semantics, belief, faithOn another thread, a responder said, “I don’t think ‘belief’ is an everyday term for an atheist.”
I contend that in fact, atheists have beliefs and act on “faith” regularly.
So this question is clearly a semantic/philosophical one, turning on how you use “belief.” Do atheists need a special definition of “belief?” Is all “faith” the same?
The common definition of “faith” is something along the lines of “believing something without evidence. I would like to modify this for the sake of this question, and say
“Faith is a willingness to act on a belief, without any guarantees that your actions will achieve your desired ends.”
In that case, I think atheists hold beliefs and act on faith all the time. We’re just willing to reassess or change our beliefs if results demand it, and we don’t hold faith as a virtue, but as a necessary evil of having to take action at all times with less than perfect information.
We believe much without direct evidence, or even sometimes without indirect evidence. But it is our willingness to let go of a belief when evidence to the contrary is presented that is the most important indicator of “faith” as opposed to simple “belief”.
I make the bold claim that Faith is belief in the face of contrary evidence for that reason. Faith appears when the holder of a belief resists the necessary rejection of a belief. In most cases, when we believe something with insufficient evidence, we have no issue with dropping the belief when proven wrong. An example: I might think that my cat is behind the couch. I don’t have any direct evidence of this, just a sense that since this has often happened before, it’s likely to be the case this time as well. But if I go and look behind the couch, and my cat is not there, I will drop my belief that my cat was there without much thought. That is belief. Most scientific ideas fall into that category: we have no real personal stake in whether the idea is true or not, even if we could possibly find it attractive that it be so or not so.
We enter the realm of Faith when a belief is dear enough to us to affect our identity. Most people speak of Faith as very much a defining characteristic of their being. When a belief we hold dear enough to define ourselves by it, in whole or in part, is challenged by evidence (or by the strong argumentation of another), our natural tendency is to adopt a defensive attitude, and to raise a wall of protection around that belief. Since letting go of that belief would require us to review how we see ourselves, and since that is not usually considered a pleasant experience by most adults, we will likely show a varying degree of resistance to the new information. The level of resistance offered is not usually linked to the strength of the evidence provided, but rather to the degree to which one identifies oneself with that belief. It is then that very resistance which defines Faith as different from Belief.
All humans believe in some things without sufficient evidence. We could never function without that ability. We are pattern-detection engines, and we often will detect patterns when there is scant evidence available. So belief is not at issue here.
But most scientifically minded people are wary of Faith; the resistance to evidence inherent in Faith is antithetical to the scientific method and mindset. That does not mean that we don’t fall into the trap at times. The history of scientific revolutions can attest to the amount of resistance of certain scientists to new ideas.
So here is the fundamental difference between the Atheist and the Theist with regard to Faith. Although both groups exhibit it, the Atheist will necessarily consider it as a failing, not a strength.
I must respectfully disagree with your definition of “faith.” Yours is “Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but those results have occurred before, and have the potential to occur again.”
I define faith as “Belief in the existence of something, or in the future occurrence of an event, which has never before been proven to exist or to occur, and for which there is no evidence of existence or the potential for occurrence.”
Having said that, I think atheists can take a gamble on something which has never occurred — for example, finding a cure for a disease which hasn’t yet been cured — and as you noted, Rob, we are willing to change our actions and our beliefs based on the results of our gambles. We don’t insist on retaining faith in something after it has been proven wrong.
So sure, we have beliefs and faith. Just not blindly, and not in supernatural things.
I would think that a more precise definition will be “Hope is a willingness to act on a belief, without any guarantees that your actions will achieve your desired ends.”
There’s nothing bad or wrong with believing something or having faith in whatever. Of course, atheists and everybody act on a belief in something, be it a set of morals or knowledge of something concrete. But it is not a belief in something completely undefinable and unproven.
About faith, I guess I would reason that there are just so many things to learn and know in the world that we can’t just learn everything to have a complete knowledge, so we use our judgement about some specialist in some field that he really knows what he’s talking about and we can “take it on faith” without getting into the details.
I judge that theologians KNOW their scripture, and I can accept it on faith when they say something about that scripture that it’s true (in the sense that it’s really written there, without me needing to go and read, unless I judge them to lie on purpose or etc.) I judge that Richard Dawkins knows evolutionary processes, and I can accept it on faith when he explains something, for example that the eye could have evolved and indeed did evolve many times in different species.
We can check what we believe in or have faith in. As long as we can check and either verify or cancel it, it’s fine. Once you believe something or have faith in something without or despite the evidence, that’s a bad kind of belief. And that is the sort of belief that religious and/or gullible people have.
From a previously asked question: As an atheist I don’t have faith as much trust, which I guess could be defined from your faith definition above as “Trust is a willingness to act such that your actions will achieve a likely or predictable outcome.” However, I will say that I think most atheist treat trust and faith the same, as in they have faith that science will help solve whatever problem(s).
Hmm… well, I gave it a shot. Discuss?
I define “belief” and “faith” as holding a position that something must be true without any concrete evidence for that position.
For example, I believe that the universe must be lousy with life, most of it on the order of bacteria or plants, a tiny fraction of it being intelligent as we would define the term. As of right now, we have absolutely no physical evidence for extraterrestrial life. Based on what I know about physics and chemistry, and based on the fact that we have detected compounds associated with life (sugars, alcohols, and even some amino acids) in deep space, I feel there is some justification for that belief. However, the chance that we’ll ever find conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial life is extremely low.
BELIEF is any claim you accept.
FAITH is a belief unsupported by the balance of evidence & plausibility.
Practically speaking, there is no such thing as an absolute guarantee, so no need to mention it in either definition.
Everyone has beliefs.
Everyone probably even has faith, however skeptics actively seek to avoid acting on faith or to hold faith based beliefs. Not all atheists are skeptics.
As an example: A scientist does not seek a new disease cure based on blind faith. She uses her understanding of chemistry and biology (evidence and plausible mechanisms) to generate a new hypothesis which is then tested. But if you have faith in something, you don’t need to test it.
Faith is the confidence or or trust in a person or thing (see here). It latin are also related to fīdere which also gave in French "fidèle". I don't think that originally it has something to do with a wrong believe, but it is interesting that some people may think that. My point of view is that what is important in faith is the “alterité” (I don’t really know how to translate that, “ the property of being intrinsically related to someone or something other than me” ?).
Faith is a very important concept in the bible and I think that we all agree that reducing Faith in the Bible to "having faith into someone with super power" is a bit ridicule. It may be meaningful to describe faith as the dark side of knowledge but I am sure you have all experienced the importance of faith (even if you needed to hide or rapidly erase everything in your brain related to faith), with your parents telling you what is right and what is wrong, with your friend telling you they love you, with an important professor telling you to go into a given direction of research... Faith is crucial for man, even if most faith are meant to be cleaned up (hope love from friend is not :) )! you need faith to go further in your knowledge, you need faith to reach empathy with others. I guess scientist should not fear Faith but should not stop questioning it. I guess this is part of the important message from the bible (even if I don’t know much about it) ?
Believe is a more factual concept (less human reallity in it), it is a bit trivial, but straigth to the point as we like it, according to wikipedia:
"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true"
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.