Something can come from nothing.

[Heisenberg]

The probability of a healthy 25 year old dying on any given day is very, very low. I think that's a pretty good reason to have faith that I'll wake up tomorrow.

If you have a reason to believe something (such as the fact that 25 year olds don't die in their sleep) then you are applying logic, not faith. The words probability and faith don't belong in the same point.

If you are 108 and terminally ill and the doctors say you won't make it through the night yet you expect to wake up in spite of this, THAT would be faith.

[DeterminedJuliet]

The probability of a healthy 25 year old dying on any given day is very, very low. I think that's a pretty good reason to have faith that I'll wake up tomorrow.

If you have a reason to believe something (such as the fact that 25 year olds don't die in their sleep) then you are applying logic, not faith. The words probability and faith don't belong in the same point.

If you are 108 and terminally ill and the doctors say you won't make it through the night yet you expect to wake up in spite of this, THAT would be faith.

Maybe it's just a semantic argument, but I think you can have "faith" in things that are logical. I'd argue that, regardless of the probability of something, "faith" is how a person's agency plays into those odds. There is 99% chance that I'll wake up tomorrow, but I have faith that I WILL wake up, not that I have a "99% chance of waking up". There's a difference; probability practically never plays in absolutes, whereas human belief almost always does. We can use the odds to guide our opinions and feelings, but at the end of the day, most of us put "stock" in one liklihood or another. That "stock", or personal investment, is what I mean by a secular kind of "faith".

EDIT: Although, now that I look around online, almost every definition I can find of "faith" has to do with belief despite a lack of evidence. In which case, yeah, if that's your definition, I don't see why any belief without evidence makes any sense at all.

[Heisenberg]

The probability of a healthy 25 year old dying on any given day is very, very low. I think that's a pretty good reason to have faith that I'll wake up tomorrow.

If you have a reason to believe something (such as the fact that 25 year olds don't die in their sleep) then you are applying logic, not faith. The words probability and faith don't belong in the same point.

If you are 108 and terminally ill and the doctors say you won't make it through the night yet you expect to wake up in spite of this, THAT would be faith.

Maybe it's just a semantic argument, but I think you can have "faith" in things that are logical. I'd argue that, regardless of the probability of something, "faith" is how a person's agency plays into those odds. There is 99% chance that I'll wake up tomorrow, but I have faith that I WILL wake up, not that I have a "99% chance of waking up". There's a difference; probability practically never plays in absolutes, whereas human belief almost always does. We can use the odds to guide our opinions and feelings, but at the end of the day, most of us put "stock" in one liklihood or another. That "stock", or personal investment, is what I mean by a secular kind of "faith".

EDIT: Although, now that I look around online, almost every definition I can find of "faith" has to do with belief despite a lack of evidence. In which case, yeah, if that's your definition, I don't see why any belief without evidence makes any sense at all.

If we were going by the normal person definition of faith,(IE faith in oneself or ones friends) then arguing faith vs trust is pretty semantic.

But the debate at hand is the analog between the faith that the religious have in their god and faith that we exercise every day. I completely reject that notion. I've bolded your last line because that's really all I'm trying to say here.

[Tank]

{snip}
True, if you can be bothered to reason that way. Me, I do not go to bed to wake up - I go there to sleep. When I wake up, I wake up. If I don't, it won't matter.

Waking up is a bonus

[DeterminedJuliet]

But the debate at hand is the analog between the faith that the religious have in their god and faith that we exercise every day. I completely reject that notion. I've bolded your last line because that's really all I'm trying to say here.

Fair enough. I guess I'm just so used to, personally, meaning something vastly different when I use the word "faith".

[xSilverPhinx]

The religious like to play with semantics, and they usually equate all meanings of faith. I see them both as slightly different, one is faith without evidence, and even going against evidence while the other has more to do with trust and reason to believe, even if there is no direct evidence.

 

[Heisenberg]

In case anyone was wondering, I did in fact wake up this morning. PRAISE gOD!

[Tank]

In case anyone was wondering, I did in fact wake up this morning. PRAISE gOD!

If you hadn't posted then I might have been uncertain that Heisenberg had survived the night

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I guess I just don't get that. You could say that I have "faith" that my husband isn't cheating on me, but it's not a stand-alone belief just because I want to believe it. I also have plenty of reasons to trust him. If he started giving me reasons to distrust him, my faith in him would be misplaced and misguided.

All business ventures, movements, and ideas should really have a logic to them before you put your faith in them; the more detached something is from reason, the less I think you should put faith in it. I.e, If you start a business based on a solid understanding of your market niche and business principles, yes, I think you should have the "faith" in it to follow it through. If you start a business plan because you hear voices in your head that tell you to sell pencil shavings, no, I don't think faith in that venture would be a virtue.

The faith that we use on a day-to-day basis is just a middle-man for logic, to my mind. It can be a great motivator, but I'd think it needs to have some substance behind it.

You can have logical analysis behind a plan of action, but at some point a leap of faith is required.  Some people are so paralyzed by fear that, regardless of the amount of analysis, they can never move toward a goal. Others don't over-analyze things, but with faith move forward and succeed.  Success is usually a combination of reason and faith.  Blind faith is not a virtue, as there needs to be some reason for the faith.  However, logic and reason alone, without faith, would never turn a plan into action.  

To use a definition from Hebrews 11:1, faith is the substance (realization) of things hoped for, the evidence (conviction) of things not seen.  It is what moves one toward the realization of an idea, a plan, a hope, a dream.  In that sense, it is certainly virtuous in a non-religious perspective.  

[Davin]

I guess I just don't get that. You could say that I have "faith" that my husband isn't cheating on me, but it's not a stand-alone belief just because I want to believe it. I also have plenty of reasons to trust him. If he started giving me reasons to distrust him, my faith in him would be misplaced and misguided.

All business ventures, movements, and ideas should really have a logic to them before you put your faith in them; the more detached something is from reason, the less I think you should put faith in it. I.e, If you start a business based on a solid understanding of your market niche and business principles, yes, I think you should have the "faith" in it to follow it through. If you start a business plan because you hear voices in your head that tell you to sell pencil shavings, no, I don't think faith in that venture would be a virtue.

The faith that we use on a day-to-day basis is just a middle-man for logic, to my mind. It can be a great motivator, but I'd think it needs to have some substance behind it.

You can have logical analysis behind a plan of action, but at some point a leap of faith is required.  Some people are so paralyzed by fear that, regardless of the amount of analysis, they can never move toward a goal. Others don't over-analyze things, but with faith move forward and succeed.  Success is usually a combination of reason and faith.  Blind faith is not a virtue, as there needs to be some reason for the faith.  However, logic and reason alone, without faith, would never turn a plan into action.

No one has ever argued that logic and reason alone turn into action, but I disagree that faith is required for action.

To use a definition from Hebrews 11:1, faith is the substance (realization) of things hoped for, the evidence (conviction) of things not seen.  It is what moves one toward the realization of an idea, a plan, a hope, a dream.  In that sense, it is certainly virtuous in a non-religious perspective.

I don't see faith as virtuous at all. Faith in the context of trying for ones goals (hopes, dreams, the American way, puppies, unicorns, honor and other flowery emotional terms), is not needed.

[xSilverPhinx]

I think it would be best to first define what sort of 'faith' is being talked about here.

From Dictionary.com:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Am I the only one who sees that 'faith' is different in religious and non religious contexts?

[Davin]

I think it would be best to first define what sort of 'faith' is being talked about here.

From Dictionary.com:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Am I the only one who sees that 'faith' is different in religious and non religious contexts?

I see it as different, but also that it's not useful in either context.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I think it would be best to first define what sort of 'faith' is being talked about here.

From Dictionary.com:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Am I the only one who sees that 'faith' is different in religious and non religious contexts?

Nope, that was kinda the position that I was arguing , but then I looked at the definitions and pretty much everything seemed to have some kind of religious or "beyond evidence" kind of angle.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Am I the only one who sees that 'faith' is different in religious and non religious contexts?

There can be both differences and similarities. Both relate to something that is as yet unknown. In business, for example, you don't know that your new enterprise will be successful, but you proceed with faith that it will be (after appropriate planning, of course).  In religion, you don't know that living for God will be advantageous, or even that God exists, but you proceed with faith that it will be advantageous and that he does exist.  So the object of faith in these two situations is entirely different, but there are similarities in the way it is applied.

[Davin]

Am I the only one who sees that 'faith' is different in religious and non religious contexts?

There can be both differences and similarities. Both relate to something that is as yet unknown. In business, for example, you don't know that your new enterprise will be successful, but you proceed with faith that it will be (after appropriate planning, of course). In religion, you don't know that living for God will be advantageous, or even that God exists, but you proceed with faith that it will be advantageous and that he does exist.  So the object of faith in these two situations is entirely different, but there are similarities in the way it is applied.

One doesn't need faith to proceed, one can proceed to see if a business venture is successful without having faith that it will be successful. There is no use in thinking something will be successful because it will or won't work no matter what one believes. I agree there are similarities, the biggest one is that faith is useless.