Now I'm not referring to religious faith in particular here, but to the concept of faith in general. To et into this, I shall provide the meanings I intend for this question.

Faith: Belief without reason.

Faith (from my dictionary): 2) Belief without need of certain proof. Latin fidere, to trust.

Reason: Belief based on deductive logic, on experience and "reality". You see an apple fall, you work out gravity, for example.

Reason (from my dictionary): 1) To think logically; obtain inferences from known or presumed facts. 3) To think out carefully and logically. Latin reri, to think, reckon.

I'm sure you all get the idea of what I mean by these two words.

Now, my question is this: What is the value of faith? Particularly in comparison to reason?

If it weren't for faith in my senses I'd believe the 'world' was round
and moving about the Sun!

Take care :D

In the twelfth century there was a debate between a scholar and a mysticist. Abelard believed that truth could only be acquired by logical inquiry. Bernard of Clervaux (St. Bernardus) said that truth could only be obtained by devine inspiration; and we should not trust our reasonings too much.
I suggest you read something about the debate (it's pretty well documented). Good for the insight in both views.
It's a bit too easy to say faith is just a mindless belief.

Check out the "are those who believe, wrong" thread I talked about this there.

What about trust?

That is the most common form of faith

trust that your partner will be FAITHFULL to you for example

Damn good example. In monogomous personal relationships, you have to have faith in your lover's fidelity. You won't go anywhere without it.

Not necassarily. Seriously, isn't part of your belief that they will be faithful based upon your knowledge of them as a person, and your previous experiences with them?

Not really

when i went into a relationship with TI i CHOSE to throw away my past experiances (which were all bad) and trust her

that trust wasn't earned

i started dating her to quickly for her to earn that trust

I just chose to have faith in her

Yeah, you're right. But there is a large difference between trusting a partner and believeing in a supernatural being without proof.

You will have to explane that one

i am begining to think that the trust in god is WAY more justifide than trust in a partner

and i am SURE adam would agree

To be honest, right now I have no idea what to think about this matter.

"In monogomous personal relationships, you have to have faith
in your lover's fidelity. You won't go anywhere without it."

First: Why would anyone want to be in such a 'relationship'?

And: Where is there to 'go' in such a relationship?

Curious.

Take care.

Edit: For clarity

No, I meant there is a difference between believing in a god's existance purely on faith. If we knew a god existed we most certainly would have faith in him, that's not really debateable here.

What about having faith in yourself and your own judgement? You can have faith in a partner as you have faith in yourself till it's proven otherwise by the behaviour of a partner, for instance.

People change over the years, so does their faith in others. It's based on life-experience and what happens around you, like relation-ships with friends, parents and partners. Practical knowledge comes from things you learn, at school, for instance and then you live with that knowledge which influence your faith in life and yourself.

No faith in yourself can mean, no faith in others, just because you can't believe in yourself. That reflects in your behaviour toward others and life in general. Past experiences play a big part in this.

The saying goes: You trust someone else, like you trust yourself...

Trusting your partner is earned based on their previous actions, and should never be absolute. Belief in God is utterly unearned, and is absolute.

Complete trust is asking to be hurt. One may as well paint a bulls-eye target on your chest.

The only person you can trust is yourself. This is not faith, but the only possible course of action. As a skeptic, I know that I am probably wrong on many, many things. However, I will always be there to pick myself up.

Men and women come and go, but you'll always be there for yourself. Until you die, of course.

Besides, your partner exists. ;)

P.S: Pains me as it does to say it, I agree with Chagur.

I think the faith/trust in yourself, allows you to "see" others for what they "are" by trusting your own judgement/feelings toward the other person. It happened a lot of times, I met someone and had the feeling he/she was pretending or not. Often, your first impression of people you meet during your life-time is the best.

Except if you're standing in life is questionable and you are pretending yourself, toward others. Then your vision may be totally different.

If you get a partner and you know he/she has a "bad" past in being trusted, then you know you have to be careful and see for yourself how the relation-ship goes. This partner needs a chance too, though. People change and maybe you're the one able to change the attitude of that particular partner. You know up front what the consequences may be from going into a relation-ship with someone who has a "bad" name in this.

Why should you stay in a relation-ship with someone who lies to you all the time. Then it's for the liar to deal with the consequences and you move on.

Hurtful experiences in life will always be there. It belongs to life. It's up to you yourself how to deal with it and keep up the faith in yourself. Hurting other peoples feelings is human nature and unavoidable. It happens all the time. It's the way you react on it.

"Did he/she make you cry, make you break down, shatter your illusions of love. Is it over now, do you know how, to pick up the pieces and go home..." - quote

Faith: Belief without reason.
Reason: Belief based on deductive logic...
Now, my question is this: What is the value of faith? Particularly in comparison to reason?

Hello sciforum members,

Why does faith need to be compared in any way to reason?
The value of faith may just be that it doesn't have to be defined.
IMHO reason is WAY over-rated. For whatever 'reasons' you have for any actions will not get you to faith. I have a number of reasons for various actions, sometimes logic doesn't enter into it. But Faith, faith moves mountains(disengage logic-plug in imagination) Faith makes the inexplicable possible without reasons. Faith doesn't ask why. Yet the bumblebee flies, the wave becomes the particle and I live to see another day.
Reason has tried forever to catch up to faith. There is a God-Why? reason asks with a quantifiable box to pigeon hole the lord. I AM THAT I AM says a voice out of somewhere (reason figures it must be the TV waves interfearing with his auditory nerve and promptly leaves the room.)

Maelhavok

Why does faith need to be compared to reason? Because that's the question I asked. :p

Welcome to sciforums. :)

Why does faith need to be compared to reason?

Why does it have to be compared? People are used to reason. It makes their day to reason with eachother. Sometimes it will end up in an arguement but what the hell.

The word Faith makes me think of religion and all the wars which are going on because of religion. I'd rather say, I trust in myself than I have faith in myself.

I can have trust in someone else. Do I necessarrily need to have faith in this person also?

Let's Reason a little more on this, ok? ;)

The problem here is that ‘faith’, like many words, has multiple definitions, e.g.

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions.

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust.

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

Better dictionaries give further variations.

Most arguments that surround the word come about through trying to interchange the definitions.

For example if I state that I have faith in my abilities then that is usually because I have some past experience or evidence that I am indeed capable. In this case 2b(1) from above doesn’t fit.

So when the word, or in fact, any potentially disputable word, is used in a debate then the user should take pains to clarify which definition is being used.

In religious debates, the non-believer usually means 2b(1), but the religionist might insist on 2a(1) and claim that evidence is not needed in a religious framework. This inevitably leads to a deadlock because both parties are using different rules and definitions.

I have tried many times to confront the definitions of faith and have argued here numerous times with others over its usage. I have never achieved a satisfactory conclusion.

Faith seems to be one of those words that refuses to be tied down to a clear meaning. I now try to avoid it when I can, and dread the religionist who flaunts it and is also unaware of the variations. Sigh!

But within atheist texts faith will mean belief without evidence, and reason mean belief based on evidence. With this simplified view we can see that faith is the opposite of reason. Most religionists will not accept this argument.

Cris

Originally posted by Cris
But within atheist texts faith will mean belief without evidence, and reason mean belief based on evidence. With this simplified view we can see that faith is the opposite of reason.

The religious might claim to be using a priori evidence, though, so I think what you mean is empirical evidence. But doesn't that presuppose faith in the truth of empirical experience?

To get through regular life, everyone requires faith (meaning belief without evidence) in a number of basic ways. I think the difference is that faith is basically pragmatic for the atheist, while for the theist faith can override reason. So it's for the theist that faith is superior to reason, while for the atheist faith fills the areas reason can't solve.

The originally posted question defines faith as belief without proof, well that is a fine definition by me. Faith needs no proof, no definition, it is faith. My contention is that faith can not be defined, only experienced. At Kay's suggestion that we REASON this out let me clarify my previous posts flippancy.
The value of faith lies solely upon the individual. I have no desire to argue definitions with you esteemed members of sciforums. Yet my heart goes out to souls sitting by their computers searching for the meaning of faith. There is no meaning to faith. Faith in God, faith in the justice system, faith that you can walk the intersection without being hit- There is no need to analize faith.
Maybe the true question here is How can I believe without proof? Here is a leap outside the box that no explanation will suffice, but wanting to believe is a great step toward faith, and I sincerely hope you discover the capacity within yourself to cease explinations and questing after why. It is a valuable but over-rated experience.


Maelhavok

Well said Maelhavok, and welcome to the group.

Faith is a tautology. Such-and-such is a truth because I believe it is a truth. Faith based truths might or might not have validity outside the confines of the mind of the believer.

C.P. Snow defined science as:

"The refusal to believe on the basis of hope (faith).

However, G.K. Chesterton observed that:

"Reason itself is a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."

For some time I've been trying to come to grips with these apprently opposite viewpoints. I see good arguments for both sides. Few of us doubt the overwhelming utility of science and reason, yet few of us today are so naive as to view any given sytem of logic, mathematics, or even reason itself as capable of producing an ultimate truth. Perplexing...

Michael

I have something to ponder: Does part if not a majority of that faith in a partner or friend come from your strong feelings for them? Like an "equal and oppisite" idea, because you have strong feelings and are trustworthy you assume they are.

YES

Originally posted by Cactus Jack
I have something to ponder: Does part if not a majority of that faith in a partner or friend come from your strong feelings for them? Like an "equal and oppisite" idea, because you have strong feelings and are trustworthy you assume they are.

That sounds to me like you're trying to stamp your beliefs on someone else. They either live up to it, or lose your love?

Screw that. I'm for freedom.

The idea of monogamy is a useless hangover from a time when such a practice was required to "try" to ensure that a man's child was his own, and his wife was property. Unfortunately, the brain washing stuck so well we now regard it as being normal. How sad for the human race, that we can't unlearn.

That sounds to me like you're trying to stamp your beliefs on someone else. They either live up to it, or lose your love?

Wow wow wow, no no no. I meant when you believe someone loves you or has feelings of friendship for you that belief, that faith in them is based on how much of the same you have for them. Not some kind of standard to live up to.

Faith is a tautology. Such-and-such is a truth because I believe it is a truth.

I feel that faith is beyond such things as "truth". "Truth" to me is a concept of reason. Faith can't be described in that realm, matter of fact, can't be described at all... "Describing" itself is within the realm or reason.

Whoa, getting to friggin' deep here.



"Reason itself is a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."

Couldn't agree more here.

I'd like to add. Reason comes from deductive and inductive reasoning. All dedcutive reasoning eventually comes from inductive reasoning (I can explain this further if someone wants me to). All deductive reasoning comes from general observations. For instance, every day of my life the sun has risen, so I can infer that tomorrow the sun will rise. This is an inductive argument. It takes faith to say that the sun will rise tomorrow. Safety comes from past observation, but you don't know for sure that it will. All of inductive reasoning is like this; it's based on faith. Then given above, Reason in general is based on faith.

What do you guys and gals think?

-Xenu