Belief vs Faith (Philosophical Distinction)

An explanation of the distinction between belief and several definitions of faith from various religious traditions including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Here are some videos you might enjoy:

Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more!

[cliffordhodge]

I think when considering someone whose embracing of certain ideas or attitudes we consider to be (merely) faith, it is more productive to view this as a special case of reasoning in which the set of premises is either incomplete or comprised of premises which are innaccurate or unusual or at least premises which are both deniable and unsupported by other premises.

[RENATVS_IV]

Well, in Spanish we can say something like "have (some) faith!", telling someone to "believe" or to "trust" in the plan we have or in the actions we're gonna take. I've never heard English-speakers using alike expressions, but you can have an idea.

[mckboulos]

Hi, thank you for the video!
Watching your video, I was expecting that you will cover the C.S. Lewis definition of faith in his Mere Christianity book: "Faith [...] is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”
I thought this was one of the most popular definition in Christian theology. Have you considered it?
Best,
Paul

[gerryv]

Great breakdown. I once had a discussion on this with a theist ( I'm an atheist) and they had just finished a theological bible studies course. Faith came up and I asked what the difference was between an evangelical refusing medical treatments and relying on prayer and someone running into a cafe strapped in semtex thinking they would have all those people as servants in some afterlife. Both had faith, as far as I then defined the word simply as " a strong belief". The debate went all over the place without any real definition we could both agree on but they seemed to think "faith" was a gift from god. their god to be specific. I pointed out that's what the bomber thought too. I have since come to the decision that "faith", in religious terms means something that cannot be objectively proven in the real world whereas my faith in my car's brakes, something very real by comparison, is proven every day.

[KaiHenningsen]

To me, belief is sort of a vector space, with one dimension for each of the mentioned interpretations of faith or belief, and each differing in strength for each proposition. That includes the concept that one should apportion belief in accordance with the available evidence, that is, you can model this concept in my model, but it accommodates all the mentioned attitudes and more.
I might be more or less convinced that something is true, I might rely to a stronger or lesser degree on its truth, and so on, and so forth.

[michaelzumpano]

Here. Is my answer. We’re talking about taking action that has a risk of loss. It’s a continuum. But for any expected cost if my threshold is less than or equal to the Baye’s prediction, it is belief. If it is greater than Baye’s prediction, it is Faith. So there’s Baye’s equation and a loss function and a cost function and an activation function (which is the threshold). What do you think?

[Pfhorrest]

As a critical rationalist I think it's very important to distinguish two different varieties of the 'doxastic venture' form of 'faith': belief in the absence of reasons, and belief that is immune to reason. I think that it is impossible to ever have positive reason to believe exactly one specific thing (because of underdetermination of theory by evidence), but that one is warranted to believe anything that they don't have reason to disbelieve. However, one's beliefs must always be open to revision when presented with reason to discard them. (Which incidentally rules out any beliefs that could not possibly be disproven). So if you think that God exists, in some sense that is amenable to disproof, and no disproof is at hand, then you are warranted to have that belief. Someone who believes to the contrary is *also* warranted in their belief though. It's only when one of you wants to tell the other that you are right and they are wrong that you need to be able to show some kind of evidence *against* their belief. And it is only if they hold fast to their belief in spite of evidence against it that they are being irrational.

[colonalklink]

The Biblical definition of faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

Jesus is Lord God Almighty clothed in unsinful humanity and He is the author of eternal life to all who trust Him alone for salvation.
Jesus paid for all the sins of all the world at the cross (past, present, and future). That payment is put to your account when you have believed on Christ alone for salvation.
Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.

God immediately declares you justified and gives you everlasting life as a free gift.

Salvation is absolutely free, instant, and eternal, recieved solely by trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone, and is certainly not conditional upon service to God.

Service (discipleship) if you choose it can cost you everything if you go all out in serving God.
Our good works, repenting of sins, and obedience, are for temporal fellowship with God here on earth and for rewards in Heaven or a lack thereof and have absolutely nothing to do with salvation at all.

The only reason anyone will ever be in Heaven is solely by the perfect life, shed blood, death, burial, and resurrection, of Jesus Christ alone.

Anything added or subtracted from this is another gospel.

[LOZandKHfreak]

Faith is belief based in testimony, rather than in ones own personal experience or reasoning.

faith can be rationally justified or not depending on whether one has good reasons to believe in the honesty and sanity of a witness, as well as if one has reason to believe the witness has the relevant sort and degree of training, expertise, and/or competence, when and if such things are relevant to the claim in question.

Basically, the more reason one has to believe the trustworthiness the witness is on a matter, the more justified ones trust in their word, which just is belief.

[ianmcelmurry]

For me, faith means it’s original definition. The word comes from the Latin “fides, ” which means trust and reliability. I have faith in God(Christian), but it’s a faith based upon evidence, not some blind faith that’s opposed to reason. I think that this is something a lot of Christians need to understand, that Christianity isn’t against reason and rationality but rather is rooted in it.

[Dezturbed]

So faith is belief free from time.

Or

Belief is to Faith as Understanding is to Learning or Hearing is to Listening,

Faith is a preemptive belief in something's trustworthiness or value.

Ie. If I believe what you say, I don't necessarily have faith in you but if I have faith in you I trust that I will believe in what you say(past or future).

It's almost like belief is contingent on the situation while faith is free from that chronological limitation.

So faith is belief free from time.

[polemizator]

Notes
Proclivities can't be question too
People have proclivities that they come into conflict with each other. (If two people want one think). There is no way to reaolve it. Only negociation but negotiacion is possible also with beliefes. But is violence always undesirable?
Belief can be easier to change than proclivities?
So. Is violence inevrible?

[ElementalofAir]

So, when I think of faith, and not blind faith (which I see as toxic), I think it should have these things:
- a belief in something that is not self-evident or provable through scientific means
- an open mind and a willingness to believe or reject a belief
- action, not just passive proclamations of trust or belief
- sincerity of hope and willingness to act

I understand the skepticism many feel towards beliefs that have no scientific proof, but in my experience religion and spiritual truths can be proved in experiments, but their results are not visible or measurable by scientific instruments.

Spiritual truths are like dark matter: they exist on a separate plane, in a dimension separate from our own, and not detectable by any tools made for this dimension, if that makes sense. But you can perform experiments the exact same way as you do with anything using the scientific method.

Take a religious claim as your hypothesis. Something simple and actionable. The one I tend to suggest is the God answers prayers. So, you open your mind and heart like a scientist, choose a decent amount of time, like 2 weeks, and pray everyday during that time. Wait for an answer.

[dukereg]

How do you define belief when there is no well-defined proposition? e.g. the proposition is vague, ambiguous, not framed rationally, but the person still believes that it is true. Is that really still a proposition, and if not, what is the definition of belief?

[spencerbrown]

Belief is a verb and requires evidence. Faith is a noun and Hebrews 11 says it is the substance (noun) of things hoped for of the evidence NOT seen.

[idedimi]

To me, faith and belief are separate. I have faith because I understand "God" to be the infinite being the universe comes from and is composed of (informed in part by taoism and panentheism). Matter and Energy are just appendages of the Divine.
In the same way that one cannot believe or disbelieve in the Wind, one cannot believe or disbelieve in God, only define or name it in different ways. To me, the Divine is the way the universe unfolds, the path the seashell takes as it falls to the seafloor. One might have a different perspective on the unfolding or the path, but one can't say they don't "believe" in it (well, they can, but it doesn't change the fact that the event is occurring).
Another way of putting it: a sculpture stands in an art gallery, and viewers observe it from different angles. One viewer says, "There is a Hand." Another viewer, on the other side, says, "There is no Hand." Regardless of perspective, the Sculpture still exists. Dogma and belief are akin to taking a 2D picture of a 3D sculpture. You can approximate the appearance of the sculpture by taking many pictures from many angles, but the best picture of the sculpture is the picture that Is the sculpture (hence, the Inarticulatability of the Divine).
True faith is a resilient way to cultivate peace and unconditional love. Dogma and belief are just dust.

[houseofamalgamation]

Wonderful! I was just having arguments with atheists about this (I'm an atheist myself)

You're a great resource carneades!

[hipowermutant]

Bro modulate your volume. You're either yelling or whispering. Do you have your mic hooked up to an oscillating stand? 😚

[davekanak]

SALVATION 101

❤We are SAVED by GOD, by Doing His WILL, and BELIEVING In His SON.

❤Our SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST, told us How we are SAVED in Matt 7:21, John 6:40, John 3:16.

❤Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, But the one who Does the
WILL of My FATHER, who is in heaven.

❤John 6:40 MY FATHER’S WILL is that everyone who looks to the Son and BELIEVES in HIM shall have eternal life.

❤John 3:16: For GOD so Loved the World that HE Gave (Sacrificed to Die) HIS only SON so that Whoever
BELIEVES in HIM, shall not perish, but have ever lasting Life.

[nickolashessler]

There are some models of faith that model it as a sort of sub doxastic or non doxastic venture rather than a doxastic one. Could skeptics exhibit that kind of faith?