the page doesn't empty. -- Banj e b oi   16:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Faith in Christianity section
This section needs to be rewritten in encyclopedia style. Its current style is more akin to evangelism. Phrases like "But it's not the works that saves us but God's grace" assume that the reader is a Christian. The entire section reads as instructions on how to practice Christianity rather than an exposition of how Christians practice. 173.3.113.232 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Faith and Science
With Dawkins' declaration in mind, there are respected scientific theories that are based on faith in a priori knowledge, justifications or arguments. Such acceptable principles are thought to almost certainly be true, and yet they have never been directly observed or have never been directly tested or duplicated. Some examples in astronomy and physics are the principles of dark energy, einstein-rosen bridges and quantum mechanics. There is still much to learn about even magnetism and electricity. The degrees of such faith range from the acceptance of a priori principles by scientists to the everyday faith that when a switch is thrown, a light will go on or off. Another controversy in astrophysics involves the widely accepted Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. This theory, first proposed by Georges Lemaître, is that the Universe began with a "singularity" and expanded from that point; however, as British scientist Stephen Hawking emphasizes, "At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down." [1]

1. ^ "The Beginning of Time", lecture by professor Stephen Hawking

Virtually every word of this is inaccurate. It confuses belief on partial evidence with belief on based on no evidence (everyone has plenty of evidence that light switches will work for instance). Georges Lemaître's theory only proposed expansion, not an initial singlularity. Quantum mechanics is heavily tested. etc etc.

1Z (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this, Peterdjones! Perhaps if I'd used "axiomatic" instead of "a priori", it would have been clearer?  I thought of that later.  There is nothing wrong with starting with axioms to improve logic and to prove theorems in geometry or give substantiation to hypotheses and theories in science.  Perhaps on the surface it seems that evidence for some things are plentiful.  But what if you turn on the switch and nothing happens?  It can be frustrating because you didn't get what you expected (what you had faith in).  The early Lemaître theory only proposed expansion from a "primal atom"; however, present theory suggests that the expansion began with a singularity, which, as the Hawking comment shows, is yet another article of conjecture and faith (not really "science").  Quantum mechanics is heavily tested, yes, as our conversation here, our usage of computers and the internet will attest to; however, the testing is merely like the flipping of the light switch to "test" if the light comes on.  The basics of QM are still quite a bit controversial and talked about, each discussion based far more upon "faith" than on scientific evidence.


 * The point is that while Richard Dawkins correctly points out that faith-based beliefs are "non-thinking" processes, the fact remains that whenever a person makes a decision about something, thinking stops (ref. S. I. Hayakawa). And this is true whether there is evidence, no evidence or partial evidence.


 * Belief based on partial evidence or belief based on no evidence can be confusing for some. For example, one person may believe there is "no evidence", while another person believes there is a great deal of evidence.  So this distinction can be very subjective.  The paragraph I rewrote above is quite accurate, however it does lack citations.  This is why I asked that either you help out by finding citations or at least place  templates where you believe citations are required.  This is what is usually done before text is deleted from articles.  Editors are given the chance to back up their claims with reliable sources.  So please replace the paragraph in the article and either add  templates or help us find reliable sources.  Thank you again for this opportunity!
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   03:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite with citations
Rather than insert the rewritten paragraph here along with the citations I found, please visit my Sandbox to analyze the rewrite. If there are no objections, in a few days the rewrite with citations will be reinstated into the article per WP:Preserve to preserve the information. &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   11:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The rewrite is WP:SYN. None of your sources directly support the science-is-based on faith claim. Rather they are sources for theories which you say are based on faith. 1Z (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, each and every source goes into great detail about each subject it cites. And when the sources are read with understanding, one walks away from the reading with the knowledge that, while there is certainly evidence for the existence of the subject, there are always pieces of axiomatic, a priori knowledge that must be "taken for granted" in order to believe the evidence.  There is synthesis, yes, but it is not the type described by WP:SYN, it is not a type of synthesis that goes against Wikipedia policy.


 * So I have to wonder, since the bald truth of the matter is that pretty much everything anybody believes is based upon some degree or article of faith, does your continued protest stem from your own POV? or can you provide sources that the rewritten paragraph is incorrect? I have provided ample sources to back up the claims made in the rewritten paragraph.  If you can provide reliable sources that your opinion is more than your own original research, then this also can be considered.
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   04:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Should this article be split into articles entitled Faith (religion) and Trust (social sciences), accessible from a disambiguation page?
Clearly Dictionary.com shows multiple meanings for faith, but this article contains 90+% religious viewpoint. So yes, it certainly could be entitled Faith (religion). However, there is very little text in it that could currently be siphoned off into another article named Trust (social sciences). The word trust has no religious connotation in the English language. For example, when I was a kid, there were a number of small banks in my region containing the words Trust Co. as part of their name.--Zymatik (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned contributions to Talk Page
Just noticed that all but one of the above contributions are unsigned. Are they from one editor or several? Given that there's at present a prominent template over the top of the article suggesting, by implication, the article be split in two, the question is more than trivial. Anyone able to throw any light on this? Wingspeed (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of faith and positivism
I would just like to point out that positivism as a philosophical framework for science has not been taken seriously since at least the 1950's, if not even earlier. The basic actual understanding of how science works - and what it means - is that of falsificationism (Karl Popper). Quite simply, theories are not statements of truth, but are the best possible explanation of a phenomenon as based on existing data. These theories can - and will - be modified if new and/or contradictory data comes along - scientists recognize that their theories are possibly wrong.

So science has absolutely nothing to do with faith. Any and all introductory science texts, and readers on the philosophy of science will provide more (and better) details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.129.20 (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested clarification
The section near the top mentioning William James could do with greater clarity. The sentence about 'faith experience' in particular needs rewording or further explanation. CharlieBBoy12345 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

If faith had evidence, then it wouldn't be faith would it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.216 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Faith as a world view
How can we incorporate the modern interpretation of faith as a world view? Would we also be able to reference the contextualization and modernization of reformed protestant theology as well? I wouldn't even know where to begin, but i feel it is an important reference point for people to be aware of as this concept is hitting a broader audience. None of the articles on faith, belief or philosophy really speak to the contextualization nor the discourse anlysis thereof. Should we just link and expand to contexualization and discourse analysis pages and update those specific targets with related topics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.248.116 (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC) thoughts: faith is about belife and beliving in yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.153.118 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2010 (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.


 * Sounds like Politics to me, not Faith.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Faith in Hinduism
The Hinduism section was flagged for containing jargon. I'd be happy to help address the issue if someone could help identify what words seem to be jargon. Fredeaker (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've edit the Hinduism section to remove jargon words and clarify the explanation. Fredeaker (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

First sentence first paragraph
Trust is based on reliable evidence. Faith is acceptance without proof. The expression 'Faith in the almight dollar' belies the concept of faith being good. There are people who have faith that the end of the world is nigh, and that people will go to hell. That is not a good thing, yet it accepted on faith. This entire section very badly written. Please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr33nman (talk • contribs) 16:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Trust is based on reliable evidence. Faith is acceptance without proof."
 * Nice try there. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
 * The concept of faith is a broad one: at its most general ‘faith’ means much the same as ‘trust’. Philosophical accounts are almost exclusively about theistic religious faith—faith in God—and they generally, though not exclusively, deal with faith as understood within the Christian branch of the Abrahamic traditions. But, although the theistic religious context settles what kind of faith is of interest, the question arises whether faith of that same general kind also belongs to other, non-theistic, religious contexts, or to contexts not usually thought of as religious at all.
 * Before making such blatantly ignorant statements, consider reading your sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.204.150 (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bad faith article needs help from available editors
The Bad faith article needs help from available editors. Especially the section on bad faith in theology. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition of faith
The sources include the definition of faith as a belief not based on proof. Neither source, however, mentions "goodness, trustworthiness or reliability". This article included "belief not based on proof" long before its removal in recent edits. Please explain why you are so determined to remove this long standing definition from the article. Lordrichie (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this definition is important. About half of the entire lead paragraph elaborates upon this definition specifically.  Stating it again, in brief form, seemed redundant without adding clarity or detail.  That was my reasoning, but you may be right that it is useful for summary where it is. Jj1236 (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the first few sentences should give the different definitions as clearly, bluntly and as close to the sources as possible. Whilst much of the lead paragraph may elaborate on the definitions, it should be spelt out clearly at the start. Lordrichie (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins is no authority
Richard Dawkins is a biologist, not a philosopher or theologician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.254.41 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sections that NEED to be written
The following sections are missing from this article: 1) Non-religious Faith: Faith and it's usefulness now and in the future [quote self-consistency and self-help authors and psychologists], 2) Changing Faith: How faith decreases or grows based on life experiences [quote human development and self-help psychologists and authors], 3) Rebuttal to the criticism of faith: Faith provides an individual with the joy and other benefits that come from acting as if something is true while the facts are still being resolved [quote theists and self-help psychologists].

References and Further Reading: Add relevant writings of Self-help psychologists and authors such as Jean Piaget (eg.: "Genetic Epistemology"), Prescott Lecky (eg. The Concept of Self in Medicine and Health Care), Napoleon Hill, Maxwell Maltz, Tony Robbins, etc.

Rhenrie (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition
I think that the opening line seriously misrepresents the nature of faith. I would suggest a statement like "A (religious) faith is a world-view and life-style associated with a particular set of beliefs, and usually with particular practices and a community." More simply and more generally, faith (religious or secular) implies trust and committment. In William Blake's poem 'Jerusalem', the first half muses quietly on four historically improbable propositions. The second explodes with the confidence and determination typical of a strong faith.HuPi (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

(There have recently been some revisions to the long-standing definition of faith on this page, sourced to multiple dictionaries. For some reason, an editor deleted multiple sources (check earlier versions of the page, e.g. March 2011).  Definition issues also arose previously, and are clarified by referring to the disambiguation page (linked at the top).  Although I previously favored including "lack of proof", on closer consideration this article is specifically about religious faith, and it is a matter of controversy whether the separate definition referring to "lack of proof" is appropriate in this context or not.  "Lack of proof" is one of at least 8, and up to 10 possible definitions of faith directly sourced, and several of those definitions (e.g. "sincere intentions") are peripheral to the subject of this article.  Scientific evidence is one exceedingly strong form of proof, and most agree that religious faith is not scientific. Mathematical proofs are not based upon science, but are proofs nonetheless. Scholars continue to debate whether or not religious faith can ever be based on deductive proof, and it is presumptuous to ignore these debates. Because this article is 1) specifically about religious faith, 2) is not a completely general definition page, and 3) controversy remains about the question of proof in the context of religious faith, it seems most appropriate to focus on the clearly applicable definition of faith as trust.Jj1236 (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Then there is the biblical definition of faith which certainly doesn't carry with it the "lack of proof" as part of it's definition. For while it states, "Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." it also states "Hebrews 11:29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry [land]: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned." and "Hebrews 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,...". The difference between the proof of biblical faith and science is that the outcome of biblical faith rests in the object, God, a person, while the outcome of science rests in the predictable behavior of nature. As such, biblical faith cannot be verified by a repeatable experiment any more than one can expect a free person to behave the same way on a whim. Further, biblical faith is always obedience to something the object of the faith has stated or commanded. Science does not deal with substances that command a certain behavior in order for them to behave a certain way. Biblical faith is then obedience to what the object of faith, God, has said and is proven by the outcome. It is therefore not repeatable in the sense that 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O is repeatable. Kellnerp (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the assumption made by most scientists that nature's behavior predictable.


 * Moreover, an argument against God's existence made by atheists is that God's behavior (if he existed) would not be predictable. Compare this to the belief (or notion or "observation") that human behavior is often predictable, especially in the aggregate. Economics, sociology and political science study human behavior. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Restrictive page move
Religious faith is not the only kind of faith; most scientists have 'faith' that physical laws are pervasive and persistent. There is also "full faith and credence" and "good faith".

The notion that only religious people have "faith" but that scientists (and/or materialists and atheists) do not have faith, is a POV. It should not be swept under the table by changing an article title.

In any case, a general article on faith should include secular kinds of faith, such as the following:
 * the physical laws of nature (physics, chemistry and biology) guide everything within the universe, including mankind! Our lives are completely dominated by the laws of inertia and gravity (and all the other laws of nature). Donald L. Hamilton, Separating God from Religion

--Uncle Ed (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. This is not a POV issue, it is derived from definitions. In formal usage Faith is used as a companion word to talk about religious viewpoints. The poster above actually reinforced that view with their use of scare quotes whenever talking about faith in the non-religious sense.A speech has a meaning.

Regarding the uniformity of nature, firstly this is a universal stance, and secondly assuming it isn't a faith position it is the only available rational coping strategy. One cannot hold any other view and be able to function. One cannot plan or make decisions around the assumption that the physical laws are not persistent or may radically change at any time without warning.

Expanding faith beyond religious faith is equivocation.

86.17.224.17 (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Rich