anyone have a better embed?

Oh Maher... you need to learn the meaning of words; first "atheism", now faith?

>> ^hpqp:

Oh Maher... you need to learn the meaning of words; first "atheism", now faith?


Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity. He can have faith that they will be good guests because he has confidence built up by previous visits.

Damn good point. Faith has nothing to do with evidence or logical expectation.

Faith in a future positive outcome based partially on evidence of past performance.
Is there something wrong with that?

Degrasse Tyson 2012?

Faith vs blind faith.

-Neil " you have evidence you will have a good show "



OH SNAP ! !

Maher is also right about a common alternate meaning. If you say to someone, "I have faith in your ability", you're expressing a trust and confidence in them which is earned. The exact opposite of religious faith.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^hpqp:
Oh Maher... you need to learn the meaning of words; first "atheism", now faith?

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity. He can have faith that they will be good guests because he has confidence built up by previous visits.


Oxford English Dictionary:

a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, †of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.

You are right that people sometimes use the words "faith" and "trust" interchangeably, something I deplore, since trust is evidence-based (people "earn" our trust by proving themselves trustworthy), while faith, in it's original sense, is not. I realize I am nitpicking though.

When a Christian is talking about faith, he is talking evidence of things unseen. While I don't see God on a daily basis, I have evidence based on my experience that God is who He says He is, therefore I trust Him and have faith in His promises. Bill had evidence that he had quality guests due to the his experiences with them in the past, therefore he trusted them and had faith it would have a good show. Could he absolutely prove they would be good guests? No. But he had enough evidence to have faith that they would be. Was his faith unreasonable or unreasoned? No. It was sound reasoning, and it turned out to be a good show (if you like bill maher).

When atheists think of faith in God, they think of blind faith (because they don't see any evidence). Christians do see evidence based on their experience with God, just as Bill Maher saw evidence based on his experience with his guests. It doesn't matter if you can see one and not the other; it's the same essential concept. Christians see evidence of God regardless of whether atheists do or not; enough evidence, for me more than sufficient, to place our faith in God. You may believe you have enough evidence that the external world is real, but it isn't something you could absolutely prove. In the end, we are the judge over what is sufficient and what isn't. You can't empirically prove that there is an external reality yet I am sure you feel you have sufficient reason to believe that there is. So empiricism isn't the final word. Ultimately, it is our own standard of evidence which is the determining factor, and the arbitor of where we place our faith.

I agree with Admiral Ackbar. Faith has two different meanings. I can have faith in a God. I can have faith that the 2:00 bus will come at around 2:09. The latter is based on evidence, the former is not.

enzoblue nailed it, faith vs. blind faith.

Both Oxford and Websters define faith as simply strong belief or conviction, particularly in the case of belief in religious doctrines. The absence of evidence is not a requisite in the English language, it's just an abuse of our language that makes it easier to ridicule people who describe themselves as people of 'faith'.

Faith in God is based on evidence; I have seen the action of God in my life, not withstanding the many logical arguments for God, evidences from science and morality, prophecy, etc. You may not agree that the evidence is good enough for having that faith, as interpreted by the lens of your worldview, but that is simply your subjective opinion. It is still evidence, whether you agree with it or not.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I agree with Admiral Ackbar. Faith has two different meanings. I can have faith in a God. I can have faith that the 2:00 bus will come at around 2:09. The latter is based on evidence, the former is not.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Faith in God is based on evidence; I have seen the action of God in my life, not withstanding the many logical arguments for God, evidences from science and morality, prophecy, etc. You may not agree that the evidence is good enough for having that faith, as interpreted by the lens of your worldview, but that is simply your subjective opinion. It is still evidence, whether you agree with it or not.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I agree with Admiral Ackbar. Faith has two different meanings. I can have faith in a God. I can have faith that the 2:00 bus will come at around 2:09. The latter is based on evidence, the former is not.



Exactly...evidence can be misinterpreted as well. It has to be challenged.

When I saw this live, I was a little embarrassed at how much whooping and praise a "superman does good, you're doing well" argument was getting. If Bill'd said "This makes me believe a bit more in people" Tyson wouldn't have said anything. I guess "faith" has become a touchy word for new atheists.

I would also second (third?) shinyblurry's comment about faith in a personal God coming from personal experience.