disappointed by the talk I found on the subject by Alister McGrath I hoped to get a better debate going her.
He cites Dawkins belief from the selfish gene in 1976
[Faith] is a state of mind that leads people to believe something – it does not matter what – in the total absence of supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence, then faith would be superfluous, for the evidence would compel us to believe it anyway.
What Dawkins is confusing here is to equal faith with delusion, probably a result of early onset religiophobia.
A logical definition of Faith would be :
Faith/Trust is to firmly believe something to be true in the absence of proof.
Logically evidence is that what causes belief. The strength of my a belief can be measured in the level of risk I am prepared to take on the basis of that belief. I can belief something without engaging myself but that does not invoke trust. In trust one does invest oneself, something not possible with knowledge, as the certainty does not allow one to engage in the same way. As such proof is the death of belief and the person who demands evidence in the form of proof for the subject of one’s belief as well as the person who claims to have it proof for what they believe to be true must be intellectually bankrupt. They both would declare themselves idiots, the believer because having proof, thus certainty of what he beliefs for being unable to gain knowledge from this proof, and the skeptic who requires proof to form a belief instead of knowledge from a proof. They both don’t get it :-).
Would be interesting to see if anyone here agrees with me that proof does terminate a belief as it establishes the truth beyond doubt - and if so if there is any formal philosophical argument along those lines.
Thanks in advance