What is faith?

2009 October 18
more by

Podcast: Download

by Jeff Kilroy
Article ID: 1341

I attempt to have rational arguments with theists about their beliefs. I really do. Unfortunately, it seems that every time I present an argument that almost makes me shout “Checkmate!”, I get the dismissive reply of “You just need faith,” or “This is just MY faith”. In most religions and even some pseudo-scientific circles, faith is touted as a necessity or virtue. But is faith really a good thing to possess? Better yet, do we really know what faith is?

One of the more commonly used definitions comes from Merriam-Webster: faith is a “Firm belief in something for which there is no proof“.

That doesn’t sound so great to me.

I decided to post on a few religious forums and see what faith was all about.  My question to the readers was pretty simple. I wanted to know how they would define faith as well as why they felt that it was good to have.

Unfortunately, the responses were not as captivating as I hoped they would be. I received generic responses that really were non-answers more than anything else. Some explained their relationship with God, which really had nothing to do with my question. The primary stance was that faith is simply one’s trust in something. We need it because we don’t always have proof.

The problem is that whatever is taken on faith must have some faint evidence or reason to begin with. This often comes from your surroundings (including parents, culture and friends), otherwise the person with faith in Jesus Christ should also have faith in Muhammad, Zeus, and unicorns.  There has to be a reason why one obtains a particular faith in the first place. That faith is not a belief in something without evidence, but rather belief in something with some bit of evidence. And even with “evidence”, it’s still not enough to convince another, otherwise the believer wouldn’t need to mention faith in the first place.

The amount of evidence required in order to believe a claim should depend on the initial believability of the claim. For example, I walk into a grocery store and notice the man behind the counter has a nametag on his shirt reading, “Hello, my name is Bill”. I would not need any more evidence to be convinced his name is Bill. This would be perfectly fine to assume since the evidence is sufficient in comparison to the claim. Since I may never see Bill again, I am not terribly worried about getting his name wrong.

Next, I lean over and say, “Hi, Bill!” as he rings up my items. What if he corrects me? What if he explains that he had accidentally switched nametags with another employee, and then rushes over to the “real” Bill to get the correct nametag? Would I reject his claim of not being named Bill? Of course not. While the excuse is a bit odd, I have witnessed enough evidence to change my previous assertion. This is where faith is different from the normal way we reason.

When someone has faith in something, they have an unjustified alliance with an idea.  While it could be said that we all have this to a degree, that we will continually qualify something as true until we receive a specific amount of evidence to oppose that assumption, the main distinction is with the amount of evidence required by a belief. If you have strong faith in an idea, you’re saying, “It will be very hard or impossible for me to change my mind.” This is a problem. When a person is closed to critical analysis of their own ideas, it’s tough to trust the other choices they’ve made in their life.

I feel everyone has the right to believe whatever that want, no matter how crazy I think they are. I would never want to take that freedom away from someone. I would, however, encourage those with supposed “strong faith” to evaluate their stance from an unbiased perspective. Get some opposing ideas and truly consider them. We must all realize how our own beliefs affect our everyday choices – large and small. The more we can be rational with our ideas and justify our beliefs, the more our society will be a more sensible - and enjoyable – place to live.


Did you like this article? Want more? Support Digital Bits Skeptic.

Other articles related to this topic:

from → Philosophy, Religion

11 Comments
2009 October 18
Gary Peterson permalink

I don’t know if it’s good or bad that people never seem content with their un-reasoning faith.  They always want science to confirm their wishes, and feel threatened when science cannot or if scientific knowledge challenges their unfounded beliefs.  They don’t want to be shown wrong, they just want to be affirmed in their desire to belief what they have been culturally conditioned to believe.  They want to wrap themselves up in scientific dress if something can be twisted to support their comfortable views, and they want their governments to fight for their faiths and schools to teach their faiths, and want their countries to put down those who threaten or don’t share their faith.  If only they were comfortable with simple faith alone.

2009 October 19
Joshua Walker permalink

I like Ben Franklin’s take on faith…
“The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.”

And I think that applies to everything from religion to politics to relationships, etc. When we all open ours eyes and honestly evaluate our beliefs in light of the facts and fight cognitive dissonance within ourselves as fiercely as we can, the world will become a much better place.

2009 November 17
J.Kru permalink

You also have faith – you have an unjustified reliance on science and the scientific method.  For example, you say “The amount of evidence required in order to believe a claim should depend on the initial believability of the claim.”
I think this is an incredibly unbelievable claim.  Can you prove it to me?

2009 November 17
Andy Kaiser permalink

I think this is an incredibly unbelievable claim.  Can you prove it to me?

Sure: keep reading the article! That statement is explained in that paragraph and the one after. Let us know what part you don’t understand, or don’t agree with, and we can go from there.

Unless you’re asking us to disprove your opinion of something. Which is impossible.

Andy

2009 November 17
J.Kru permalink

You didn’t explain it.  You gave an example.

2009 November 18
Andy Kaiser permalink

Let us know what part you don’t understand, or don’t agree with, and we can go from there.

2009 November 18
J.Kru permalink

“The amount of evidence required in order to believe a claim should depend on the initial believability of the claim.”
I disagree that this statement is reasonable or understandable because you have not established what makes something have high or low initial believability.  Upon what does “initial believability” hinge?

2009 November 18
J.Kru permalink

[Follow up]
In other words, you’re setting up the requirement for evidence in light of plausibility, or “believability.”  But take person X and person A.  A mutual friend announces to both of them that although he was chock full of cancer, he is now cancer free.  Doctors confirm this.  The cancer-free friend announces that God healed him after a time of prayer.  Person X, who himself claims to have experiences a miraculous healing after prayer, finds this very believable.  Person A finds it absolutely unbelievable, as there is no evidence that it was God and not medicine, or just plain luck.
I’m guessing that Andy, or the author, would both agree with person A.  But you haven’t really moved the conversation forward because you haven’t provided a frame of reference for evidence that persons A and X can agree upon.  You may have your opinions, but you have to prove it.

2009 November 19
Andy Kaiser permalink

J.Kru,

Well said. Thanks for explaining further.

So the problem is that “believability” is actually subjective.  You and I may have different ways of measuring and judging it.

That’s understandable, and if that’s your point, I agree.

To better clarify, I’ve heard this position explained in a different way that, to me, makes more sense.  To mangle it together with the original statement you flagged, it would go like this:

“Given multiple opposing claims, the claim more likely to be correct is the one requiring fewer assumptions.”

Sort of an Occam’s Razor approach. Certainly not perfect (one could argue about the validity of the assumptions), but I believe it’s a good rule of thumb. To use your example, the god healing some cancer and not others requires many more assumptions than the other explanations of medicine or luck.

2009 November 19
J.Kru permalink

Andy – thanks for the reply.
All information involves the same number of assumptions.  In our example, person A assumes that measured and reproduced situations will produce the same results – i.e. the scientific method – and that those results give us what we call “believable.”    Person X, however, assumes that personal experience, feeling, and intuition – i.e. romanticism – give us what we call believable.  The scientist can’t prove his method helps us discover truth to the satisfaction of the romantic, and vice versa.
Thus, the suggestion that God healed miraculously doesn’t require any more or less assumptions than the suggestion that it was medicine or spontaneous healing.  It just requires a different set of assumptions.  It only looks like more assumption to you (Andy) because you share in person A’s worldview, and not X’s.  Person X would find the idea that truth must be limited to the physical realm ridiculous.
In other words, you are assuming certain things so far deep down, you don’t realize they are your assumptions – a.k.a. your presuppositions.
This plays out if we look at, say, evidence for the resurrection of Christ.  If your presupposition is that every event can be reproduced given the right mass, volume, temperature, etc., you’re never going to see evidence for the resurrection, because that a miracle, which defies your presupposition, is not considered valid evidence in your court.
The author claims that  “When someone has faith in something, they have an unjustified alliance with an idea.”  But as I have tried to show, everyone has faith in something at some level, which they cannot “prove” to others who do not share their epistemological presuppositions.   So I reject that the author can claim that people with faith in something “have an unjustified alliance with an idea.”  This would be equally true for the author as well as everyone else, and thus becomes a moot point, undercutting his entire premise, and rendering his proposition and all conclusions invalid.

2010 January 16
Christine permalink

“If you have strong faith in an idea, you’re saying, ‘It will be very hard or impossible for me to change my mind.’ This is a problem. When a person is closed to critical analysis of their own ideas, it’s tough to trust the other choices they’ve made in their life.”
Is strong faith always a problem? I don’t think so. I think it may be clearer to say that strong faith not accompanied by strong evidence is a problem.
For example, I have strong faith that my mom is rather fond of me, and it will be very hard to me to change my mind. Is this a problem? No, it’s a good thing, because my faith is based on strong evidence.

Comments are closed for this entry.