All knowledge lacking certainty involves good faith.

A true conclusion is true despite the evidence, and we must have faith in the strongest evidence. That is to say–if something is true, it is true even if we never find out about it. There may be evidence we do not know about. But, if a person is going to hold on to beliefs with blind faith “in the teeth of evidence” as Richard Dawkins first said in “The Selfish Gene”—then reason (including smack-you-in-the-face revelation) is not going to persuade.

Faith in the strongest evidence is mere intellectual assent and means confidence or trust in the evidence, but lacking certainty. It is the sort of faith that is necessary before we can trust or put faith in another person.

Faith “that” a person exists, or intellectual assent to the evidence that a person exists, is different from putting your faith, or trust, “in” that person.

To do something in good faith, is to provide confidence or build trust—it is to tell the truth, it is to be genuine, to provide good evidence. To do something in bad faith is to betray confidence or break trust—it is to deceive, to put up a false front, false evidence. An example used by Sartre is that to refuse to choose, is a choice, and so is a choice made in bad faith.

Blind faith, belief supposedly without any evidence, is a form of bad faith. When a person exalts blind faith, they think they are exalting the sort of faith that puts trust in a person, when actually they are insulting the person by saying there is no evidence that they are trustworthy, and they are demonstrating their own gullibility.

Good faith, contrary to what Richard Dawkins would say, is never blind. It is confidence or trust in the evidence, but lacking certainty. Varying degrees of faith are always required in any sort of knowledge below omniscience, below certainty. Of how many of your beliefs are you really certain? Of the rest–what is your evidence?

Religious faith always referred to “sticking to the plan”.

The reasoning behind “sticking to the plan” (faith) was specific belief. The plan was for protecting against other people’s manipulations.

Dawkins and the like challenge the specific belief so as to destroy the faith, thus the plan.

It is all merely an attack on the strategy of one group so as to give advantage to another. There is absolutely zero altruism in such debates. They are 100% political power posturing manipulations of popular opinion.

Confound their words so that you can steal from Able so as to enrich Cain.

Would you agree that biblical faith is trusting the evidence God has given so that we can trust him that he will fulfill his promises (“the plan”), rather than doubting “in the teeth” of that evidence?

I think that Dawkins’ intentions are good. His evidence is the harm caused by religious people and “blind faith” thinking–he is living by that evidence. However, he is being selective in his review of the evidence, as can be seen by his thinking that all faith is blind. If that were true, all knowledge would have to be certain.

Evidence can be relative in terms of faith. One concept you are overlooking is justification. Why do you feel justified in your conclusion, based on the respective evidence?

A religious man might look at the complexities of nature and see evidence of God, for instance, whereas a non-religious man might not see nature as evidence at all. In the same sense, one man might see an act of benevolence as evidence of good will, in terms of trusting another person, whereas another may see that act and suspect he is being misled.

Blind faith is not necessarily without evidence, but without justification. Blind faith is essentially an appeal to some authority – that authority is all the evidence a person needs. Military groups, as an example, go to war at the whims of their respective leaders because they trust that leader is acting in the best interest of the majority. Why? Because he is their leader. However, one must also ask himself why he feels justified in trusting that leader. In other words, why does the evidence (the notion that this man is your leader) justify your belief (that he acts in the best interest of the majority)?

The same goes for your “good faith” – why does the evidence justify your belief without a reasonable degree of certainty? Absolute certainty obviously won’t be of much help, but that is where the examination of your justification comes in. What acts as evidence to justify the evidence?

To call evidence “good” or “bad” is entirely subjective. I would think that there exists no “good faith” without “bad faith”, and vice versa. Following your own example–

This may be considered “bad faith” in that you are giving a false appearance, however the underlying cause of your refusing to choose is a “good faith” in your ability to choose (or a display of confidence/trust in that ability).

Faith needs no justification, it is purely subjective preference. Beliefs generally rely on some form of justification, without which they would be reduced to faith.

statiktech–if someone has confidence in their ability to choose, then they should not falsely claim to be refusing to choose.

We may find that our terms for justification were not sufficient, and we may need to improve them (otherwise we will keep believing the old justification, in bad faith). That will not change the fact that 1) a conclusion is true despite our ability to justify it. Nor will it change that 2) we must have faith in the strongest evidence.

Perhaps it is not a matter of willful deception, but the person actually believes this himself.

By what means? How do you know it is, in fact, true?

Who is deeming which evidence is strongest? This is a matter of preference; of perspective. Also, this can’t possibly always be the case…

As an example, say you see a strange dog on the street wagging his tail like crazy and sauntering over to you. I’d say you have sufficient evidence to justify a faith that the dog will not harm you. But we both know he very well might.

Evidence can be deceptive and should probably be considered in some kind of balance with practicality.

By biblical faith, do you mean faith in the bible as literally the word of God? Because that particular evidence (if the bible is taken literally) is clearly at odds with evidence that most people find much more powerful (self-reflection, science, historical research, etc.).

Often concisely put as “you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into”.

I disagree. “Having faith” is a justification for accepting an arguable proposition, not a result of accepting it.

Evidence is normatively justified, as statiktech said. 500 years ago, the ducking stool provided evidence of witchcraft, now it doesn’t and anyone claiming otherwise would claim it to be a matter of faith; the psychological effect of that evidence makes the intellectual assent fundamentally different. Faith is evidence in itself (to the faithful, and not to the faithless).

It’s confusing if you use “belief” and “faith” as interchangeable. In some contexts they are, in some contexts they have different connotations. Faith certainly has a connotation of trust and reliability that the use of “belief” in an epistemological sense does not. It would perhaps be simpler to keep things clear.

Biblical faith starts or falls by answering “is the Bible the literal word of God?” in the affirmative. The base evidence has to support this, before you can assent to whatever else “the evidence God has given us” is.

statiktech, if he doesn’t know he is doing it, in what sense is he ‘refusing’/choosing?

Our definition of ‘strong’ (or what constitutes strong evidence, or how we justify the evidence, or the tools we use to justify the evidence) may change, but the fact that faith depends on strong evidence may never change, without that faith becoming blind, and therefore bad, faith.

You are saying that we can never know if we have strong evidence (with certainty), and that therefore faith is always blind. That fails to explain advances in, say, scientific knowledge. You are basing your conclusion off the experience of having found out what you “thought” was true, was false. That conclusion is based on a trust of the evidence which made (nay–revealed) your formerly true conclusion, to be a false conclusion–and yet you would deny that the new evidence is stronger than the old evidence? Then why did you conclude that what you “thought” was true, was false?

Anon and Only_Humean–I was replying to James. By biblical faith, I meant the sort of faith discussed in the bible. I didn’t mean faith based on biblical evidence (which, btw, is included in “historical research”). The purpose of this thread is to discuss faith (including scientific faith–no scientific knowledge is certain), not to weigh any particular evidence.

I find the use of the word faith in relation to science to be a little bit odd. I know what you’re saying, but “faith” always has “spiritual” connotations to me. When a religious person uses the word in relation to science, it seems to me that the positive connotations have been stripped from the meaning, and only the negative connotations remain - i.e. lack of certainty. But doesn’t “faith” have positive connotations? If we look at its meaning in its most basic sense, I think perhaps there’s some sense of resilience in the face of life’s setbacks. Something like that. We are not finally at the mercy of the the variety of situations we find ourselves in. Our peace of mind in the midst of life’s struggles is both a result of faith (whatever that really is) and is faith itself. No?

Anon–faith is belief or trust. It is intellectual assent, or it is interpersonal trust. Those are positive descriptions, whether applied in a religious or other context.

This brings up the issue of “active” belief and “passive” belief (active faith or passive faith). Passive belief/faith is like knowing without knowing that we know–the way spiders know webs and birds know nests–it is passive knowledge/belief/faith. Active knowledge picks up where passive knowledge leaves off, to explore the world around us. Building nests and webs is practical knowledge, but this can also apply to, say, moral truth. We hunger for true meaning. The hunger is passive knowledge/belief/faith. Active knowledge of moral truth would be acknowledging that hunger and searching for what will satisfy it–by way of a moral truth litmus, by way of observing that the Golden Rule is in every culture in history, etc… That would involve mere intellectual assent (objective faith). Actually following the Golden Rule would involve subjective faith–of the Kierkegaard variety. Therefore, Kierkegaard’s faith is not blind–he is talking about something else besides mere intellectual assent.

[grins]

Don’t quote me on that.

So, we have

1. Passive faith (intuitional default)–subconscious faith.
2. Active faith (intellectual assent)–objective faith.
3. Active faith (interpersonal trust)–subjective faith.

Faith and speculation are two different things. A hypothesis does not necessitate a faith in a conclusion, only a curiosity (in my opinion).

Not just me – people in general. This is an ongoing trend through history and human culture.

I would deny that the new evidence is universally, or absolutely, “stronger” to everyone, in every context. I make my own conclusions relative to my experiences, as do you.

I guess I don’t equate faith with belief or overtly intellectual anything. I think that diminishes the value of faith. I agree that it has something to do with trust. I personally equate it with something like buoyancy. A child in the ocean may not realize he can just let go and float. And if he does let go, in order to try it out, he may resist it so much that he believes he’s proved that you don’t float if you let go.

I don’t “have faith” that my car will start when I turn the key. Faith is about getting beyond the smallness of that situation. I have faith that everything will be ok, whether or not my car starts.

Statiktech, When I say “scientific knowledge” I mean theory, not hypothesis.

I know your position isn’t just yours (is it universal? is it absolute? what’s going on here?), but I am speaking with ‘you’. You are denying that the evidence that made you change your mind, is stronger than the evidence you used to believe (faithfully)–there is bad faith in that denial.

Anon, When you say you have faith that everything will be okay–what evidence do you have to support the conclusion “everything will be okay”? Do you have blind faith?

Well said. I really like your examples…

In pondering his justification for that belief, he may well realize that the extra resistance did not help his experiement.

You believe this much. You have sufficient evidence that will be the most probable conclusion and you are justified in trusting that evidence because, not because the car told you it would start, but because you’ve experienced it through trial and (perhaps some) error.

Everything has been OK up to this point, but life in general is far more unpredictable than just your car. So, your not necessarily as justified in that belief. You essentially hope everything will be OK – a good example of faith in my opinion.

I think I’m not conveying what I mean very well. Faith isn’t about taking sides in some situation. My car starts and I’m “o.k.” - my car doesn’t start and I’m not “o.k.”. Everything is ok. Faith isn’t blind, but it’s not based on relative situation. If I die, that’s o.k. Isn’t that the strongest kind of faith? “Blind faith” is only possible if it’s about something particular, and is based on lack of evidence. In the car starting example, if my happiness depended on whether or not the car starts, my “faith” (not an appropriate word to use here, imo) would be blind.

I know what you’re saying Statik, but I think it’s a bit different from what I’m trying to say. I don’t think faith is an appropriate word to use in relation to the whole certainty/lack of certainty issue. I don’t personally find that definition of faith very compelling.

I guess I think faith is only really faith when it’s unconditional - which isn’t to say only when it’s perfect. It’s just that, to me, faith isn’t about hoping your ducks will magically all line up.

Well, even so, I generally consider a theory to be a reasonably justified suspicion.

That is a tricky question that I will have to ponder. But, no, I am not denying that assertion on my own subjective level. I am denying that said evidence is, or even should be, considered “stronger” to everyone else.

What I see as tricky is the “strength” value I place on evidence. I am not sure it would be more correct to say that the evidence supporting my old belief is any weaker. Perhaps it just does not tie in with the rest of my contentions as well as my newly adopted belief, or maybe the new belief supports an opinion of mine better than the old. I think there are more variables at work.

Everything has obviously been OK up to this point; no? But trusting that evidence in terms of life as a whole is not easily justifiable given how radical and unpredictable change can be.

So, just to clarify, perhaps you could say that faith, as you see it, is devoid of hope and fear? Something you are content to believe regardless of outcome? Not something to be argued or contended, it is just what you believe to be beneficial for you, and for your own benefit.

If so, I think I like this definition.