Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Language is fluid and personal. We can use words in ways that are frequently different than the way others use them. Even dictionaries differ. What is likely more effective is to ask for and offer descriptions of what is meant by a given word. For example, “when I say the word faith, I mean....”. It might go a long way toward less convoluted discussions.
@John Breezy ...
"Etymology is most definitely the same as definition, its literally the tracing of definitions throughout history lol."...
Well if you say so...... but I'd refer you to the etymology of both "CRETIN" and "BIGOT".
Cretin.....
From French crétin (“cretin, idiot”), from crestin, an Alpine dialectal form of chrétien, from Vulgar Latin christianus in the lost sense of 'anyone in Christendom', often with a sense of 'poor fellow'.
Bigot .....
From French bigot (“a sanctimonious person; a religious hypocrite”), from Middle French bigot, from Old French bigot. Prior history unclear.
One well-known theory states that the word derives from an Old French derogatory term applied to the religiously zealous Normans, who were said to be known for frequently uttering "by God", an oath to express veracity or faith (compare Old English bī god, Middle High German bī got, Middle Dutch bi gode),
link:https://www.wiktionary.org/
I'm not sure what your point here was. It validates my point, but you said it as if it didn't..
Etymology shows how definitions CHANGE through history, not what the definition has always been. One can use a historical meaning of the word but if it doesn't match with the modern usage then misunderstandings may occur (i.e. Demon used to mean deity; bully used to mean good). That's why like CyberLN says - if you are intending a meaning that does not match with the commonly held usage, it's helpful to the debate to clarify what that usage is beforehand.
Right, which is why etymology is important when talking about faith, because we're interested in what the word meant when the bible was translated, as well as what it meant back when the new testament was written.
I fully agree that in the past, but it is not used that way today by the majority of Christians. If you use it as trust then say trust. Also if you are going to say that you know god is real and that's what justifies you saying faith, well you better have some evidence.
Notice what the OP said: "...theists Feel the need to redefine the word faith. They live the word, but not it's definition. They don't want it to mean belief without evidence. They want it to mean the same as trust or confidence."
If the word originally meant trust, then its not being redefined. Try this experiment out, listen to how Christians use faith when conversing with one another naturally. You won't hear them saying to one another, "have faith that God exists brother." But you will hear them say, "have faith that God will give you peace," etc.
So they never use it in way number two?
I find it to be pretty common (subjective).
You mentioned that the biblical way is to use it only in a benign way; a hard synonym of trust... Well, that's a testable claim. If I find an instance in the bible where it's more Akin to belief than trust, is your claim falsified?
Example: to know something through faith= believe.
To have faith in someone or something=trust.
To know something will happen without reason to know it will happen, but because of faith=belief.
To know someone will do something or not do something through faith=trust
Do you agree with those before we search?
And if the claim is falsified will you accept that Christians use it in the way that I, and many others say they use it?
Faith can mean belief only in the sense that trust can mean belief as well. If I believe my wife that she won't cheat on me, I am trusting her, and I'm placing my faith in her. If I "believe" the sky is really red for no reason, that's not faith; but if I "believe" you, when you say the sky is red, that is faith.
Faith always needs something or someone to lean on. In Scripture, that something is often God. Faith cannot exist in isolation, that's the key point.
The point now is that you said that the bible only uses the definition you propose. We can test that.
'but if I "believe" you, when you say the sky is red, that is faith.'
Bingo. You got it. Without evidence. Just what some schmuck(in the example I'm the schmuck)said. I thought you'd never get it.
Without evidence? I didn't even mention evidence in my example. You could be some schmuck saying the sky is red. But you could also be the worlds leading astrophysicist, and just finished explaining to me how the atmosphere (sky) absorbs red light, making it red, but doesn't absorb blue light, so its not blue.
Trust is not objective, and neither is faith. You decide how much evidence is good enough, whenever certainty isn't possible.
But if you believed me because I was the world's
leading astrophysicist you'd be demonstrating faith. If you believed me because the evidence supports my conclusion it would be different.
And I also agree that trust and faith are subjective. So being subjective are they a reliable pathway to truth?
I mean, trust is trust, precisely because I don't have all the information. So I lean on your credibility instead. Asking if its a reliable pathway to truth just doesn't make sense. It may be or it may not be. If I trusted my wife to not cheat, but she does, then its not a reliable way to truth. But I trust her and she's always faithful, then it was reliable.
When I call faith and trust subjective, I mean we all have different thresholds for how much information is good enough to make decisions with it. Certainty isn't always possible, but where its not, those decisions are still based on something. I can't trust my wife if I don't have one.
If you want to combine faith and evidence together, I would say faith is trusting the available evidence, to make decisions about the unknown.
When it comes to the Bible, Moses saw the burning bush and the plagues and all the miracles, so He had evidence for God. But the only evidence he had that God would part the Red Sea was God's own word. That's where faith comes in. Do you trust God, or do you not? Moses trusted, and that was an act of faith. Later on however, Moses struck a rock to make water come out, even though God never told Him to do that. As a result God rebuked Moses. In this scenario, Moses believed something without reason. That's not faith, that's presumption.
Well, now you're assuming that these things actually happened to Moses. How do you know? And backtrack a bit further... You're assuming Moses was actually a person. How do you know this?
I don't combine faith with evidence. I say that faith is without evidence.
Its completely irrelevant whether or not he's an actual person. I'm using a Biblical story to illustrate the point, since that is where faith is found remember?
@breezy
I do not need to do that experiment, I lived it! And you are incorrect. When people doubted or had questions that the pastor couldn't answer or the elder then the answer always was you must have faith. This is exactly it, if you agree that trust is earned through evidence and without seeing something or testing its validity, you cannot put your trust in it, well then you can no longer use faith as trust or confidence because you have no good reason to trust. The way you are using it means that trust is givin to anything you believe in whether that belief is based on good evidence or none at all. Now you try this experiment... go out to your school and ask a stranger if they are Christian, do not tell them you are as well, then ask them how they know god is real and another one is not. Ask them to explain how they came to their belief now jot down a few counter arguments against god and when they struggle to answer see how many say "well I just have faith" then come back and tell me how it goes.
Was that meant for me?
No breezy
@John 61X Breezy: "because we're interested in what the word meant when the bible was translated"
That's true for any old text. To understand them properly you need to know what the words meant when they were written, as well as something about the historical and social context.
But if you want to use etymology to say something about what "faith" means to modern Christians, I think you also need to show some kind of historical continuity linking modern Christians to the Bible authors. I'm not sure that exists. In my lifetime I've seen churches desperately reinventing themselves to try and stay relevant in a changing society.
Can "faith" possibly mean the same thing to a 1st century Jewish Christian in the MIddle East and a 21st century person?
Pages