Do non-Christians require dishonesty to shield themselves from faith?

Question

I've challenged Christians on their view of faith, now it's the non-Christians' turn:

One person offered an alternative definition: faith is a belief that is not based on proof. ie: no truth involved.

Notice the subtle twist at the end. Webster's definition does NOT say that there is no truth involved, it says that the belief has not yet been proven. A good example would be Michael J. Fox who seems to have faith in stem cell research, a medical remedy not yet proven.

Is it honest to say "no truth involved"?

polskajason: Because I rely on facts (another word for truth), I'm free to ignore stupid ideas such as the one your suggested.

It's funny. Education makes you immune to such things.

Iblis: I don't think you're prepared to back that up. Please let me know which of my beliefs are the result of brainwashing. I love challenges!

If you can't do something as simple as this, as smart as you are, then this question exemplifies you, doesn't it?

Rfitqc_Aussie: Michael J. Fox compaigned for stem cell research in Missouri in the 2006 elections.

(But you're right. He could have been lying.)

Answer 1

Non-Christians don't require anything to "shield" themselves from faith, as you call it. Non-Christians, or rather, I'm assuming atheists, just don't have faith. No shields involved. I didn't wake up yesterday and say "Gee, I don't want to have faith God exists. I mean I know he does, but I'm just gonna not have faith"!

Truth is defined, by dictionary.com as: conformity with fact or reality. So, then I ask you does your faith conform with "fact" or "reality". Perhaps, it does conform with "your" reality, but the reality I believe it means is an objective reality.

Perhaps "no truth involved" is a bit much, but still not completely wrong. And really, faith in religion is totally different than "faith" regarding everyday things. I have "faith" that my boyfriend won't cheat on me, but this is based on experience, knowledge, etc. It's different than faith that a supreme power exists. You see?

Answer 2

Confusion usually results from failure to define terms. True and truth are not necessarily about the same thing. Discrete facts can be true but selected and arranged to deceive. Fictions can be told that illuminate a truth. Our Modern Western culture prizes literalism and puts "myth" in the same class with "lies", while the ancients often regarded the acts of the gods as more real than their own. They would not understand the stories we call history because these detail random, trivial events without illustrating a purpose, as a proper story should.

Belief is one such flexible term. Adherents speak of belief in God when they really mean belief that God exists. What's the difference? One can believe IN an idea, like compassion, cooperation, sacrificial love or even transcendent divinity without believing THAT supernatural characters or events have occured. One can believe IN a hero (or what s/he represents) but not believe WHAT s/he might say at any moment. Believing IN involves commitment. Believing THAT is merely acceptance of a premise. As an agnostic, I can believe in the idea of God but I don't necessarily believe that God exists.

The definition, "no truth involved," is incorrect. "Truth" is being used to indicate confirmed fact (while implying that it means discerned wisdom). Faith and belief are nearly interchangeable terms. The simplest definition for faith is: an affirmation that does not require empirical evidence. That should cover both kinds of belief.

An atheist neither believes in God as a concept nor as a fact. Since there is no direct proof for or against God, there are no "facts" to dispute, so atheism is not a dishonest position any more than theism is. Both positions can be "true" (in the sense that they are consistent and sincere), just not in each other's territory. The atheist's truths are derived from logic and the scientific method. The theist's truth comes from spiritual experience and the testimony of others. Each has an effect on the world and therefore has some kind of validity, even if its methods and conclusions are incompatible with the other's understanding.

Answer 3

tsk tsk.. It is a fallacy to say that Michael J. Fox has faith in stem cell research. He has faith that some day stem cell research will find a cure for his disease. There is plenty of proof to substantiate that belief. Many christians also believe that to be so, though they disagree with the methods currently used.
In other words, for this example you are using your original definition of faith: "confidence or trust in a person or thing".
Religious faith is based on the other definition, which is a belief not based on proof. There is no proof that any of the myriad of gods exists. (There is also no proof that there is no god at all). There is only what people choose to believe. It has nothing to do with truth.
For reference here are some definitions of truth, just so you can see the difference:
1.the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2.conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3.a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4.the state or character of being true.
5.actuality or actual existence.
6.an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.

As you can see, trying to apply them to a religion fails. Many will claim each for their own religion, but there is no way to tell which is correct.

Answer 4

Faith is belief in the absence of truth, so the "no truth involved" is not dishonest. Stem cell research has born out remedies that are real, there is no lack of evidence in that case. Not all non-Christians lack faith, we just don't believe in Christianity. I have a lot of faith, but not in a tyrannical maniac who creates people with flaws he will later torture them for etc. In a smaller, non-religious sense, we have faith in things that have an evidentury basis (like, having faith that someone who never lies is telling the truth now) but that falls apart when looking at the idea of superhuman beings as there is really no evidence. Atheists have no faith in a superbeing of any kind. They need not shield themselves from evidence that does not exist.

Answer 5

"Facts" and "truth" are not the same thing. "Truth" is a property of a statement about a fact. The facts stand regardless of whether or not they are correctly described by statements - indeed, whther or not they are perceived at all.

"Proof" is correct logical deduction from premises. It is not description of facts. There's a big difference. Proofs can be absolutely correct or incorrect, as in Euclid's geometry. But descriptions of fact can never be absolutely correct so long as there is an infinite number of facts. Correct description of facts is necessarily just a statistical statement. Scientific investigation may take you nearer and nearer to correct description, but a prediction or description which is 99.9999999 per cent probable is still not 100 per cent or totally correct because the real world known scientifically depends on induction to describe it, not deduction from premises.

Statements can be absolutely correct so long as they do not describe the real world. Thus, mathematical deductions such as " 2 + 2 = 4 " are not just statistical descriptions; they are absolute statements whose validity rests only on the definition of the terms used and correct logical analysis of them. Their conclusions are tautological. Similarly, "God is love" is a valid statement because it does not depend on induction from observations; it derives its validity from the existence on a premise that is not subject to disproof, the nature of a supernatural being who is absolute therefore cannot be material (if he were, he would be natural and subject to experimental scientific tests).

"Faith" means that you choose to accept a claim without regard to evidence. If you have faith, you will believe even what is absurd, as Tertullian implied. The teaching of the Roman and Orthodox Catholic Churches is clear on this point - if you believe for reasons of evidence, you are not really believing according to faith. The Protestant fundies of America are ignorant of this point, and waste time and energy on the illusion that they can mix belief without evidence with belief based on evidence. By pursuing the fallacy of fake science which they call "intelligent design" or "creation science" they just show that they do not have actual faith, just a bogus imitation of faith, and do not understand either science or faith.

Answer 6

It depends what you call 'truth'. In all religious, spiritual, occult or generally unscientific thought there is no 'truth', only conjecture. That conjecture may be based on a lot of evidence, or what claims to be evidence, but it is still conjecture. Belief is something else. It needs no 'proof' outside the decision of the person believing, and is a very powerful force. Belief has killed and maimed more people in the last Age than anything else.

Answer 7

Just because something isn't proven, it doen't mean it's not true. But when something is proven, it requires no faith to believe in it. Some things are impossible to prove. But it doesn't mean that they aren't so.

But don't kid yourself like most atheists do... how could anyone KNOW that there's absolutely no god of any kind out there? They can't. Those guys aren't faithless. Believing something with a complete and total lack of evidence can be labelled as nothing else.

Answer 8

Faith is nothing but idea that a person has been conditioned to believe. This conditioning can come from a book but more often comes from a person that tells them what they are to believe.
The most common time a person is conditioned to believe in a God is as a child. This is because children do not question what they are told by parents or teachers. At least not at first. It is only after the child begins to grow and mature that they begin to examine what they have been told, if they even do this at all. many just continue with the ideas they have been conditioned to believe because it is easiest!

Answer 9

no. i would charcterize religious faith differently from mr. fox's views. he has a logical, rational basis for believing as he does. religious faith is a license to keep believing something despite a lack of, or in direct contradiction to, rational evidence. if stem cells were proven to have no medical uses, then i'm sure mr. fox would recant his assertions, but there are very very few, if any, religious people who would recant their beliefs based on something like evidence. faith is a belief not based on proof, but that is not a good reason for stating efinitively that there is no truth involved

Answer 10

No, it's not accurate. Stick with the right definition, don't try to make up your own. Things that people have faith in are not only not "yet" proven, but they probably never will be. That's the point. If they ever are, then "faith" in them ceases to exist. Faith is, indeed, belief WITHOUT proof. If you have proof, you don't have faith, if you have faith, you don't have proof. They are mutually exclusive.