[Back to Reason, Science and Faith]
Definitions
I’ve looked up the word ‘faith’ in a few dictionaries, here are a couple of examples.
Oxford language:
1. complete trust of confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Merriam Webster
1. a: allegiance to duty or a person (e.g. lost faith in company’s president)
b: fidelity to one’s promises, sincerity of intentions (e.g. acted in good faith)
2. a: (i) belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(ii) belief in the traditional doctrines of religion
b: (i) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (e.g. clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return).
(ii) complete trust
3 . Something that is believed especially with strong conviction, especially a system of religious beliefs.
It seems to me that there are two distinct classifications of use of the word, one to describe confidence based on evidence (e.g. faith in something that has proved reliable, for instance a piano teacher that has a track record of teaching people to play the piano well), and the other to describe confidence in a something which has no tangeable evidence underpinning it (e.g. faith in a religious text, or doctrine).
The majority of the difficulty with the word is that it is common for people to switch from one meaning to another when seeking to defend their point of view, when in fact there are clear differentiations between them.
Christian emphasis
The first few verses of Hebrews are the most often cited when discussing faith with Christians, the first verse being quoted as a stand alone, when the following verses actually elaborate (I’m using the New International Version here).
The first verse: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”
The second verse adds ‘This is what the ancients were commended for”.
The third verse states ‘By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible’.
Note that this is an assertion, something stated without any evidence, a piece of doctrine. God commanded the (seen) universe into being from invisible matter. Note this also suggests forming rather than creating from nothing in this translation. This is clearly a use of the second meaning of ‘faith’.
The rest of the verses in the chapter describe mainly Old Testament personalities who did things in response to their faith in God (commended for believing things with out evidence), actions and behaviours by the way that illuminate an understanding of God who appears to be self obsessed, appears only to reward those who believe in him without any actual evidence. Even when the things that were believed (or were supposedly promised by God) failed to materialise while the person was alive, it still seems that we are encouraged to believe that they received them after death. Convenient, as negative delivery would normally count against the validity of the belief.
There is a mix in these latter examples given, but it is made clear that the writer believes there is a virtue in believing things even when there is no visible or tangible evidence to help you believe. This underpins my assertion that this is the second type of faith, religious faith, demanded without evidence.
In this instance I think the King James version of the first verse is more lucid and clear (and honest), “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. Faith itself provides the substance of the belief, the evidence is the faith itself. A kind of circular mental state where we believe something because we have faith that it is true.
I would suggest that any doctrine that requires us to believe it without any supporting or corroborating evidence should be treated with great suspicion, especially if it warns that if we fail to believe it we will suffer unpleasant consequences.
This is not the kind of faith we all exercise, quite normally in every day life, it is something else altogether and should not to be confused, even though it is really hard to be disciplined about it!
Useful links:
Definitions:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/faith
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
Here is an example of how some Jews suggest that believing specific things is not central or essential in order to be a Jew: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/from-belief-to-faith/
Here is an example of how some Christians attempt to muddle the ground: https://www.gotquestions.org/definition-of-faith.htm
A long article about how philosophy seeks to address the matter of faith: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/
and another: https://lifehopeandtruth.com/change/faith/what-is-faith/ Note this latter actually explicitly quotes the circular definition I alluded to above:
“In the New Testament the English word faith is used to translate the Greek Pistis. “Pistis is used of belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same. ‘Faith’ means trust, confidence, assurance, and belief”.
Comments
There is too much here to respond to in detail. Here are a few quick thoughts.
The first verse: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”
This is a description of how faith operates, not a definition of what faith ‘really’ is. As a description, it's probably not a bad one.
The third verse states ‘By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible’.
Note that this is an assertion, something stated without any evidence, a piece of doctrine. God commanded the (seen) universe into being from invisible matter. Note this also suggests forming rather than creating from nothing in this translation. This is clearly a use of the second meaning of ‘faith’.
It’s not clear to me that this is an example of faith with “no tangible evidence”. The seen universe tangibly exists – that is the evidence. If you try to understand how the universe came about, the only reasonable answer is some variation on verse three – what is seen must, at the start, have been made by what is not seen. And the writer calls this creator ‘God’, which is also not unreasonable. In summary, the evidence is that we can see material objects, and we know that material objects do not create themselves, so there must be some non-material cause.
The rest of the verses in the chapter describe mainly Old Testament personalities who did things in response to their faith in God (commended for believing things without evidence)…
No! They were commended for believing in God, not for believing ‘things’. They trusted a person they had encountered. It’s not exactly like you trusting your friends and family, but it’s pretty close. If my wife tells me to get the bus because the train I was planning to catch has been cancelled, I believe what she says: not because I have evidence of the train being cancelled, but because I have evidence that she is trustworthy.
And what do you mean by ‘without evidence’? They had plenty of evidence. Joseph had absurd dreams which came true, and God gave him the interpretation of dreams which other people had, including the prediction of a massive and lengthy famine. Moses had a burning bush which was not consumed, a staff which transformed into a snake, ten plagues, and much else. If you think that these people believed God without evidence, then you deeply misunderstand these stories.
Of course, you can claim that these stories are just fiction, that Joseph and Moses and the others never really existed, and the writer of Hebrews has been taken in by ancient fables. But that is a completely different discussion, and is not what you are saying here.
I suggest that if you actually read the Old Testament stories which the writer of Hebrews is referring to, rather than a God who only rewards people who believe without evidence, you will struggle to find a single example of God appearing to reward those who believe in him without any actual evidence.
It sounds like you completely misunderstand what the writer of Hebrews is saying here. Possibly more importantly, it sounds like you completely misunderstand what the writer of the dictionary says.
Faith is … strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
There is a world of difference between ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’. We mainly live on the basis of things we have evidence for, but no proof – and religious faith is no different. When you get married, you have no proof that your spouse will be faithful to you, but you have evidence of their character and demonstrated trustworthiness to date.
I believe in a loving creator God, revealed to us in Jesus; I fully accept that there is no proof of this, but I have seen a fair amount of evidence that it is true. What counts as evidence, and whether you consider it to be adequate, is outside the scope of this conversation, but please recognise that your rejection of the evidence is not the same as a total lack of evidence.
For another exploration of the nature of faith, please see the article on the subject: Faith.