Talk:Faith/Archive 4

Lumping religions together under faith
I've already written about this in the Talk section of the Faith in Buddhism article, but I think it is of equal importance here, so a bit of this is copied from my post there:

This article grafts a Christian understanding of faith onto very different and unrelated traditions. Lumping everything under the same category as though Christian theology can provide the universal categorical template for all other traditions is wildly misleading, reductive, and, frankly, colonialist (though I imagine all of this is unintentional - it's our inherited intellectual/ideological habit).

The idea that faith is central to religions is an idea that primarily comes out of protestant theology. From their it shaped secular thought about religion - religion is about personal, private faith; religions have faith in things while scientists know them, etc. But this approach distorts our understanding of other people's beliefs.

To use the same example I used on the Faith in Buddhism talk page:

We might be tempted to impose our understanding of faith, as in when we say that "Buddhists have faith in the truth of reincarnation", etc., but I don't think that this is an accurate way of understanding the tradition. Do we say that we have faith that the world is round? No, we say that we know it. How do we know it? For most of us, we accept it based on tradition and authority (i.e. most people believe that the world is round, but have no firsthand experience to prove it other than their confidence in what others have said).

We should think of the Buddhist confidence in reincarnation, karma, etc. in the same way: they are facts to them, not articles of faith. Faith implies that there is some room for doubt, but the Buddhist (except Western converts) aren't going to doubt these facts anymore than we doubt gravity.

If we're going to say that Buddhists have faith in reincarnation, then we should be saying that scientists have faith in gravity. Sounds absurd when its your guys, doesn't it? Well, it sounds as silly to a Buddhist to doubt karma or reincarnation (this is particularly true when we're talking about historical, rather than contemporary, Buddhism).

I appreciate that well-intentioned people have put a lot of work into this article, but In my opinion, the discussion about faith should be limited to Christianity and the history of its use in the West.

Joechip123 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This articles topic has become really sloppy and in fact off topic from the concept of "faith" in its broad meaning, what is the topic; faith or religious belief? The page has deteriorated much since the last time I say it and some of the material that it used to have should be returned, so that the page is not such a mess.Hardyplants (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Meher Baba???
The religions discussed in this article are all major world religions, with millions or billions of followers, with one exception: Meher Baba. It seems inappropriate to give so much space to a quote from this person, even if he inspired the song "Don't worry, be happy." There are many thousands of relevant quotes from all sorts of different traditions and teachers, and it is not clear why this quote deserves special attention and inclusion on this page. Can anyone explain? If a satisfactory justification is not provided, the quote will be removed. Jj1236 (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Theists contributors must accept criticism and allow neutral definitions
The general definition must mirror the entire article, not only suit specific religious dogmas or beliefs.


 * The problem is with the definition of faith being without empirical evidence, which would disallow the normal use of  faith in the Bible, as if Israel  simply got a notice saying "obey me, I am God," rather than abundant miracles preceding the covenant. For beginners,


 * American biblical scholar [Archibald Thomas Robertson]] states that the Greek word pistis  used for faith in the New Testament  (over two hundred forty times), and   rendered "assurance" and Acts 17:31), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence."    Likewise Tom Price (Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics) affirms that  when the New Testament talks about faith positively it only uses words derived from the Greek root [pistis] which means "to be persuaded."


 * In contrast to faith meaning blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence, Alister  . McGrath quotes  Oxford Anglican theologian W. H. Griffith-Thomas, (1861-1924),  who states faith is "not blind, but intelligent"  and "commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence...", which McGrath sees as  "a good and reliable definition, synthesizing the core elements of the characteristic Christian understanding of faith."


 * Peter S Williams holds that "the classic Christian tradition has always valued rationality, and does not hold that faith involves the complete abandonment of reason will believing in the teeth of evidence." Quoting Moreland, faith is defined as "a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true."


 * Regarding "doubting Thomas" in John 20:24-31, Williams points out that "Thomas wasn't asked to believe without evidence." He was asked to believe on the basis of the other disciples' testimony. Thomas initially lacked the first-hand experience of the evidence that had convinced them... Moreover, the reason John gives for recounting these events is that what she saw is evidence... Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples...But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name. John 20:30,31. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Varying Degrees of Evidential Warrant
I have removed a comment in the opening to this article which stated that faith can be seen as 'confidence based upon a degree of evidential warrant (as in a Biblical sense)'. The citation used did not at all support the comment made - indeed the reference used does not mention degrees of evidential warrant. I firmly state that using the citation in this sense is in contradiction with the published reference. It seems clear to me that the author of the cited work is explaining to the reader that "the biblical definition of faith is not believing when there is no reason". Whilst this would satisfy the phrase 'degree of evidential warrant', it is better suited to the first description of faith in the article as 'confidence or trust in a ... deity', thus making the use in the opening entirely irrelevent. I've left the citation below if you want to check it.


 * It appears that your objection, "indeed the reference used does not mention degrees of evidential warrant," is based on understanding the following is not constituting that versus simply "confidence or trust in a ... deity:"


 * "We need to be ready to burst the bubble of those who think we should be left alone to believe what we want, and then encourage them to build their faith on the rocks of reality. All beliefs are not created equal, you can be sure without being (absolutely) certain, and powerful reasons to believe the Christian worldview is true can tip  people in the right direction."


 * The author has been arguing for faith being a reasonable faith, referencing how Luke prefaced his gospel, in which he recorded the testimony of eyewitnesses so that his subject would know "the certainty  of those things wherein thou hast been instructed," as reminding us "of the importance of a reasonable foundation for Christian belief,"  as Luke "went on to provide a solid platform for knowing the truth." (p. 100)


 * McLellan goes on to explain that his "faith was secured on many good reasons to believe that it was true-- both evidential and existential," (p. 112)


 * Therefore he does support faith as being based on varying degrees of evidential warrant, and which is  more than simply  having "belief in a deity...even without empirical evidence."  Thus rather than the citation used "not at all supporting the comment," or being "in contradiction with the published reference," or irrelevant, it manifestly does support it, and is warranted,  though pages 100, 112 also should be noted. Yet   if you still consider the removal  of the reference as justified, it could be easily replaced by another source, such as that of John Lennox in the evangelical faith section. However, I believe that what was removed can be restored, with the additional page numbers.


 * You can do more searching within the book on Amazon.  ~


 * Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk)


 * I see, as expected, that someone (anonymous) removed the balanced intro, leaving faith to be belief that is not based on proof as per the atheist POV, despite what researchers state is manifest in the Bible.  Thus it was restored, and referenced. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Confidence, trust and faith
The article begins with "Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof", however confidence or trust in people and things is based on proof and performance. We trust, have confidence in, cars, computers, planes etc based on proven performance, which is quite different from faith in beliefs, deities, santa. Confidence and trust are earnt, faith is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.40.22 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed and removed. The 'blind faith' POV would sit better under it's own sub-heading. The opening should contain a definition common to all. F&#38;M (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No citatations in section on Hinduism
There is no support whatsoever provided for the section on Hinduism. This should be rectified by providing some citations, or deleting the section. I can't think of any other alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.140.242 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Beyond human mind and science
The Wikipedia article should not leave unanswered Peter Boghossian's (...) suggestion to change the definition of the word faith to "Pretending to know something you don't know" because that's "how it is actually used". Also Dawkins' criticism is based on this apparently widespread misunderstanding of the word. I criticize these critics. True faith is when you know that you don't know, but act as if. This formulation is my personal summary of many books and discussions. Wikipedia should make clear this important aspect of the word "faith": there are things that go beyond human mind and science. --LucSaffre (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources would be needed for this. This is just one of those words and terms that has a million definitions and means something different to different people. I am not sure even a Wikipedia page can cover all of them. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. But even a million opinions and definitions should be summarized correctly. My formulation is more provocative than neutral (we are on the discussion page here). I ask those who understand what I feel and who agree with my suggestion to help me find a neutral formulation and sources. LucSaffre (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been working on the lead section and hope that it now satisfies everybody. LucSaffre (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is this dude James W. Fowler ?
He might be a professor or a director of whatever higher education institution but by no means that constitutes that his teachings are subject to universality, besides his social impact up to this point is restricted to very close circles therefore not an authority on the topic. When he reaches more universality he maybe included as a respected source in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.156.6.19 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This has been removed, by no means I'm in agreement with what it has been postulated by Mr Fowler. Faith requires no steps, leave alone a "going to the school" stage. See Saint Peter and Saint Paul's lives for some examples on how Christian faith is developed in an non schooled fisher man (Peter) and instantly granted on a non believer and Jewish scholar (Saul aka Paul).

==Stages of faith development==

James W. Fowler (1940-2015) proposes a series of stages of faith-development (or spiritual development) across the human life-span. His stages relate closely to the work of Piaget, Erikson, and Kohlberg regarding aspects of psychological development in children and adults. Fowler defines faith as an activity of trusting, committing, and relating to the world based on a set of assumptions of how one is related to others and the world.

Stages of faith

 * 1) Intuitive-Projective: a stage of confusion and of high impressionability through stories and rituals. (Pre-school period)
 * 2) Mythic-Literal: a stage where provided information is accepted in order to conform with social norms. (School-going period)
 * 3) Synthetic-Conventional: In this stage the faith acquired is concreted in the belief system with the forgoing of personification and replacement with authority in individuals or groups that represent one's beliefs. (Early-late adolescence)
 * 4) Individuative-Reflective: In this stage the individual critically analyzes adopted and accepted faith with existing systems of faith. Disillusion or strengthening of faith happens in this stage. Based on needs, experiences and paradoxes. (Early adulthood)
 * 5) Conjunctive faith: In this stage people realize the limits of logic and, facing the paradoxes or transcendence of life, accept the "mystery of life" and often return to the sacred stories and symbols of the pre-acquired or re-adopted faith system. This stage is called negotiated settling in life. (Mid-life)
 * 6) Universalizing faith: This is the "enlightenment" stage where the individual comes out of all the existing systems of faith and lives life with universal principles of compassion and love and in service to others for upliftment, without worries and doubt. (Middle - late adulthood (45-65yrs and plus) )

No hard-and-fast rule requires individuals pursuing faith to go through all six stages. There is a high probability for individuals to be content and fixed in a particular stage for a lifetime; stages from 2-5 are such stages. Stage 6 is the summit of faith development. This state is often considered as "not fully" attainable. 190.156.6.19 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Censuring content for personal opinions and religious concerns is not a wikipedia policy or venue for it.117.213.23.35 (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Introduction - belief without proof
I (reference missing :-) )have removed from the initial comment in the introduction the reference to lack of proof. This has no basis in the reference provided, and limits the meaning of the term 'faith' to only one of many that exist. I am not saying that the term faith implies that there is proof, but it most certainly does not imply lack of it either. If the reference given is examined, this explanation of faith represents only one of seven definitions initially given. It would thus be entirely false to use it as the basis for the article. Perhaps more work on a full definition should be done.
 * I am amazed that this article has gone out in the form it has. It promotes faith as chiefly being some sort of religious phenomenon, when in fact the word itself simply refers to an expectation of a series of possible outcomes given specific starting criteria. There is little distinction in the article between religious/BLIND faith, which operates without any reference to valid unambiguous evidence to support a particular stance, and in some cases may be in spite of evidence to the contrary, and JUSTIFIED faith, which is evidence based.


 * Blind faith - prayer to a god will ALWAYS results in an answer, whether it is the desired one, or even noticable without "discernment"
 * Justified Faith - my chair will not collapse under me, as it didn't collapse yesterday, and one hundred days previously, and looks the same, with no signs of weakness.


 * I feel that the article should increase the explanation of faith WITHOUT the entire article being turned over to some sort of thing about religious faith from all sorts of different religions, or it should be renamed as RELIGIOUS FAITH or BLIND FAITH2.101.151.84 (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Lance Tyrell


 * I (4tytwo) had originally inserted the word "evidence that is not proof" instead of based on the absence of proof to give faith it's logically coherent definition

"Faith: Trust in the truth-value of the object of faith based on evidence that is not proof" This reference is valid for faith in the context of Religion, personal relationships and science as it addresses the element of trust required to progress due to the inability to obtain proof. This helps the reader to understand the incoherence of the atheist populist definition of "belief without evidence" for what it is, as it is the evidence that makes us belief. A belief as a cognitive process requires evidence and the evidence is actually causal to the belief formation - unless you claim that like an atheist you have you want to argue a non-cognitive process you have based on the perceived absence of evidence If you have problems with the absence of proof you have problems with evidence as all my scientific test results are evidence for the possibility of my theory only. The only time they are proof is when they falsify a theory. Hard to accept but the reality

Hinduism
The Hinduism section does not address the issue of Faith as this term in used in connection with the other religions, and uses non-NPOV language. --rossb (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Faith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130204141603/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030144700/http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html to http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208182008/http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/cjso/Chabad/moshiach/techiya-masim.html to http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/cjso/Chabad/moshiach/techiya-masim.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Definition of faith based on the source, or your own opinion?
Is faith being defined based on the source or people's own opinions? Does neutral mean your own conception of neutrality (which might mean not having faith) or neutrality based on the adherence to the policy of no original research, which means you should accurately convey what you are sourcing. It is questionable here. No original research means finding the most accurate source, not utilizing secondary opinions to support your own. Don't you agree? Enscion (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Atheist contributions are heavily biased in this attempt for an fact based article about faith
This "talk" section was titled "11 million Mormons, one third of which is active, and they get the bulk of this article?" and it contained this content: "This page has obviously been run over with Mormon content. Not proportionally representative of the varying views. It appears we have some zealous Mormon editors." The above editor should substantiate her claims, they come across as personal attacks.

In my opinion there is an obvious lack of LDS content in this article (no mention that a correct understanding of Christ is necessary to have faith, no mention in regard to faith that God is no respecter of persons, etc.); however, it is very heavy with atheist content.

Atheistic Substantiations: Heavy emphasis on transcendence in the summary; Usefulness of faith in the here and now (present) is deleted (eg., any reference to self-help authors are deleted: Think and Grow Rich or Psycho-Cybernetics); Any description that "faith" is based on "evidence" is summarily deleted (never improved upon, just deleted with inaccurate comments); Heavy emphasis on Fideism; Clumsily forcing in William James, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins; Ending the article with the "CRITICISM" instead of the "REBUTTAL."

Shouldn't a religious definition sit aside a non-religious one ESPECIALLY for an article that is supposedly part of a Wikipedia "project" on "religion?" Why won't the atheist editors allow Wikipedia articles to contain religious definitions that describe religion from the point of view of the religious? Doesn't it make sense that the religious should be able to explain their religious experience? Why look to the CRITIC for a description of how it FEELS to be on stage?

- Part of the problem with "religious definitions" is that religious definitions are often misleading, biased, wrong and even reversed.Jmv2009 (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"religious definitions are often misleading, biased, wrong and even reversed." Regarding a topic that has largely to do with religion, this statement is biased and makes no sense. Why even have articles about faith and religion if you will not even represent them accurately? I think there are many ant-religious editors here under the false pretense of neutrality. For example: supporting their own opinions with a secondary source and then claiming "it is a fact that it is their opinion". That is ludicrous. You are just finding what you are seeking, from your own point of view, and putting it on the page, making it seem authoritative because it is some published source. Enscion (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The inaccuracy regarding God and religious doctrine
The source being used to describe religious faith defines them both in concert. To say it is incorrect to use them interchangeably would mean basically claiming the source is incorrect, which would suggest OR.

The comment about "God" not accepting "gods" is also a matter of your own interpretation. The singular does not necessarily exclude the plural and vice-versa.

However, with regards to usage of the specificity of "particular", that explicitly excludes those who have faith in God or various religious teachings but do not belong to a particular religious sect. Furthermore, the source never even used that wording so that again is OR.

Let's be considerate, and be true. Enscion (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Problems with the single-mindedness of this page
Faith itself does not have a single definition. However, in a recent "reversion" (but you could also call it an edit-warrior's attack) they tried to combine multiple definitions of faith into one. Faith can mean a Religion, but that comes from the act of faith itself. The article tends more toward the act itself, and furthermore, combining separate dictionary entries into one overall definition is a distortion of the truth if you don't know what you are doing (which is true). Enscion (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * combining separate dictionary entries into one overall definition is a distortion Yes, I agree. But it is equally inappropriate to cherry-pick an extract of one individual dictionary definition – "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion" is a very very narrow definition taken from one of the less relevant dictionaries. Why have a dictionary definition there at all? In addition, the final part of the last sentence of the lede is pretty questionable – "others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence", sourced to a piece by Bertrand Russell... I will not deny that Russell's writings are always well worth reading, but here, his specific definition of religious faith is used to make a claim about a point of view about faith (as a general concept) purportedly held by many millions of people.  The lede is a mess, plain and simple. Is the article about faith, or about religious faith? --bonadea contributions talk 18:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is a mess. Well as it appears you agree that faith can be interpreted in more than one way, the place that I edited was where it was referring specifically to religious faith (in God, gods, Buddha, religious teachings, doctrine or so on and not to offend anyone) as opposed to the idea of "good faith" or "faith in you" which lends itself more to the idea of having confidence one person to another, or to some thing, and aligns with the first entry in the source. And I was only trying to fix one part at that moment before it was reverted to the synthesized version. As for the Russell quote, which I never modified, I don't know about the viability of providing a critique of Faith itself when it is just out of the gates trying to define it. That seems to jump to conclusions to quickly. So first maybe it should be made clear whether or not this article is focusing on faith in general, or religious faith, and emphasis placed accordingly as it is such a broad subject. --enscion Enscion (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Just one more thing, I'd like to say, if this entire article is being defined completely in the context of religious faith, it seems redundant or kind of contrarian to refer to people who have faith as "religious people", when the subject is already focused there. Enscion (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)