[Mark Lapierre]

It's clear that most of us in this thread define faith and belief differently. I wasn't attempting to define either, but rather describe two distinct ways in which the words are used, just to illustrate how either can come first.

However for an accurate definition I think valis came closest:

Originally Posted by valis

faith is the belief in something which cannot be proven. Well, let me clarify that. Faith, in the religious context, is the belief in that which cannot be proven.

Faith is a set of propositions considered self-evident

In other words, faith is confidence in the truth or validity of a proposition, a confidence which does not require verification and a truth which does not require explanation.

Belief is the acceptance of and conviction in the truth of a proposition, verified or otherwise. In other words belief and faith are interchangeable, but only if the thing in which belief or faith is placed has not been verified.

It's a matter of semantics; both have been treated as wholly interchangeable for a long time. Faith can be considered a subset of belief. Faith is belief considered self-evident.

Originally Posted by ZHereford

For me faith is based on critical thinking, common sense, past experience and intuition (some might consider this a gut feeling). It has to pass many tests for me to have 'faith' in a concept, proposition or theory.

Something is no longer solely self-evident if it has been analysed through critical thinking etc. While it is possible, and even beneficial, to apply logic and other means of verification to an object of faith, the resulting belief is no longer pure faith.

Originally Posted by Mr Jody Hudson

Eventually, I arrive at Faith in my Beliefs based upon beliefs in my certainties which are constantly reinforced with observations and continued research. IF, some conflicting data appears within my research or observations then I check it more thoroughly or dismiss it or add it to my data base and thus perhaps adjust my certainty and faith.

This is a great way of looking at the world, and one most likely to ensure belief in reality reflects reality itself. But here you've equated faith with certainty. However it's no longer pure faith (a self-evident proposition), but certainty through empirical verification.

Over time validation of a belief can create a certainty so strong that it is no longer questioned, and perhaps no longer needs to be questioned. This is when you might arrive at the certainty Uplift has shown:

Originally Posted by Uplift

For me, faith always comes first. Faith in myself. The faith to explore something and make my own decisions. Faith that if I make a mistake I will learn. Faith to be accountable for my own thoughts and actions. Faith to think for myself. Faith to take that first step and deal with whatever. By doing that, having that faith, I examine, form, change or get rid of belief.

But these propositions aren't self-evident. They are verified through an ongoing lifetime of evidence. No-one is born with that degree of confidence; it is instilled gradually as one learns that all of those statements are valid.

Eventually, as those propositions are proven valid over and over again we might stop questioning them, and so in our mind they appear self-evident. But they are not; their truth is evident through their ongoing validation.

Previously I described faith as a general tendency to believe in things for which there is no evidence. This isn't pure faith but rather a description of a personality trait. Only if a specific proposition becomes the focal point could it be called faith, and only then if the proposition is considered self-evident. (So I agree with you on that, wolfgang)

Originally Posted by valis

So in my opinion, as far as religion is concerned, belief in the religion is virtually synonymous with faith in the religion. They both serve to bolster the belief structure of the person involved, and any attempt to proof it with science would only serve to undermine the entire house of cards and get one second guessing one's self.

I don't think that's quite true. Undermining would only occur if a) science showed the belief to be wrong, or b) confidence in the validity of the belief was not very strong. Since most religious beliefs are stated in such a way that they can't be tested scientifically, there is no opportunity for science to falsify it. (also, if science shows that a belief does not reflect reality, and thus the house of cards is destabilised, was it really a stable house in the first place?)