Tom, in one of the comments there it sounds like you’re saying that not being based on evidence is part of the definition of faith. I don’t think this is part of the meaning of the term, either in theology or in ordinary language. I’ve talked about this here:
Thanks, Rod. I’ll print this out and read it. (I’m open minded, but believing something without any evidence for it is a part of the common usage of the term “faith.” But I’ll print this out and read it at on the exercise bike tonight.)
Well, it’s part of common usage only in strictly delimited contexts. People pretty much ONLY use it that way when they’re criticising religion (or criticising something AS a religion). But religions themselves don’t use it that way, and critics of religion don’t use it that way in other contexts. (“I have faith in Bob’s honesty” doesn’t mean “I have a groundless belief in Bob’s honesty.”)
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Tom, in one of the comments there it sounds like you’re saying that not being based on evidence is part of the definition of faith. I don’t think this is part of the meaning of the term, either in theology or in ordinary language. I’ve talked about this here:
http://aaeblog.com/2008/01/14/defensor-fidei
Thanks, Rod. I’ll print this out and read it. (I’m open minded, but believing something without any evidence for it is a part of the common usage of the term “faith.” But I’ll print this out and read it at on the exercise bike tonight.)
All the best,
Tom
Well, it’s part of common usage only in strictly delimited contexts. People pretty much ONLY use it that way when they’re criticising religion (or criticising something AS a religion). But religions themselves don’t use it that way, and critics of religion don’t use it that way in other contexts. (“I have faith in Bob’s honesty” doesn’t mean “I have a groundless belief in Bob’s honesty.”)