Although an atheistic forum is about the last place one would expect to find an unbiased aswer to your questions, they are great questions.

Faith is believing in spite of a varying amount of uncertainty. Trust is confidence in a person or thing. By definition they are not the same at all, and even in churches they are two separate ideas. But Christians often gap their ignorance with faith, and then build their trust in Jesus or God upon that faith, resulting in the use of both words in the same sentence...very frequently.

Sadly this is pitiful and not common sense. This could very well be compared to constructing a building with materials, in which you are not beyond-a-doubt certain to hold up to the pressure and strain. More simply put, they are driving on the path of righteousness, blindfolded. Now don't misunderstand their value to God; afterall,according to the Bible, blessed is he who has not seen yet believes. These people are just not helping very well to spread the gospel in a cear, concise and sensible manner.

Fortunately the Bible offers plenty of evidence to close up the gap of ignorance significantly, removing the cliched "jump of faith" down to a mere "step of faith." (But heck, every worldview requires a certain amount of faith.) Most Christians don't actually research and study the evidence, which leaves them merely with a blind faith.  I would have to think that a faith that is blind is a faith not worth having, but that is just my opinion.

Sadly, the humanistic movement claims to have all the questions answered which is steering people away from the not-so-convincing blind-believing majority of Christians.

Do not be decieved by the person simply claiming to have all the answers. Only the one who was there to witness it all has all the answers. The God of the Bible would certainly fill that requisite.

I will say the first part of your post was surprising. I find it surprising that a christian would agree that faith isn't the same as trust, and that people shouldn't use it that way. I think it's the one thing i've seen you say on the boards that i agree with you on.

That's a very reasonable definition of faith. In that sense of 'faith,' every belief requires faith, since no one can be completely certain about anything (unless he thinks himself infallible). Your approach is scientific indeed, and I commend you for that.

First of all we may need faith=trust, i'd ask you to use trust but i dont' want to force it on you, in inductive reasoning but deductive reasoning assuming a valid argument and a sound argument is by defination true. So we don't  need trust in that we  are just using definations or  as they say  tautologies  to make an argument and therefore if the premises are true then the argument is 100% true.

If you perform all the logical operations and derivations properly, then yes, the conclusions of deductive logic are certain. However, we can never be 100% certain that we have done all derivations properly, for we are fallible. It seems to me that as long as we can admit that we are fallible, it will be necessary to have faith in the sense that our Christian friend above speaks of it.

The issue isn't really the words, but the meaning. Faith means one thing to you, but means something else to others. That is just a problem with communication in general. Don't worry about it till a debate then ask them to define it. (of course when it becomes an issue)

Well said!

In the sense that 'faith' is used as 'belief in spite of uncertainty,' there's nothing particularly offencive about 'faith' as a foundation of one's beliefs. Indeed, we need faith to believe anything when it's used that way (assuming what I've suggested about our perpetual uncertainty is correct).

In the sense that 'faith' is used as an excuse for believing what one has no evidence or reason to believe, it is arbitrary and offencive when used in the context of public discourse.

I guess we can say that there is a 'inactive' faith that is simply belief in spite of uncertainty, and an 'active' faith that is belief in spite of good reasons or justification.

I think it is important to remember that whenever we are talking about a person with religious beliefs the type of faith they have is defined as belief without evidence.

Whenever we are basing our beliefs on evidence we are not being blinded by faith.

Your generalization is far too simplistic. For, how do you account for the fact that a believer like Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome has said that belief without reason or evidence is 'pitiful and not common sense'?

 Are you sure you aren't projecting a bit?

See?

-Triften 

This is simply false.

1) You're conflating theistic faith with contingent faith.

2) The fact that inductive claims are unceratian does not mean that 'faith' is required to shore up induction.... we merely need to hold to inductive claims probalistically

3) Axiomatic claims are defended through retortion, no faith is required.

4) Deductive claims are tautologies, again, no faith required.

Your claim is demonstratably false on numerous fronts.

Also see: http://www.rationalresponders.com/doesnt_everyone_take_things_on_faith

Non sequitur. The fact that we are fallible does not mean that we must hold that we have no justification to hold to claims (this is what theistic faith is).

Faith is not a basis for reason, it is its antithesis. Your approach to the situation leads us to universal skepticism and nihilism.

Ah, we are just using words differently.

If I say, 'by "faith" I mean "a game of ball between two nine-player teams played usually for nine innings on a field that has as a focal point a diamond-shaped infield with a home plate and three other bases, 90 ft. (27 m) apart, forming a circuit that must be completed by a base runner in order to score, the central offensive action entailing hitting of a pitched ball with a wooden or metal bat and running of the bases, the winner being the team scoring the most runs,"' then there's no problem with my asserting that I love to play faith on the weekends. It may be a horrible abuse of common usage, but as long as you understand what I mean, there's no problem with my assertion.

Now, I just wanted to point out that if we respect Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome's usage of the word (which he defined as 'believing in spite of a varying amount of uncertainty'), then there's no problem at all with 'having faith.' Again, this may not be what other theists mean by 'faith' (even Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome concedes this), but that's besides the point.

The point is that in the given sense of the word, it is true that every belief 'requires' faith. Notice there's nothing interesting about that claim. If by 'faith' one means 'belief in spite of uncertainty' then to say, 'every belief requires faith' is simply to say, 'every belief requires belief in spite of uncertainty.' If we take it for granted that no one can be 100% certain about anything, then it's a tautology. Nothing controversial here.

In fact, notice that you are using 'theistic faith' in the way that I have used 'active faith.' If we take every instance of the word 'faith' to mean what you call 'theistic faith' and I call 'active faith,' then I agree with everything you wrote. In fact, I have a feeling that even Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome would agree with that.

It's more than that. Theistic faith has nothing  at all to do with contingent faith. They are opposites.

Theistic faith is unjustified belief in the supernatural.

Contingent faith is trust, it is experiential and it is open to falsification.

This false.

Axioms do not require any faith at all, they are defended by retortion. They are necessarily true.

Hence your claim is false.

Deductive logic is tautologous, which means deductions necessarily true.

Again, your claim is falsified.

The fact that a person may incorrectly hold a claim to be deductively sound is NOT a reason why one must take deductive claims on faith. The fact that a person may be wrong does not mean that we must hold to deduction on faith!

 Inductive logic is tentative. It may be wrong, but as long as an inductive claim is held tentatively, there is no need to hold a justified claim without justification, and that is what faith is!

 Again your claim is falsified.

Please take a look here: 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/doesnt_everyone_take_things_on_faith

Again, you are confusing inductive uncertainty for 'faith'. The fact that inductive claims may be uncertain only means that we must  hold to them tentatively.

Another important lesson to draw from this discussion is that we always ought to pay attention to how others are using their words, and not just to how we think they ought to use their words. As Richard Dawkins writes on the first page of The Blind Watchmaker, "Words are our servants, not our masters."

Please read my whole post. You clearly have ignored the part where I proved that given a certain definition of faith, every belief does indeed require faith.

I did. I just didn't bother to quote it all.

This is clearly and obviously false.  

Please read my post. You clearly have ignored where I refute your claim.

You are flat out wrong to the point of nihilism. 

I'll try again:

The fact that humans can not hold to claims perfectly does not mean that we must take claims on faith.

This was your point.

I acknowledged it - which proves your post here a lie.

And I refuted it -  which shows that you are suffering from the problem you've accussed me of...

It's simply false that human uncertainty requires that we shore up beliefs with faith. All human uncertainty points to is a need to hold to claims tentatively. No faith need enter into the equation.

If we have a justification for a belief, then there is no need for faith, in fact, faith becomes impossible where justification is present in any form: 

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. "Faith in reason" is a contradiction in terms. "Faith" is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of "faith" cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason. - Nathaniel Branden

Please actually read my post this time, and please recognize that I've both read your post and refuted it.

I look forward to repeating this post a third time. 

Look, I agree with what you're saying, if we are using faith in the 'theistic' sense that you describe. Everything you said is correct. I'm being very careful to avoid an equivocation by explicitly stating when I am 'shifting' the definition of my words. You are just refusing to recognize that when I say 'every belief requires faith,' I am using 'faith' in the sense that Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome defined it, in which case it becomes a vacuous and unnecessary word, but a word nonetheless.

If you still think I'm wrong, it's because I have failed to be explicit that I'm using the word 'faith' in the way that Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome defined it. I agree with everything you wrote. We have been confounded by semantics.

"Faith is believing in spite of a varying amount of uncertainty."

 But this is not faith.

If there are varying amounts of uncertainty, then it follows that there are varying amounts of justification.

If there is any justification at all, then no faith at all, in any sense of the term is required.

As in the Nathaniel Branden quote, where there is any justification at all, faith cannot coexist: Once one has a reason to hold to a belief, they can no longer hold to it for NO reason. 

So your need to use the term 'faith' at all  is the problem.

Non contingent faith is belief without evidence, or in the face of negating evidence, not belief with doubtful evidence!

It is unjustified belief. That's it.

Properly understood, the word 'faith' does not and cannot enter into a discussion of epistemology, as faith is a rejection of epistemology. 

Dude, I'm an atheist. Why do you say I 'need' to use the word faith? I'm more than happy to abandon the use of the word and just stick to our more common 'justification' or 'evidence.'

I'm just trying to show a little sympathy to Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome. Even if I don't agree with their conclusions, I appreciate it when Christians (and all people generally) look to justify their beliefs. (Or better yet, only believe what is justified.)

Now, it just so happens that Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome does belong to a community of people who do need to use the word 'faith,' because they deem it a virtue (for historical reasons, perhaps). But now suppose Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome was able to change what Christians meant by faith to what you mean by justification. Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't 'faith' then be a great thing to have?

I think so. That is why I encourage Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome to reinterpret 'faith' in the way that he has done. Kudos to him for demanding justification. Whether he calls it 'justification,' 'faith' or 'baseball,' I couldn't care less. The important thing is that what he means is something like what you and I mean by evidence, reason, and justification.

On a side note, I do find it interesting that you are so tenacious about the word 'faith' always meaning 'theistic faith' and nothing else. I tend to be far more open to people using words in ways that differ from what I expect them to mean.

You have a reading comprehension problem. I do not say you must use the word. I say the oppostite:

"So your need to use the term 'faith' at all  is the problem."

I.e, your need to use the word 'faith' to describe trust (or contingent faith) is the problem. 

 Please read more carefully.

You have a SERIOUS reading comprehension problem! I specifically use two different versions of the word faith, and my posts to you were about the error in conflating the TWO uses.

Theistic faith MUST be applied in matters of theology, because there can be no rational grounds for holding to supernatural claims.

Otherwise, there are other uses of the word, hence my discussion of contingent vs. non contingent faith.

So again, you have come to the exact opposite conclusion than  a person who actually reads my posts ought to come to... 

Seriously, I must ask: who's posts are you reading? Can you reply to those posts and stop repling to mine, seeing as you are not responding to anything I actually say?

I look forward to you misreading that as an invitation to reply more often... 

You really like having arguments where there is none, don't you?

To say that theistic faith is the only kind of faith that applies in theological matters because there are no rational grounds for believing supernatural claims is like saying belief without evidence is the only kind of belief that can result in beliefs about God because there is no evidence for God. But how do you know that there are no rational grounds for holding supernatural beliefs? Even if every claim that has ever been presented to you has turned out to be (proven) false, that still does not support the strength of your conclusion, which is an a priori claim about what it is possible to prove. Even Richard Dawkins allows for the possibility that supernatural claims could become scientific.

So you actually prove exactly my point (that you are close-minded about any use of the word 'faith' that is not 'theistic faith' in theological matters) when you demand that 'theistic faith' MUST be applied in matters of theology.

I'm sorry, but unless you have some privileged access to Plato's heaven, where the perfect 'Form' of every word dances around with sprites and unicorns, then your demands that a word mean only what you want it to mean are inconsequential and irrelevant. Words can mean whatever the person using them wants them to mean. You do not mete out the meanings of words, despite what you may want to think.

Yes, that's right. I just wanted to show that I did not desire or 'need' to use the word faith, contrary to todangst's suggestion, and that my response was a testament to the fact that I did understand him correctly.

To todangst: 

I can see that the fundamental disagreement between us is about whether it is possible (even if just in theory) to give a justification for the existence of God. You say that in theological matters, the only kind of faith that one must mean is theistic faith, which is essentially just belief without justification. What this tells me is that you have already closed your mind to the possibility of a justification for belief in God, since otherwise you would be willing to entertain the possibility of a 'faith' in God that means 'justified belief' in God. Although I am currently an atheist, I am willing to entertain the possibility of a 'faith' in God that means 'justified belief' in God. But you're not. Somehow, you know that it is impossible to prove the existence of God or even give a probable account of God's existence (even if by 'God' one just means 'the sun&#39. Such an approach smacks of dogmatism and an unscientific attitude, of which I will take no part. That is why we disagree.

All this about contingent belief and stuff is fine--I have no trouble with that and I don't really care what word you use for it. But most of the time when I hear the word faith in Christian circles (in my upbring, Evangelical Christian circles) contingent belief is exactly what they have NOT meant by the word faith. Doubt itself--which is a friend to contingent faith if one really cares to know what the truth is--is the enemy of Christian faith. I was brought up with faith meaning that you believe such and such even if evidence were to be presented against the belief (although normally they would just either disregard or rationalize that evidence). For example, faith was believing that God did something or other for the kid dying from lukemia even if the prayers of every single person in the church really had no observable effect whatsoever. Belief is key to salvation in Christianity and to allow oneself the possibility of being persuaded that the teachings of Christianity are wrong is to risk damnation! The Christian is to just find ways to believe as they were taught the Bible says no matter what evidence they have to ignore or rationalize.

So the evangelical 'Faith' is anything BUT contingent belief, and saying that this faith is contingent is in itself only a rationalization.

Just my two cents.

-Mikayla

Being as that you are capitalizing the term god you must be referring to a specific god. What god would this be that you think it might be possible to give a justification for?

In order to give a justification for the existence of any god the term god would need to be defined so that we knew we had a justification for god when we found it. Being as that gods, in the theistic sense, are referred to as being supernatural and supernatural is a term devoid of any definable meaning it is in actuallity impossible to give justification for the existence of a supernatural god without theistic, or blind, faith.

In order for there to be justified belief in a god 'god' would need to be defined as something within the realm of discourse; as something natural. This would open up belief in a god to justification through evidence, experimentation, reasoning. Being as that supernatural gods are necessarily beyond the realm of discourse to have rational justification for belief in their existence is impossible. 

If by 'god' one means the sun then one is not speaking of a god, they are speaking of the sun, a natural body in which belief can be justified without faith. This has nothing to do with claims to have justified belief ina supernatural god. Surely you see that trying to redefine god as the sun is pointless in a discussion like this.This is just a silly attempt to define the woed god in a way so as to support an otherwise unsupportable point. 

That the theistic position holds to belief in things for which their can be no rational justification is not a matter of dogmatic thinking, it is a matter of the fact that their belief is based in something that is undefinable in any rational context and therefor impossible to justify rationally. If at somone wants to provide a positive ontology for a 'god' and 'supernatural' then one can move towards finding rational justification for their belief in such a thing. Until then such justification is made impossible by the very nature of the belief.

I was unclear. I meant 'God' as a variable for some thing whose existence has yet to be verified. What supposed attributes that thing has (or doesn't have) or what the word 'God' even means is up to the theist to tell us. Since I do not believe in a God, nor do I believe that the word God has a clear meaning, I cannot do this for you.

On a side note, I think the reason I capitalize the word 'God' is force of habit from when I was a theist. I don't mean any specific God by my capitalization just as we don't mean any specific person when we speak of 'Johnny Everyman'.

In response to the rest of your post, I honestly don't know what theists mean when they speak of 'God' or 'supernatural phenomena,' so I'm not sure what 'God is supernatural' even means. It seems to me that all this God-talk is just a short-cut for believing oneself to be infallible.