[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Uplift

For some reason, you are judging all the comments on your particular outlook, and not rational, logical, academic thinking.

The Macquarie dictionary says;

'1. Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing.'

Despite what you may or may not like to add to that, there is no mention of, or reference to the confidence or trust needing to be learned, verified, supported or validated. By adding your own slant to it, virtually speaking your own langauge, you either ignore the dictionary, or feel it is wrong.

You're close. I wasn't academically precise, but I don't see any lack of reason or logic. I said this:

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:

And then I went on to give a definition. What I didn't make clear was that I was presenting a definition which aims to clear up the confusion which started this thread. My statement may have been less than academically precise, for sure. (luckily this isn't an academic paper. My professors would be very disappointed in me)

And before that I said this:

It's a matter of semantics; both have been treated as wholly interchangeable for a long time.

What I meant by both those quoted statements was that the meaning of those words, belief and faith, as per the dictionary, are not as clear as they could be. And that's ok, language is not always clear, so of course the dictionary can't be if it intends to reflect our use of language.

Originally Posted by Uplift

Your statement, 'No-one is born with that degree of confidence.' What evidence are you basing that on? What studies, by who, over what time frame have you found to support it? Or do you just have faith in it?

It's based on all the psychological literature I've read on childhood development, in particular the development of personality and temperament. I can give you references if you'd like, just PM me as this is getting off topic.

Originally Posted by Uplift

For me, as I said, I have total faith in myself, and always have had. Whether you agree or not is your unsupported choice, based on something other than the meaning of the word 'faith'.

Ahh but you misunderstand me. I have absolutely no doubt that you have complete faith in yourself.

Originally Posted by valis

I'm not here to begin a debate about science versus religion, but I will state that I am more than versed in the nature of proof, and you may have mis-spoke there. But I'll leave it at that.

I may have, it's happened before. And as you can see above, I can also miss the mark when aiming for clarity

Originally Posted by valis

...I quite firmly believe that one's belief structure should come from within, and not without. But again, that's me.

Could you elaborate? I ask because, unless Uplift is right, we're not born with specific beliefs, they're learned. Do you agree with him, or does your statement mean you believe that one's belief structure should be considered and weighed against one's own values and principles, and adopted because one chooses to do so, not because society says so? (the latter is my belief)

Originally Posted by valis

All told, a very good post by Mr. Chui. I disagree with the dichotomy between science and religion, but that is my view, and last I checked, still entitled to those.

Fo' shizzle.

Originally Posted by valis

I do find it sort of ironic that all the astronauts, cosmologists, theoretical physicists, etc, are all deeply religious people.

By 'all' I take it you don't really mean 'all', considering that many are atheists. (be careful, Uplift might throw the dictionary at you)