|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Faith article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4|
|Faith has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
Atheist contributions are heavily biased in this attempt for an fact based article about faith
This "talk" section was titled "11 million Mormons, one third of which is active, and they get the bulk of this article?" and it contained this content: "This page has obviously been run over with Mormon content. Not proportionally representative of the varying views. It appears we have some zealous Mormon editors." The above editor should substantiate her claims, they come across as personal attacks.
In my opinion there is an obvious lack of LDS content in this article (no mention that a correct understanding of Christ is necessary to have faith, no mention in regard to faith that God is no respecter of persons, etc.); however, it is very heavy with atheist content.
Atheistic Substantiations: Heavy emphasis on transcendence in the summary; Usefulness of faith in the here and now (present) is deleted (eg., any reference to self-help authors are deleted: Think and Grow Rich or Psycho-Cybernetics); Any description that "faith" is based on "evidence" is summarily deleted (never improved upon, just deleted with inaccurate comments); Heavy emphasis on Fideism; Clumsily forcing in William James, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins; Ending the article with the "CRITICISM" instead of the "REBUTTAL."
Shouldn't a religious definition sit aside a non-religious one ESPECIALLY for an article that is supposedly part of a Wikipedia "project" on "religion?" Why won't the atheist editors allow Wikipedia articles to contain religious definitions that describe religion from the point of view of the religious? Doesn't it make sense that the religious should be able to explain their religious experience? Why look to the CRITIC for a description of how it FEELS to be on stage?
Theists contributors must accept criticism and allow neutral definitions
The general definition must mirror the entire article, not only suit specific religious dogmas or beliefs.
- The problem is with the definition of faith being without empirical evidence, which would disallow the normal use of faith in the Bible, as if Israel simply got a notice saying "obey me, I am God," rather than abundant miracles preceding the covenant. For beginners,
- American biblical scholar [Archibald Thomas Robertson]] states that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" and Acts 17:31), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence."  Likewise Tom Price (Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics) affirms that when the New Testament talks about faith positively it only uses words derived from the Greek root [pistis] which means "to be persuaded."
- In contrast to faith meaning blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence, Alister . McGrath quotes Oxford Anglican theologian W. H. Griffith-Thomas, (1861-1924), who states faith is "not blind, but intelligent" and "commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence...", which McGrath sees as "a good and reliable definition, synthesizing the core elements of the characteristic Christian understanding of faith."
- Peter S Williamsholds that "the classic Christian tradition has always valued rationality, and does not hold that faith involves the complete abandonment of reason will believing in the teeth of evidence." Quoting Moreland, faith is defined as "a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true."
- Regarding "doubting Thomas" in John 20:24-31, Williams points out that "Thomas wasn't asked to believe without evidence." He was asked to believe on the basis of the other disciples' testimony. Thomas initially lacked the first-hand experience of the evidence that had convinced them... Moreover, the reason John gives for recounting these events is that what she saw is evidence... Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples...But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name. John 20:30,31. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Faith as commitment
Removed the section "Faith as commitment" because as it stands it is not well written section. If someone wants to re-write it, get the text from history.
(reasoning in italics): Sometimes, faith means a belief in a relationship with a deity. redundant.
In this case, "faith" is used in the sense of "fidelity." not explained
For many Jews, the Hebrew Bible and Talmud depict a committed but contentious relationship between their God and the Children of Israel. This is covered in "Judaism" with a link to "Main article: Jewish principles of faith"
For a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identity, for example a person who identifies himself or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. way to generic for an article that goes into so much detail elsewhere, maybe add to intro?
According to Michael Green (theologian) faith is "Self-commitment on the basis of evidence". unreferenced, if included it needs expanding and explanation.
With reference to this article on Faith "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith", you forgot to include the Sikh Faith. Kindly reseach and include that to this section, because like Hindu, Christianity, Buddhu, and Islam faiths, Sikh faith is a major world religion. Thanks. Good work on the article!
Varying Degrees of Evidential Warrant
I have removed a comment in the opening to this article which stated that faith can be seen as 'confidence based upon a degree of evidential warrant (as in a Biblical sense)'. The citation used did not at all support the comment made - indeed the reference used does not mention degrees of evidential warrant. I firmly state that using the citation in this sense is in contradiction with the published reference. It seems clear to me that the author of the cited work is explaining to the reader that "the biblical definition of faith is not believing when there is no reason". Whilst this would satisfy the phrase 'degree of evidential warrant', it is better suited to the first description of faith in the article as 'confidence or trust in a ... deity', thus making the use in the opening entirely irrelevent. I've left the citation below if you want to check it.
- It appears that your objection, "indeed the reference used does not mention degrees of evidential warrant," is based on understanding the following is not constituting that versus simply "confidence or trust in a ... deity:"
- "We need to be ready to burst the bubble of those who think we should be left alone to believe what we want, and then encourage them to build their faith on the rocks of reality. All beliefs are not created equal, you can be sure without being (absolutely) certain, and powerful reasons to believe the Christian worldview is true can tip people in the right direction."
- The author has been arguing for faith being a reasonable faith, referencing how Luke prefaced his gospel, in which he recorded the testimony of eyewitnesses so that his subject would know "the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed," as reminding us "of the importance of a reasonable foundation for Christian belief," as Luke "went on to provide a solid platform for knowing the truth." (p. 100)
- McLellan goes on to explain that his "faith was secured on many good reasons to believe that it was true-- both evidential and existential," (p. 112)
- Therefore he does support faith as being based on varying degrees of evidential warrant, and which is more than simply having "belief in a deity...even without empirical evidence." Thus rather than the citation used "not at all supporting the comment," or being "in contradiction with the published reference," or irrelevant, it manifestly does support it, and is warranted, though pages 100, 112 also should be noted. Yet if you still consider the removal of the reference as justified, it could be easily replaced by another source, such as that of John Lennox in the evangelical faith section. However, I believe that what was removed can be restored, with the additional page numbers.
- You can do more searching within the book on Amazon. ~
- I see, as expected, that someone (anonymous) removed the balanced intro, leaving faith to be belief that is not based on proof as per the atheist POV, despite what researchers state is manifest in the Bible. Thus it was restored, and referenced. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Confidence, trust and faith
The article begins with "Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof", however confidence or trust in people and things is based on proof and performance. We trust, have confidence in, cars, computers, planes etc based on proven performance, which is quite different from faith in beliefs, deities, santa. Confidence and trust are earnt, faith is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Robertson, Archibald Thomas. WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. pp. Chapter 17.
- Price, Thomas. ""Faith is about 'just trusting' God isn't It?". Retrieved 23 January 2014.
- McGrath, Alister E. (2008). The Order of Things: Explorations in Scientific Theology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 33. ISBN ISBN-10: 140512556X Check
- Williams, Peter S (2013). A Faithful Guide to Philosophy: A Christian Introduction to the Love of Wisdom. Authentic Media. pp. Chapter 1.4. ISBN 1842278118.
- Alex, McLellan (2008). A Jigsaw Guide to Making Sense of the World. InterVarsity Press. pp. 107, 108. ISBN 9780830866588.