|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Faith article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|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:|
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?
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!
Introduction - belief without proof
I (reference missing :-) )have removed from the initial comment in the introduction the reference to lack of proof. This has no basis in the reference provided, and limits the meaning of the term 'faith' to only one of many that exist. I am not saying that the term faith implies that there is proof, but it most certainly does not imply lack of it either. If the reference given is examined, this explanation of faith represents only one of seven definitions initially given. It would thus be entirely false to use it as the basis for the article. Perhaps more work on a full definition should be done.
- I am amazed that this article has gone out in the form it has. It promotes faith as chiefly being some sort of religious phenomenon, when in fact the word itself simply refers to an expectation of a series of possible outcomes given specific starting criteria. There is little distinction in the article between religious/BLIND faith, which operates without any reference to valid unambiguous evidence to support a particular stance, and in some cases may be in spite of evidence to the contrary, and JUSTIFIED faith, which is evidence based.
- Blind faith - prayer to a god will ALWAYS results in an answer, whether it is the desired one, or even noticable without "discernment"
- Justified Faith - my chair will not collapse under me, as it didn't collapse yesterday, and one hundred days previously, and looks the same, with no signs of weakness.
- I feel that the article should increase the explanation of faith WITHOUT the entire article being turned over to some sort of thing about religious faith from all sorts of different religions, or it should be renamed as RELIGIOUS FAITH or BLIND FAITH184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Lance Tyrell
- I (4tytwo) had originally inserted the word "evidence that is not proof" instead of based on the absence of proof to give faith it's logically coherent definition
"Faith: Trust in the truth-value of the object of faith based on evidence that is not proof" This reference is valid for faith in the context of Religion, personal relationships and science as it addresses the element of trust required to progress due to the inability to obtain proof. This helps the reader to understand the incoherence of the atheist populist definition of "belief without evidence" for what it is, as it is the evidence that makes us belief. A belief as a cognitive process requires evidence and the evidence is actually causal to the belief formation - unless you claim that like an atheist you have you want to argue a non-cognitive process you have based on the perceived absence of evidence If you have problems with the absence of proof you have problems with evidence as all my scientific test results are evidence for the possibility of my theory only. The only time they are proof is when they falsify a theory. Hard to accept but the reality
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Faith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130204141603/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030144700/http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html to http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.