.

Dear George,

.

I understand your quandary with regard to the appropriate word for religious adherence.

I don’t think it’s a question of philosophy of religion but of semantics.

In fact, I don’t think the distinction between “belief” and “faith” is specific to religion. It is a general distinction.

If I may quote what I consider to be the most authoritative English language source, the OED, it indicates the following definition for the word “belief”:

“An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof ”

For “faith”, the OED indicates the following definition :

“Complete trust or confidence in someone or something”

As you rightly suggest, it is quite subtle, but the germ of the distinction is in the definitions and simply needs to be amplified a little in order for us to see it more clearly and get a better understanding of it.

What it means is that “belief” is qualifying perception or information as “fact” rather than “fiction”. Whereas “faith” is having “complete confidence in somebody or something”.

Naturally, we have to “believe” that somebody or something exists before we can have “faith” in him/her or it. However, we do not have to “believe” what he/she or it says or does in order to have “faith” in him/her or it. The qualification of “fact” or “fiction” does not depend on our “faith”. It depends on our “belief”.

As we all know, somebody may be compelled to lie in particular circumstances. That does not prevent us from having “faith” in that person.

Also, allow me to add that commercial contracts are based on the legal principle of “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware), whereas insurance contracts are based on the legal principle of “uberrima fides” (utmost good faith). The difference is due to the fact that insurance is invisible which makes it more difficult for the buyer to judge the quality of what he is buying compared to a house or a car or some material product.

He is obliged to place his trust in the insurer (the seller), not the product.

.

Dear Banjo,

<<Naturally, we have to “believe” that somebody or something exists before we can have “faith” in him/her or it.>>

Why?

We can still have complete trust or confidence in someone or something even if we never heard the word "existence" or ever entertained a similar concept.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Your question brings to mind Bertrand Russel’s « Flying teapot » :

http://russellsteapot.net/

Of course it is possible to have faith in something which does not exist. Of the current world population of 7.4 billion people, I understand that roughly 6.3 billion (85%) profess to have faith in a god or gods that does not exist or do not exist.

Only 1.1 billion people (15%) are estimated to come under the category of those considered to be “religiously unaffiliated” (atheists, agnostics and “very ordinary persons” such as myself) :

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

To be perfectly complete, perhaps I should add that my mind remains open to possible future evidence which may prompt me to revise my position on this question as on all and any others that I may hold during my lifetime.

.

Dear Banjo,

<<Of course it is possible to have faith in something which does not exist>>

Not only the above is not what I wrote, but it is not even possible: how can one talk about "something which does not exist", let alone have faith in "it"? If "it" doesn't exist, then "it" is not something!

The case that I presented was quite different: It is quite possible, in contrast with your earlier statement, that:
1. Someone/Something, 'A', exists.
2. Person 'P' has faith in (completely trusts) 'A'.
3. Person 'P' does not believe that 'A' exists.

One possible explanation (but not the only) to this situation is that 'P' has no concept of "existence".

Now since you mentioned God, there is no such contradiction there because He neither exists nor is someone/something, thus if you insist on this particular definition of "faith" (“Complete trust or confidence in someone or something”), then it follows that no-one can have faith in God.

I would like to say that I do have faith in God, I intuitively feel I do and the fact that He doesn't exist doesn't deter me in the least (in fact the contrary), but according to this narrow definition which you chose, that is not even logically possible.

<<To be perfectly complete, perhaps I should add that my mind remains open to possible future evidence which may prompt me to revise my position on this question>>

And the question is?

Toni Lavis,

Yes, it was in anticipation of reactions like yours that I did not use the word to indicate by analogy what I had in mind. As for the rest of your objections, they apply to most of what philosophers (or e.g. theoretical physicists) write. My only advise is, just do not read things that you can understand only as “pointless and long-winded euphemisms” that upset you.

AJ Philips,

>>I’m not sure why my question was silly<<

Compare with “how does this text (written in Turkish) differ from a gibberish”. For me it does not differ because I do not speak Turkish but I accept that to Turks it might make sense. "Silly" was a mild word to indicate offensiveness - for some it is "credulity" for others "gibberish."

>> It presumes that those who reject certain beliefs must necessarily lack the ability to understand them.<<

You have a point here. Certainly one can make valuable contributions to the understanding of religion as a phenomenon by professional psychologists, sociologists, even philosophers, irrespective of what they believe or don’t believe.

On the other hand, you can accept or reject a belief only in the way you understand it, i.e. the concepts, relations etc used to express that belief. I certainly reject the belief in the existence of God as a supreme being among other beings, which is how the concept of God is understood by the “good old lady” (and many philosophically unsophisticated Christians), as well as, apparently, also Richard Dawkins, although she believes in Him and he does not. Many theologians say, they do not believe either in a God Dawkins shows arguments against. See also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17951#318961 or http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16226#282668.

Other, e.g. Christian, tenets do not make sense if you do not believe in God (although if you interpret them naively - no other possibility for the “good old lady” and her unbeliever counterpart - they can clash with what is known from science, history, psychology etc

Dear Banjo,

I agree but my concern was only with the (religious) meaning of these words as used by theologians and philosophers of (Western) religion. This was explicit in http://www.gvirsik.de/Faith%20versus%20belief.pdf: “Of course, both belief and faith have their respective meanings also outside the religious context but that is not my concern here.”

Anyhow, if the difference was that simple, scholars would not have had to invent foreign (Latin, Greek, Hebrew) words for it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As we know, you obviously have a non-standard meaning for the verb exist, since you claimed e.g. that you yourself do not exist.

On the other hand, you could also refer to Paul Tillich’s “God does not exist.  He is being-itself beyond essence and existence.  Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” (Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, Chicago UP 1951, p. 205) or “It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being.” (ibid, p. 237).