BGH,

 I think most of us know the dictionary defintion of FAITH. I asked your defintion of FAITH.

Please also see my other post subject: Dictionary Definition versus Logical Definition.

My definition is the same:

firm belief in something for which there is no proof 

&

something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

What is the point to all these posts you are making? Why do you keep redirecting people to the Free Will thread?

Silentseba,

My agenda is to show that some atheists have faith.

The reason I am directing people to the "Free Will" Question is because i think that is the most important one. All these questions are linked.

I will post my understanding hopefuly tomorrow. You folks will be the judge.

For now I am collecting data.

I have to say that I like this definition very much.  It points out that to have faith is a conscious choice.

I would define it pretty much the same way most people here already have:

To believe in something whose evidence is severly lacking or non-existant.

In my opinion faith is not a virtue and should be discouraged wherever it may appear.

I have to say, I'm really anxious for tomorrow's new thread. Some say the OP is a theist in disguise, ready to pounce on atheists for having faith, and then slink away as his argument is laid bare like so many other theists. Some say it's a language thing, that he simply is not understanding us or we him, and that we agree on the foundations of belief.

Perhaps he is the antichrist, come to test the faithful...

Maybe he is the second coming of Bertrand Russell, here to shore up the arguments of the faithful (word chosen carefully!)...

Tomorrow we'll see...

Anyway, i've already defined faith for you in another thread, but I'll do it again.

"Faith" has two separate and distinct meanings.

1. Reasonable expectation, based on past evidence and probability. 'I have faith that this chair will not collapse when I sit in it.'

2. Belief in something despite a lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary. 'I have faith in the bible, because I have faith in god, and the bible says the earth is 6000 years old, so that's how old the earth is.'

I've been hoping to stave off the inevitable "Atheists have faith" post, but I suspect it's a lost cause. Here's the answer, anyway. I may not bother responding if I'll just have to repeat myself.

Atheists do have faith, and it's definition #1. Given the fact that syllogism cannot prove that the sun will come up tomorrow, we do have a certain 'faith' that it is so, but that is properly defined as 'belief that the sun will come up based on extensive scientific observation and overwhelming probabability based on pased events.'

We also have 'faith' that Dawkins knows what he's talking about. We don't know as much as he does about evolutionary biology, so when he tells us something, we believe him, even though we don't earn our PhD in biology as a means to check his data. This again is definition #1. We've read science journals. We know that old universities in England don't just hand out degrees. There is overwhelming evidence that his credentials are good, so we can be assured beyond reasonable doubt that he is, in fact, an authority, and that what he says is most likely accurate.

In fact, we could go on for hours following that chain: How do we know old English universities don't just hand out degrees? Well, we don't, at least first hand. At least I don't. I've never attended one, nor have I been present for all the award ceremonies. But there's AMPLE evidence! It's so hard to imagine how the whole thing could be a hoax that it's just not worth considering! Overwhelming evidence points to the credibility of English universities. How do we know science journals are really conducting fair peer review? This could go on for days, actually.

Point being, at every step of the way, we are going to take something someone says, and believe it, despite not having first hand knowledge of the thing. This is NOT faith in the theist sense, since we are basing our acceptance on 1) the reliability of the person in question, which we base on past empirical evidence, and 2) how this information corresponds to our own knowledge, which has passed the same test!  It's not a logical syllogism, and we can't say with 100% certainty that it is true, but syllogism is the beginning of logic, not the end. In day to day life, we deal with many leaps of logic. The brain is programmed that way. Cognitive psychology devotes quite a lot of time to discovering the nature of these leaps, and how the neural pathways form. Leaps of logic, however are formed from logical steps. It's like in algebra, when you learn after three or four repetitions of a pattern, and from then on, you just skip three steps because they always work out the same way.

Theist faith, on the other hand, is belief in god DESPITE EVIDENCE, not BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE!

I don't know how to stress this enough. A 1000 level logic course will give you the necessary tools to discover that the word, "supernatural" is incoherent. Anything described as supernatural cannot exist. It takes half an hour at most to explain this, and yet, faith in god remains. This is belief DESPITE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

To the OP: Be careful when you make your post tying free will to faith. As has been pointed out, free will is very elusive to define, and unless you're extremely careful with your definition, your entire argument is going to be pointless. I'm interested to see how you're going to approach it, but I'll be surprised if you cover new territory. The fact is, free will can only be defined so many ways, and it is either not relevant to the question of faith, or it creates a circular argument, where the conclusion of the argument requires the presupposition of its existence.

The computer at my bar has about 3 or 4 George Michael songs on it.  (All from "Faith" if I'm not mistaken)  What caught my eye last time I was putting together a playlist was that someone went in and changed the genre from "Pop/Rock" to "Gay."

I chuckled for at least five minutes.

(adopting Seinfeld voice: "Not that there's anything wrong with that...)

And if you're lucky some people might even care.  Personally I'm going to exercise my free will not to and my faith in humanity to hope others won't either. 

And Hamby, George may bat for the other side but he wrote some good songs.  Especially Outside.

Although that wasn't on Faith. 

Uh... anyway... yeah. 

"And if you're lucky some people might even care.  Personally I'm going to exercise my free will not to and my faith in humanity to hope others won't either. "

Bons mots!

*Gives Hamby a knowing wink*

I get ya, Guv'nor. 

Here is my answer.

Degree of Faith!

I agree with many of you that Faith is basically belief without evidence, proof etc. I just wanted to go a level or two deeper than that.

Evidence and proof also related to, to be able to answer questions such as how, why etc. We know there is always (or at least most of the time) a reason behind a reason. So, where to stop? To explain something a theist could stop at a very high level like, well, I feel like there is a god therefore, there is a god. That is pure faith to me.Next, a person might go a level deeper and try to explain things using human common behavior. And let’s say he stop there. Example: well, majority of the world population belief there is a god therefore, there is a god. Above is also faith to me. But definitely it is better than the first one.Third might go even deeper, and stops at genetic level, 4^th might stop at molecular level, 5^th atomic, particle level, considering entire universe as well and so on.

Therefore, degree of faith depends on how deep one goes in explaining things. In addition explanation has to be coherent. Please see my post on “Brain Washing vs. Understanding”.I advocate that we should go as deep as the accepted FLN (Fundamental Laws of Nature) (physics). If one explains things using FLN then I like to consider that “not faith based”. One doesn’t have to clarify up to FLN every single time (that would be too time consuming) but as long as his/her explanation’s chain of logic has reach up to FLN without violating it. In another way, I am describing FAITH in terms of “State of Mind” not how the information got there. Coherency, constancy, no-contradiction are the required attributes. Interestingly, it doesn’t matter if it is true or not.

More accurately, there is no way to find out if something is true except with consistent logic.Notice the connectivity of meaning of understanding of “brain wash and understanding” and Logical definition/explanation of “Faith” and of importance of “logical definition” over “dictionary definition” and why stopping at “ we do not steal because it is against our morality” is a kind of FAITH to me unless you explain that something similar to how Hamby did. Link: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/9085 

Viper41 wrote: In my opinion faith is not a virtue and should be discouraged wherever [Tim’s addition: If a better explanting is available, Occam ’s razor Principle] it may appear. 

 I determine if a person has FAITH,  not on the basis what he said about certain thing like (God) is true or false but by noticing the coherency, consistency or lack thereof among EVERYTHING he/she said to prove or disprove God.

One could have FAITH on false and true things both alike. It is the state of mind, coherency that determine the degree of FAITH.