My point is that 'faith' is best used to describe certain people's justification for gods. To use 'faith' to describe plane flight or crossing the road is a rhetorical tool used by apologists who like to equivocate on language to help them smuggle in their ideas. — Tom Storm

I don't think it's some sneaky rhetorical tool. The dictionary defines it in ways that have nothing to do with gods. Do you think your narrow use of the word is the norm or are you trying to promote a new norm?

Do you think your narrow use of the word is the norm or are you trying to promote a new norm? — flannel jesus

For the purposes of this OP I'm trying to promote a more precise use of the word. Whether you or anyone else don't care to use it my preferred way doesn't matter - we're just having a conversation about using the word faith, right?

I don't think it's some sneaky rhetorical tool. — flannel jesus

I didn't say it was 'sneaky'. It's an obvious rhetorical tool. When apologists say things like - 'Don't knock faith, you use it all the time, like when you catch a plane.' I say this is an equivocation. You can't compare faith in god with a 'reasonable confidence' in a quotidian matter, for reasons spelt out ad nauseam earlier in this thread.

Your position on this looks a lot like those odd people who turn up here sometimes, loudly calling for the end of belief. They seem to think belief only pertains to belief in God.

faith (n.)
mid-13c., faith, feith, fei, fai "faithfulness to a trust or promise; loyalty to a person; honesty, truthfulness," from Anglo-French and Old French feid, foi "faith, belief, trust, confidence; pledge" (11c.), from Latin fides "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," from root of fidere "to trust,"from PIE root *bheidh- "to trust, confide, persuade." — etymonline.com

You can't compare faith in god with a 'reasonable confidence' in a quotidian matter, for reasons spelt out ad nauseam earlier in this thread. — Tom Storm

Sure you can compare them. Not only can you, you SHOULD. You should be able to clearly articulate why confidence in one thing is more reasonable than confidence in the other, and you should be able to articulate that, I think, without just resorting to arguing about the definition of faith.

I think it's completely reasonable for you to say "they aren't the same thing", I just don't think the argument about why they're not the same thing relies on defining faith in a super narrow way such that they're only tautologically not the same thing

I think it's completely reasonable for you to say "they aren't the same thing", I just don't think the argument about why they're not the same thing relies on defining faith in a super narrow way such that they're only tautologically not the same thing — flannel jesus

Ok. I'll mull over this.

Your position on this looks a lot like those odd people who turn up here sometimes, loudly calling for the end of belief. They seem to think belief only pertains to belief in God. — Jamal

Really? Perhaps you formed this view because I was discussing 'faith' in god (as per Hebrews 11) and not belief more generally. Say some more so I understand your critique.

Then I suggest you use a dictionary to find you're wrong. — Vaskane

Seriously? You are going to use a dictionary to throw down the gauntlet on a philosophical forum? :-)

The thread is entitled “Types of faith. What variations are there?” (Emphasis added).

If you had initially identified your variation as a commonplace dictionary-type variation, then I would not have bothered to respond to the notion that "semantics here don't matter." Perhaps the below variation on faith would be more philosophically fruitful.

“It is commonplace to treat belief and faith as synonymous. . . but there are important
differences. . . Faith involves reliance and trust, and it endures in the face of doubts,
whereas belief is simply something we take to be true.” - Simon Laraway paraphrasing Mark Wrathall.

https://hum.byu.edu/difference-between-faith-and--belief#:~:text=Faith%20is%20a%20different%20thing,we%20take%20to%20be%20true.

Simply put, when it comes to the less commonplace variations on faith, semantics here do matter.

Believing works vis faith — Arne

Not every belief is faith, but every faith is a belief. How can belief work through faith if some beliefs are not faith at all?

Balthasar is interesting here which sort of flows from the older conception of Kantian Pure Reason, Practical Reason, and Judgement as Theoretical Reason, Practical Reason, and Aesthetic Reason, three united faculties attuned to the same Being.

In an important section, entitled ‘The Task and the Structure of a Theological Aesthetics’, Balthasar sets out the distinctions between ‘theological beauty’ and ‘worldly beauty’, establishes the analogical continuities between them, and reflects upon the internal characteristics of a faith which is understood to be a perceiving of the beautiful (GL1, 117–27).

As Balthasar remarks: ‘the form as it appears to us is beautiful only because the delight that it arouses in us is founded upon the fact that, in it, the truth and goodness of the depths of reality itself are manifested and bestowed, and this manifestation and bestowal reveal themselves to us as being something infinitely and inexhaustibly valuable and fascinating’ (GL1, 118).

The [medieval transcendental and later Romantic] tradition asserts that Being (which it would prefer to capitalize)has a certain luminosity and intrinsic attractiveness or splendour, and that it is linked in particular with the theme of eros, as the active principle of longing or attraction. This offers Balthasar an entirely new analysis of the ground of faith which is now removed from the propositional realm and is refigured as a ‘movement’ of the soul which is akin to the response we feel before the immense complexity of meaning, expression, and ‘form’ of a major work of art.

Perhaps more than any other feature of his work, Balthasar’s restructuring of faith opens up significant and hitherto unseen perspectives on the nature of the Christian life. At a single stroke, he breaks the link between faith and reason which has so dominated modern theological apologetics, while retaining faith’s cognitive character.

All I hear you saying is "blah blah blah, I don't know the definition of faith." — Vaskane

I remind you that what you choose to hear as "blah, blah, blah" is my response to your criticisms that I had not done my "due diligence" and that perhaps I should "consult a dictionary". I chose not to hear your criticisms as "blah, blah, blah."

The "blah, blah, blah" you choose to hear will become a deeper understanding if you instead choose to hear that common-place definitions are inadequate to uncovering meaningful variations of faith as solicited by the title of the OP, i.e., "Types of faith. What VARIATIONS are there?" (Emphasis added by me.).

You'll notice I never equated the two to be the same, so listing their differences is non sequitur. — Vaskane

You'll notice you "equated the two to be the same" by declaring "semantics here doesn't matter" and by subsequently offering commonplace definitions that either equate "faith" with "strong belief" or equate both as synonyms of the Latin word "fides". Consequently, my listing of their differences is in order.

In closing, I took your criticisms seriously and responded by offering a VARIATION in the concept of faith (as solicited by the title of the OP) that unequivocally asserts significant semantic differences between "faith" and "belief" and that is not encompassed by the common-place definitions you offer. Presuming you would give my criticisms the same good faith consideration I gave your criticisms is a mistake I will not make again.

I wish you nothing but the best.

Worms double down — Vaskane

Instead of proving the above by example, you could actually discuss the philosophical issues presented. Either way, your dictionary definition, your ad hominem skills, and your deeply profound contributions regarding the variations of faith are noted.

I'll be free from any TPF moderator backlash since you're digging for the meaning of my words. — Vaskane

What do moderators have to do with anything? Are you afraid I am going to tell on you? Though dealing with you would be more pleasant if you were not a bully, that is your problem to deal with. I have no desire to silence you or to adjust your poor behavior. And how un-philosophical of me to actually dig for the meaning of your words.

Semantics didn't matter was a nice way of me saying: don't be a dumbass — Vaskane

Though I appreciate your concern for my psychological development and emotional well-being, you are not my mother. You have no reason to believe that the fear of coming across as a dumbass (or any other fear) will silence me. It certainly hasn't silenced you.

a debate you never should have started because you were completely ignorant about — Vaskane

I again remind you that the discussion began in earnest when I took seriously your suggestions that I exercise "due diligence" and that I should "consult a dictionary." I make no claim to be any more or less ignorant on the subject than anyone else. But you have said nothing to indicate your ignorance is any less complete than mine.

I wish you nothing but the best.

My question came about because of the use of the word 'confidence', which I had laid out in a different context earlier, as an alternative to faith. — Tom Storm

That is an interesting notion. Yet if we think about the way people use the words, I would expect someone's confidence to be more easily eroded than their faith. And couldn't one lose their and still have faith?

I often think of faith as a measure of how deeply a belief is held. Isn't faith what we cling to when our beliefs are under serious attack and our confidence is waning? When it comes to our deepest beliefs, maybe faith is just the last thing we let go of.

Perhaps faith as opposed to confidence a person is more likely to put something at stake to represent the sentiment?

Like a person sky diving and trusting their god and religious beliefs with protect them. They literally put their life at risk. I suppose thrill is the main reason for sky diving so maybe an example more along the lines of joining the military is better.

Meanwhile confidence that isn't faith is making conclusion about the odds, but without really risking anything to make a point?

Meanwhile confidence that isn't faith is making conclusion about the odds, but without really risking anything to make a point? — TiredThinker

I agree.

Though I suspect "confidence" and "faith" are related, I would not consider them synonyms. Generally, one's confidence is more easily eroded than one's faith? And people having the same degree of faith may not necessarily have the same degree of confidence? And wouldn't people be more likely to rely upon faith when their confidence wanes than to rely upon confidence when their faith wanes? They are not the same.

Your whole point was to counter what I said. — Vaskane

This is a philosophical forum. This matter began when I had the temerity to challenge your claim that "semantics here does not matter." How dare I! But instead of arguing the issue, you chose to bully, demean, and spew ad hominem in each and every one of your responses.

You can either attempt to persuade me that I am wrong regarding the issue or you can carry on bullying, demeaning, and spewing ad hominem. But doing the latter will not make you right.

Either way, Nietzsche will not help you and I ain't goin' nowhere.

load of dog shit — Vaskane

an ignorant fool — Vaskane

worm-like reason — Vaskane

a push over. — Vaskane

You are nothing if not consistent (bullying, demeaning, spewing ad hominem).

It is bad faith to an absurd degree to declare my point to be anything other than the only issue I have argued and the only issue to which I have repeatedly pointed, i.e., your claim that "semantics here does not matter." And since you have chosen to not even engage on the issue to which I have repeatedly pointed, there would be no point to moving the goal posts.

As for being a pushover, since you have yet to even engage on the issue in a reasonable, manner, you may rest assured that I am still standing. And it will take a lot more than anything you have shown to push me over. Seriously, a dictionary?

So I reiterate, you can engage on the issue or you can carry on bullying, demeaning, and spewing ad hominem. But you will not persuade without argument

Either way, I am still here and I am still standing.

Are moderators observing this conversation?

You are using the claim for the purpose of your argument.

If the matter is as inconsequential as you suggest, your insult is equally stupid.

If something is far enough beneath you, why bother with it?

Who made you the one who corrects?

Perhaps faith as opposed to confidence a person is more likely to put something at stake to represent the sentiment?

Like a person sky diving and trusting their god and religious beliefs with protect them. They literally put their life at risk. I suppose thrill is the main reason for sky diving so maybe an example more along the lines of joining the military is better.

Meanwhile confidence that isn't faith is making conclusion about the odds, but without really risking anything to make a point? — TiredThinker

Like @Tom Storm, I'm someone who doesn't usually use the word faith, unless it's a religious context, and even then usually only when a believer brings it up first. Tom Storm said the following:

To use 'faith' to describe plane flight or crossing the road is a rhetorical tool used by apologists who like to equivocate on language to help them smuggle in their ideas. — Tom Storm

I relate to this. There's a bit of a difference with me, since I usually don't have to deal with apologetics. Austria, where I live, is a fairly secular country, so the you-have-faith-too line is something I've only ever encountered on the internet. It's not a thing around here.

But the point is this:

Atheist: I don't believe in God, that's all.
Theist: But you have faith, too. For example, everytime you [insert examples, say the ones from Tom Storm's post].

And, my intuitive response to this is pretty similar to Storm's: that's just not faith. But other than him, I don't see "confidence" as an alternative. I'll have to backtrack a bit at this point:

When I read your opening post, my immediate question was: what is faith to you in the first place? I can't talk about types of faith without having a clear idea of where you draw the line. My own concept of "faith" is fairly narrow: a type of trust in a person (or person-like entity to account for the religious use) backed by some sort of commitment to that person (or person-like entity).

In that sense, I could actually sort of go with the apologetic usage "but you have faith, too," to some degree. It's helpful to understand how they relate to god, in a metaphoric way. When I cross the street I put my faith in the drivers; they will not run me over. When I get on a plane, I put my faith in lots of people: engineers and pilots come to mind. And so on.

Except I don't think that's actually happening. One crucial element of faith, trust-in-a-person and religious version alike, is that the commitment to trust backs me up in a moment of doubt. But the thing is this: if I walk across a street and suddenly a car speeds towards me, I'll do my best to get out of the way. Whatever I supposedly have faith in, it's certainly not that particular driver in that particular moment. If this were a type of faith, I should just be walking across the street as always. I have faith in the traffic system. It cannot fail me. That car will stop. The traffic light's green, after all. Faith, in this sort of situation, would cause me to act like a self-endangering idiot.

If the but-you-have-faith-too rhetoric targets me, I could accept that and use it as basis of definition of what faith means to the believer. So, when I get on a plane or cross a street, do I think I can never be hit by a car, or that planes never crash? Obviously not. That which I put my faith in is fallible; I know it to be fallible; and that faith is predicated on that fallibility. I need to put my faith in say a pilot or car drivers, precisely because I know they could mess up and harm me (or even deliberately harm me, who knows?). This works for person-faith, too: you commit to your relationships; you don't let go of that trust easily. And in turn you attempt to act trustworthy, too.

But abstract enough, apply it to God, and I, an atheist, am left with... nothing that makes sense. What it looks like to me is this: From early on, you put your trust in God the way you put your trust in your parents. And by the time you differentiate between fallible people and the triple-omni God, that faith is in place and it needs a target. The meaning of the concept is quite literally what you put your faith in. Basically, faith constitutes God by way of the trust-people metaphor.

But obviously that's not going work very well as common ground between me and a believer. So now we can have alternative concepts that - to some degree - does serve as common ground; at the very least we'll know where we part ways if we can figure this out. "Confidence" though doesn't do the trick for me, mostly because I think it's a red herring.

What I think happens when we cross a street or board a plane is that we have implicit working assumptions which are based less on confidence than on habit. We just don't think about what can go wrong until there are signs that things might go wrong. I think that's just basic human behaviour. How we react to having these habitual working assumptions challenged depends on the person. Me, personally? "Shit happens" is more likely to calm me down than "everything's going to be all right," for example. Other people might find that putting faith in the pilot might calm them down. Either way, the plane's either going to crash or not.

This where we segue into you example: Sky diving. A repeat quote, more selective this time:

Like a person sky diving and trusting their god and religious beliefs with protect them. They literally put their life at risk.
...
Meanwhile confidence that isn't faith is making conclusion about the odds, but without really risking anything to make a point? — TiredThinker

They both literally risk their lives. Risk isn't the difference.

In my experience, putting faith in God usually doesn't mean that theists feel safer. The Christians I know, were they praying for a save landing, wouldn't few the prayer as some sort of petition. They take the risk, and they take the responsibility. It's not about being safe; it's about re-affirming the relationship. If things go wrong, maybe God will save them, or maybe He won't. He'll know best. Sky divers don't want to die. Sky divers likely won't die. Most of them don't. But should the worst happen? Well, they can only hope they lived the best life they could, and there's always heaven (actually, the details are up in the air). People who put their faith in God affirm a relationship, not some sort of confidence in an unknown outcome (like surviving sky diving unhurt). Christian sky divers might risk their life, but their faith protects them from risking their relationship with God, should things go south.

Atheist sky divers certainly risk their life in the same way. And should they put faith in their own abilities, they might risk their pride (and that faith could lead them to blame, say, manufactures of equipment and prevent them from seeing their own short comings; which won't matter much if they die, but could be disastrous if they survive with wounds and go on to make the same mistakes again). But they can't (from their own perspective) risk their relationship with God; they don't have one.

So up until now I've treated faith as trust in a person or person-like entity; but you can actually direct a similar energy towards your habits (like, say, rational thought). It's served you well until now. It's, I think, a variant of putting faith in yourself: when I do this I succeed, and if I don't it's not my problem. (I'm a rational atheist; those are irrational theists... and such.) Come to think of it, this is where "confidence" comes in after all. I have no trouble of thinking of that as some kind of "faith". The difference seems to me mostly... rhetorical?

I think what faith and confidence have in common is that they can help you stay calm when your habits show signs of failing you. Faith is the ultimate skill in that respect; I suck at it. I don't mind much, though, since faith tends to lower you perception skills when in use. I do mind some, since anxiety - what happens to me when my habits are failing me - also lowers my perception skills. The trouble with the faith skill is that it activates when not needed, too.

Maybe I could express the difference between confidence and faith like this (I couldn't tell what the sentence means, though):

It's quite easy to be overconfident, but you'll never have enough faith.

In that case, why assume a point of view above the arguments, where your judgements regarding others are given special regard?

I figured something like that was underway.

With that metric, you can sort all things with little effort..

I was referring to your efforts. But the example provided is interesting.

You have made your point of view clear. Your descriptions of other points of views are arrogant.

Ad hominems — Vaskane

You are using your bullying, demeaning, and spewing of ad hominem in place of an argument in support of your claim that "semantics here does not matter." Fortunately, philosophy does not work that way.

So if I may reiterate, you can either make an argument in support of your claim that "semantics here does not matter" or you can continue bullying, demeaning and attacking me. It matters not to me.

Either way, I will wait here.

How fucking dumb are you? — Vaskane

Impressive: bullying, demeaning, and spewing ad hominem all in a single sentence.

Again, this is the Philosophy Forum. Instead of providing a dictionary as support for my position, I responded by providing you a synopsis of the supporting views (including a link thereto) of Oxford Professor of Philosophy Mark Wrathall. (he may have retired recently.). I presumed you would find the views of an eminent philosopher more persuasive than a dictionary. Silly me.

Of course, it is possible that you did not understand what Professor Wrathall had to say. After all, I believe that is the point at which you said all you were hearing was "blah, blah, blah." I am pleased to note your hearing seems to have improved a bit.

I use dictionaries as needed. But their necessarily colloquial nature renders them ill suited to philosophy. I have never used one as a primary (let alone only) source of support. Indeed, my experience suggests that people who do use dictionaries as a primary (let alone only) source of support within the context of philosophy usually do not know what they are talking about.

And that is how dumb I am.

I wish you nothing but the best.

I will crush you here — Vaskane

your worm-like reason — Vaskane

Read Nietzsche — Vaskane

Thanks for the recommendation on Nietzsche. Though Heidegger is the philosopher I tend to read most, you may rest assured I have read far more Nietzsche than the average person.

I wish you nothing but the best.