Words Mean Things II... The Revenge...

What is "faith"?

My contention, is, according to the first definition shown, and the one I feel that is how most people use it...

However, recently, in (now) three threads, the religious aspect has been used....

So, if words mean things, why is setting a definition that is agreeable an issue?

Whenever there is a disagreement, even between my wife and I, it boils down to some misunderstanding...

Yet in one of the threads, it was said, something like, "oh so now we are going to break it down to definitions...

Why is this so wrong? Because it makes having disagreements more difficult for those who like to "challenge"?

Serious questions.......

Come, lets explore...

I'm not sure if it comes down to the religious definition or not. Of the ones you screenshot I agree more with the first one, to be honest. Of course it says that trust and confidence are synonyms, but in the definition itself it says "complete trust or confidence", which to me amounts to exactly the definition I always give: belief without evidence. Now, my definition may be imprecise. Of course when I say without, I don't mean that there is no evidence in support of that belief, but that the belief itself is not based on any. It is independant of evidence. As such, evidence will not shake it, and that is exactly what "complete" trust and confidence is: Trust and confidence that will not change because of any reasoned argument or evidence.

A definition is a description of a label as the name of a well-defined strict subset of a different set. So, when your definition is "complete trust or confidence", "trust or confidence" is the different, let's call it "umbrella set", and the narrowing property "complete" is the one that defines the subset that is then named "faith". Definitions are narrowing down, drawing lines between things, not just equating. That's why not any but all words making up a definition are important.

I would think that definition 2 is just a more confined version of the first definition. The ‘someone’ or ‘something’ being god, the church…

I tend to use the word Faith more in accordance with the first definition. But that does not mean I ignore or are unaware of the second.

Jestor wrote: Yet in one of the threads, it was said, something like, "oh so now we are going to break it down to definitions...

Why is this so wrong? Because it makes having disagreements more difficult for those who like to "challenge"?

Agreed! As I have witnessed, there are those that are more interested in arguing and being right and showing how smart they are and how everyone else needs to think as they do then communicating and understanding another’s point of view.

Gisteron wrote: A definition is a description of a label as the name of a well-defined strict subset of a different set. So, when your definition is "complete trust or confidence", "trust or confidence" is the different, let's call it "umbrella set", and the narrowing property "complete" is the one that defines the subset that is then named "faith". Definitions are narrowing down, drawing lines between things, not just equating. That's why not any but all words making up a definition are important.

I don’t even know that I understand what the first part of that means… but the part I did understand, I’m not sure I agree with. I feel that definitions are there so that we have a common frame of reference and understanding. Not to be picked apart and quibbled over.

I wasn't talking of their purpose but of their nature. Definitions are there as to maintain, as you said, a common frame of reference. I just meant to emphasize that not just any but indeed all of the words of a definition must be considered. Faith is not merely confidence, but specifically complete confidence. Basically, if you had a set of all confidences, the subset of the complete ones would be labeled faith, and its borders would be where the completeness as a property breaks down. Everything that isn't complete confidence or trust isn't a faith, but not everything that is trust or confidence is. It has to be complete, too.

Sure, I am not mobile now, so forgive my quoting instead of screenshots...

I had "faith' you would be among the first, if not the first, to respond...

but in the definition itself it says "complete trust or confidence", which to me amounts to exactly the definition I always give: belief without evidence. Now, my definition may be imprecise.

Ah, well, if we are not going to agree on a definition, and you are going to slide your personal bias in, then we having nothing more to discuss...

Because you do not want to seem to accept that my definition may be perfectly acceptable as well... Which is NOT a belief of mine, but rather has been proven by our lengthy exchanges, most recently when I subscribed to the idea you had 'faith'....

Crazy...

A definition is a description of a label as the name of a well-defined strict subset of a different set.

Defining yet further?

Awesome, we may get on the same page...

Lets look at:

Gisteron wrote: "complete trust or confidence"

Let us further define "complete"....

You say:

but in the definition itself it says "complete trust or confidence", which to me amounts to exactly the definition I always give: belief without evidence.

Your next set of words is that your definition is imprecise... But, since you carried on, so will I, lol...

Which, when we question a part of the problem in mathematics, makes all further parts of the equation suspect...

What we have here is a "word problem", and I think that most agree with the idea, it brings further information into question...

Such as your pointing our that there is conspiracy theoy and alien stuff on that web page Zenchi linked...

Sometimes, there is a rose in the dung heap...

Anyway, defining "complete", we have:

com·plete
kəmˈplēt/Submit
adjective
1.
having all the necessary or appropriate parts.
"a complete list of courses offered by the college"
"I only managed one complete term at school"
synonyms: entire, whole, full, total; More
having run its full course; finished.
"the restoration of the chapel is complete"
synonyms: finished, ended, concluded, completed, finalized; More
2.
(often used for emphasis) to the greatest extent or degree; total.
"a complete ban on smoking"
synonyms: absolute, out-and-out, utter, total, real, downright, thoroughgoing, veritable, prize, perfect, unqualified, unmitigated, sheer, arrant, full-out
"a complete fool"



verb
1.
finish making or doing.
"he completed his Ph.D. in 1983"
synonyms: finished, ended, concluded, completed, finalized; More
antonyms: unfinished
FOOTBALL
(especially of a quarterback) successfully throw (a forward pass) to a receiver.
"he completed 12 of 16 passes for 128 yards"
BRITISH
conclude the sale of a property.
2.
make (something) whole or perfect.
"he only needed one thing to complete his happiness"
synonyms: finish off, round off, top off, crown, cap, complement
"the outfit was completed with a veil"

So, you took "complete trust and confidence" to somehow mean "belief without evidence" with your verbal arithmetic...

Right?

Just further checking as we further engage...

OK... so I may just be stirring the hornet's nest here.

Say I go on holiday and my lodger has to feed my animals (happens occasionally). Every time this happens, he does what I expect. So the next time I go on holiday, I have 'complete faith' that he will feed my animals. My faith is based on evidence, i.e. that he has always previously fulfilled my expectations.

Perhaps different when we're talking about 'God' here.. because that kind of evidence probably won't sway anyone but the believer.. but in other situations...

I was looking in to the definition of a bunch of words and decided that it would only fuel the argument. So, instead I referenced an Etymology Dictionary so I could show the progression of the words in question, past and present.

belief (n.) late 12c., bileave, replacing Old English geleafa "belief, faith," from West Germanic *ga-laubon "to hold dear, esteem, trust" (cognates: Old Saxon gilobo, Middle Dutch gelove, Old High German giloubo, German Glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed," from intensive prefix *ga- + *leubh- "to care, desire, like, love" (see love (v.)). The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb believe. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c.
"The be-, which is not a natural prefix of nouns, was prefixed on the analogy of the vb. (where it is naturally an intensive) .... [OED]
Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of Latin fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (a sense attested from early 13c.).

Wow, here I go out of my way to agree with a definition and even explain why I agree and you are saying I don't. The second definition of "complete" still goes in perfect accordance with what I said, so you know I do agree with the first definition of faith, but you say I don't anyway.
You are right, this is not getting anywhere. At least one of us is openly and shamelessly lying to everyone's faces. I shall carry on without a conversation with the OP henceforth.

You see, Edan, you may have or not have doubt about your trust in your lodger, but since your trust is rooted in evidence, as new evidence will come in you will change your mind. If you had total trust, you would maintain your lodger's reliability even when evidence has long past showing that you shouldn't. On the other hand, if you completely mistrusted your lodger you wouldn't trust him or her no matter what amount of evidence was presented. A complete confidence cannot be shaken from outside. It can be backed by evidence, but it wouldn't matter if it did nor would it honour evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps if one took the first definition of complete from Jestor's post, it would seem that your confidence would qualify. Again, my argument is that a rational belief is never actually complete, never actually perfectly certain. Even if all the evidence pointed to one conclusion and one conclusion only, I would sure believe it and be pretty darn confident about it, and defend it against those who doubt it, but my confidence could still not be complete. I would still be open to the possibility that it is ultimately inaccurate, and the way to shatter my trust would be through new evidence that could outweigh the previous to some and any degree.

Actually, I disagree with the first definition of complete. I think complete should be that which contains all the necessary and all the appropriate parts.

Gisteron wrote: You are right, this is not getting anywhere. At least one of us is openly and shamelessly lying to everyone's faces. I shall carry on without a conversation with the OP henceforth.

What an incredibly rude thing to say.

tzb wrote: What an incredibly rude thing to say.

How so? :blink: