Dear George,

You wrote: "For instance, I do not understand what “following the demands of faith”. I only understand “following the demands” of a religious leader/authority, guru, scripture, one’s conscience."

I agree with the above. I should not have used the expression. I also agree with the rest of your two posts.

We have differing beliefs and worldviews, but I find your logic compelling.

from george/link..[last post]<<..in order..to communicate..
we have..to agree..on a common-language,..that includes>>..clearly defined..<<..definitions..of abstract/terms used...

(We already..seem to agree..that..
we mean..different things..by..“exists”.)>>..

i feel..the same..in this case..re faith
[everything..we havn't..*OF our OWN life/experienced..we..*must take on faith

like you said..george..[faith..in evolution]
i.DID*..have faith..in..the science..CLAIMED..by eolution
but..then via..*my own..facts/research/experience..[mainly via pigeons/goats/chicken/fish..breeding]..i concluded..it works...*only within*...egzisting genus

evolution..*never has..*confirmed..any..
[not_one..change of genus]..ever

if..its supposed..to/be science
time and again..people..have failed..to PRESENT..its falsifiable

[via..Mendelian/ratio's..mendalism..alone refutes]..

of..examples..people have..presented..NOT one.*changed genus
not..ring /species..not dogs[all*canus genus]..not darwins/finches..[that are still*finches]..

none presented..have changed..*my KNOWN/KNOWN'S..over faith..in..others..presumed/knowns

i concluded..that taxonomic/phenotype..*[looks like]
...has..deceived many..[as science..has found many ways
to*..any of the features..upon which..the deceptive..is linked..via taxonomy

[the..so called..*tree of life/project..
found..when dna..[genotype]..was egzamined....the tree*..became a forest

i feel..there is faith..without reason
faith..with probable reasoning
and faith based..on trust..
sans reason

same/post<<..I used..the term..“belief”..ONLY as the
conscious*act..of choosing....[intellectual consent..is probably a better word,>>

i agree..faith..*blindly..informed..[knowable faith
and..of course..faithlessness..[ab-sense of faith]
in itself..barely faith..yet..sans proof..IS..a faith..none the less

<<..although..it also..has a meaning deeper>>

<<“Faith..treated as..belief alone
is reduced to..intellectual/consent”>>

<<>.Perhaps..it corresponds..to the..“belief
its..merely a mental activity”...

In Western/language..one..usually distinguishes
between fides..and fiducia,..>>..[responsabily]?

..fides..corresponding to..belief,..
the latter..perhaps..is what..you have in mind..[with..“spirituality”.]

<<John Cardinal/Newman..explicitly uses..the term..*assent..for belief,..whereas..the Lutheran Paul/Tillich has..assensus for belief..or intellectual consent.

The Jewish thinker Martin/Buber..distinguishes
between..the Greek word pistis..and the Hebrew Emunah,
corresponding..more or less to..fides and fiducia

So..in Western language,..it is
the fiducia/Emunah..component..of faith..
that perhaps correspond..to your “spiritual proclivity”.

The neuroscientist Andrew/Newberg’s..research,..referred to..in my posts above,..seems to support..your claim..that..“we already come to the world..*with spiritual proclivities”.

In the same sense..that we are born*
with mathematical..and many other “proclivities”?

After all,..it depends on..what you mean..by”proclivities”,
and..at least as far as spiritual proclivities..are concerned..many will disagree.>>

lets hope so
how boring would life be..
if only certain..certainties..were allowed egsistance

thank god..*for freewill
the one thing..we dont need to..TAKE*..on faith

is faith..*given..created/formed..informed..or taken?
sure..it may be despoiled/..refuted..with knowing..or enforced*/ridiculed or put down..

but..yet..we..each
got..our own faith..in each-other/others..[or not]

such..a slippery word*

i recall..two examples of faith..betrayed..[in music]
rick/nelson..[garden party]

and a more recent..egsample..
from..the jacksons/live album..where michael..like rick
WANTED..toplay..their new songs..yet..played the old..cauuse the audience felt betrayed

they wanted that they wanted to hear
and felt their faith betrayed..when they NEEDED to do new songs

I went to a garden party to reminisce with my old friends
A chance to share old memories and play our songs again
When I got to the garden party, they all knew my name
No one recognized me, I didn't look the same

CHORUS
But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well.
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself

People came from miles around, everyone was there
Yoko brought her walrus, there was magic in the air
'n' over in the corner, much to my surprise
Mr. Hughes hid in Dylan's shoes wearing his disguise

CHORUS

lott-in-dah-dah-dah, lot-in-dah-dah-dah

Played them all the old songs, thought that's why they came
No one heard the music, we didn't look the same
I said hello to "Mary Lou", she belongs to me
When I sang a song about a honky-tonk, it was time to leave

CHORUS

lot-dah-dah-dah (lot-dah-dah-dah)
lot-in-dah-dah-dah

Someone opened up a closet door and out stepped Johnny B. Goode
Playing guitar like a-ringin' a bell and lookin' like he should
If you gotta play at garden parties, I wish you a lotta luck
But if memories were all I sang, I rather drive a truck

CHORUS

lot-dah-dah-dah (lot-dah-dah-dah)
lot-in-dah-dah-dah

'n' it's all right now, learned my lesson well
You see, ya can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT6bgyimP8g

Dear David,

.

« Etymology tells us the source of a word. It does not tell its meaning. Meaning is determined by usage. The meaning of the word faith is generally belief without evidence to support that belief.”

.

That is part of the story, but I think there is more. Etymology tells us the source of a word and the meaning of that source which is the essence of the meaning of the word.

Latin is a “dead” language which no longer evolves. The language we are using here, English, is “alive” and continues to evolve according to its usage or application in various domains by particular social groupes.

The essence of the meaning remains unchanged. It is the particular usage in particular domains by particular social groups which changes.
You are obviously referring to “religious” faith which, I agree, is a particular usage of the word “faith” in a particular domain by a particular social group.

In this context, I would prefer to say that "religious" faith is where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness.

Perhaps I should explain that my perspective of the word faith is tainted by my forty years’ experience in international insurance and risk management. Unlike all other commercial contracts based on the legal principle of “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware), or more recently, due to the influence of growing consumerism, “caveat venditor” (let the seller beware), insurance contracts are based on the legal principle of “uberrima fidès” (utmost good faith).

“Uberrima fidès” is the basis on which all insurances are contracted throughout the world with no exception. It means that the contract must be made in perfect good faith, concealing nothing. The insured must observe the most perfect good faith towards the insurer. Insurance is granted on the basis of the declarations of the insured in “utmost good faith”, perhaps, by a simple telephone call. It does not have to be in writing in order to be legally binding.

.

(Continued) ...

.

.

(Continued) ...

.

It is only when the insured makes a claim on his policy due to the occurrence of an insured event, perhaps many years later, that the loss may be investigated by an independent professional loss adjuster.

To put this in context, perhaps I should mention that the US insurance industry collected $1.1 trillion in 2012 or 7% of GDP, compared to the automobile industry which represents between 4% to 5% of GDP.

The US insurance market represents about a third of the world market so, as you can imagine, that makes a lot of insurance contracts – all based on utmost good faith.

The insurance deals I have participated in, such as the construction of the Eurotunnel, Euro Disney here in Paris, several Olympic Games as well as a number of worldwide insurance and risk management programs for major multinational industrial groups, have all been based on utmost good faith.

They all involved a series of tough negotiations over a period of several months with the negotiating teams of all the interested parties (industrialists, banks, lawyers, insurers and their respective consultants) but it was always clear in everybody’s mind around the negotiating table that we were negotiating in utmost good faith.

Perhaps that will throw some light on why I see the word “faith”, in essence, as “trust, confidence » but with all its nuances depending on the particular context in terms of social groupes and circumstances.

.

Gear George,

.

Yes, of course, in the French language, faith and belief are two different concepts, faith meaning as described above and belief meaning “to accept as correctly representing the truth”.

.

Dear Banjo,

Since I was not using the word, faith, to refer to the attitude into which contractual obligations are entered into we are not referring to the same thing.

However, I disagree with your statement: “Etymology tells us the source of a word and the meaning of that source which is the essence of the meaning of the word.”

I frequently consult “Origins” which is an etymological dictionary. Apparently the word, girl, derives from Low German goere which means a young person of either sex. Call a little boy a girl, and tell him that is the essence of the meaning. He probably will not like it. The same word may even have opposite meanings, and the opposite meanings may have different etymologies. Cleave may mean come together as in man and wife cleave to each other. It may mean separate as describing what a cleaver does. In the case of the word cleave the two opposite meanings have distinct etymologies. Cleave meaning ‘come together’ developed from the Latin glus and Greek glia meaning glue. Cleave meaning ‘separate’ developed from the Greek gluphein meaning to carve. The meaning of the word, cleave, can only be understood by the context in which it is used, and the etymology is no help at all. I don’t think there is such a thing as the essence of a meaning of a word as meanings of words change. To understand what a word means we have to know what it meant at the time it was used.

In Shelley’s poem “Ozymandias” there are the lines:

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.

At the time Shelley wrote the poem mock meant to copy accurately. If we give the word the current meaning we don’t understand what Shelley meant.