[tazarooni89]

(Original post by py0alb)
Thats not really faith in the technical religious sense, its just trust. Trust and faith are not synonymous (IMO).

The trust that your girlfriend is not cheating on you is based upon a mixture of the evidence and practicality/wishful thinking - it would be disasterous for the relationship if you were constantly paranoid, so its "better" in this case to simply assume the opposite case in the absense of strong evidence to the contrary.

Pure faith on the other hand, for example the faith that in a completely unprecedented event a man 2000 years ago in the middle east that we know virtually nothing about rose from the dead because he was a physical manifestation of an omnipotent intelligent lifeform that single handedly created the entire universe and simultaneously listens to all of our thoughts, is based 100% on wishful thinking.

What a religious person means when he says he has "faith" in God is surely going to be dependent on the religion in question, or the religious person in question. I don't think there is any universal meaning of "faith in the technical religious sense".

I'm under the impression that nowdays, the word faith has come to mean "belief without evidence", after repeated suggestions by atheists that religious people don't have any evidence for what they believe in. But it used to simply refer to a strong belief, sense of confidence, or conviction. The Biblical Greek word "pistis" usually translated as "faith" used to simply mean "belief". The Latin word "fide" meaning "faith" used to simply mean "trust", or "confidence". In these cases, whether or not there is any evidence is besides the point. The Qur'anic Arabic word "Iman" usually translated as "faith" literally means "to make sure", "to confirm" etc. and is implicit that it should be based on evidence of some sort.

Though the word "faith" might often be used to suggest a lack of evidence, in the case of Christianity/Roman Catholicism and Islam in particular, I don't think that is an appropriate definition to use with regards to the type of faith those religions ask you to have.

[aliyah4lyf]

I think faith is very important in any religion. Believing something exist, when you can't see it is faith. It's just like electricity. You can't see it, but if you touch it you'll feel the current. Air, you can't see air but it is there. All these thing are like faith same as believing in god.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my U20i

[Skyelight]

When Jesus first appeared to the disciples after he arose on the third day, Thomas was absent. When Thomas returned he didn't believe that they had seen him and exclaimed that he would only believe when he could see the holes in Jesus's hands and put his hand in the hole in his right side. Jesus then returned to the disciples when Thomas was present and showed Thomas his hands and offered for him to touch the hole in his right side, but Thomas knelt down and wept.

My point?

Jesus then said, blessed are those who can believe without seeing.

This is my definition of faith. When I believe with all my heart that God is at work without being able to see any proof.

[Banishingboredom]

Science has questions that may never be answered.
Religion has answers that may never be questioned.

That's my view on 'faith'.

[aliyah4lyf]

Faith is the basic of any religion

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my U20i

[pokemons]

I've always had a problem when I hear the word Faith in Christian and religious circles, from my interpretation of God no faith is needed

And guess what.. When I check The Bible, that these religions profess to speak from, what do I see..

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

[Alix23]

Faith is defined by what your parents indoctrinate you with. If there's no logical reason to believe in something, why believe in it?

[py0alb]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
What a religious person means when he says he has "faith" in God is surely going to be dependent on the religion in question, or the religious person in question. I don't think there is any universal meaning of "faith in the technical religious sense".

I'm under the impression that nowdays, the word faith has come to mean "belief without evidence", after repeated suggestions by atheists that religious people don't have any evidence for what they believe in. But it used to simply refer to a strong belief, sense of confidence, or conviction. The Biblical Greek word "pistis" usually translated as "faith" used to simply mean "belief". The Latin word "fide" meaning "faith" used to simply mean "trust", or "confidence". In these cases, whether or not there is any evidence is besides the point. The Qur'anic Arabic word "Iman" usually translated as "faith" literally means "to make sure", "to confirm" etc. and is implicit that it should be based on evidence of some sort.

Though the word "faith" might often be used to suggest a lack of evidence, in the case of Christianity/Roman Catholicism and Islam in particular, I don't think that is an appropriate definition to use with regards to the type of faith those religions ask you to have.

There's very little point having the word "faith" if we're just going to redefine it to mean the same as some other word like trust. The etymology is all very interesting, but the modern, philosophically technical meaning of the word is as I have defined it.

I would suggest that whether they are aware of it or not, that is also the meaning that most religious writers and speakers use when they speak of faith. If they just meant trust or confidence, why not just say trust or confidence?

Faith specifically means a belief so strong that no evidence is required to back it up. At first hearing that sounds quite admirable, and the proponents certainly seem to take pride in the strength of their beliefs, but when you think about it you realise its actually a completely bonkers and hideously dangerous idea. Most of the worst things that man has done to man have been a direct result in some kind of ideological faith, be it religious, social, political, whatever.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by py0alb)
There's very little point having the word "faith" if we're just going to redefine it to mean the same as some other word like trust.

Well my point is that in actual fact, those who use "faith" to mean "belief without evidence" are the ones who are redefining it. Major religious scriptures have never meant it that way.

The etymology is all very interesting, but the modern, philosophically technical meaning of the word is as I have defined it.

I don't know what you mean by "philosophically technical", but it is not the modern meaning of the word which is relevant. The relevant type of "faith" is the type that religions ask their followers to have. As you said above, discussing faith is pointless if we're going to redefine it to mean something new.

I would suggest that whether they are aware of it or not, that is also the meaning that most religious writers and speakers use when they speak of faith.

How can they mean that without being aware of it? What they mean is simply whatever they intend to tell us. Perhaps some religious writers and speakers do endorse "blind belief", I don't know. But there is no argument to suggest that the actual religion itself (i.e. via its base scriptures) endorses it, simply by showing that the word "faith" is used.

If they just meant trust or confidence, why not just say trust or confidence?

The same argument could be used vice-versa. Why not just say "faith"?
It's just how language develops isn't it? You often end up with several words meaning exactly the same thing. Why say "I purchased a bike" when I could just say "I bought a bike"?

Remember that as far as authors/translators of scripture are concerned, this new meaning of faith of "belief without evidence" doesn't exist. So "faith" is just as valid and unambiguous a word as any to them. And the common man is simply going to use the same words as his scripture isn't he - I doubt he's going to worry about definitions and etymology this much.

Faith specifically means a belief so strong that no evidence is required to back it up. At first hearing that sounds quite admirable, and the proponents certainly seem to take pride in the strength of their beliefs, but when you think about it you realise its actually a completely bonkers and hideously dangerous idea. Most of the worst things that man has done to man have been a direct result in some kind of ideological faith, be it religious, social, political, whatever.

Again, "faith" has only recently come to mean this. This is not necessarily what any religion is talking about when it asks its followers to have faith. We can talk about how horrible or dangerous this type of "faith" is, but it's not at all relevant in an analysis of a religion. The type of "faith" which is relevant is whichever meaning the religion itself is talking about.

[Okashira]

I agree with tazarooni. For me personally, the modern, watered-down meaning of the word faith is one of the reasons why people do some of the craziest things in the name of their religion. Who said it was impossible to know whether or not God exist? Ultimately if that were true, no one really has true faith in God.

In terms of Christianity, most Christians probably do live not truly knowing God exists. This is one of the reasons why we rarely see out in the open type miracles today, compared to what is talked about in the Bible. Why, the original disciples knew God exist. They saw Jesus do what He did. So in accordance, they simply trusted Jesus, they had faith in who Jesus is, and God did mighty things through them.