Reply #113: I think I see where we might be miscommunicating about "faith".

[Silent3]

I'm beginning to wonder if when I talk about "different kinds of faith", you're taking that to mean "faith in different things", where "faith" is the same basic feeling/sentiment/mental construct in each case, but invested in different objects.

I'd like to make it more clear now, if it wasn't before, that I'm talking about different meanings of "faith" which are different without regard to particular objects of faith.

Take the word "bark". It can refer to the sound a dog makes, or to the skin of a tree. There's also a kind of boat called a "bark". Three very different meanings, only one word. I don't think the various meanings of "faith" are quite that different.

Consider next the word "mouth". The primary meaning is a body part, specifically a bodily opening for food intake. We also talk about the "mouths" of rivers, caves, and bottles, where there's only a very loose conceptual connection to the primary meaning, the broader concept of a opening of some sort, perhaps an opening that permits something to enter or exit. "Mouth", especially in an adjective form like "mouthy", can refer to speech, particularly loud or rude speech, connected to the primary meaning in the sense that it refers to something that can issue forth from a human mouth.

What we're dealing with when it comes to the word "faith" is more like this second case -- a single word used to refer to a variety of different, but loosely conceptually connected, meanings. Unlike the case with the word "mouth", I'm not so sure that any one meaning of "faith" is clearly a primary meaning from which all of the other usages spring.

Here's a dictionary definition of faith:

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.
   
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
   
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
   
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

I'd say that the connection between these various meanings and usages is, roughly, some confluence of concepts like trust, confidence, and belief, perhaps even expectation. These different meanings of "faith" aren't merely about different targets of faith, however, but different rational and emotional processes which generate trust or confidence, and different epistemological approaches to belief.

Although all of these meanings are connected to some degree or another, the various meanings are different enough that I think it's a mistake to treat them as manifestations of one singular, shared human trait/motivation/quality/drive/etc., as some singular thing that all people need or want to find a target for. I don't know if that's the view you're taking, but from the way I've heard others talk about faith, especially those who are eager to say things like "everyone has faith", or to equate "faith" in science with religious faith, I'd say that view of faith is not uncommon.

Often I see this kind of conflation of various meanings of faith as a defensive tactic: "How dare you criticize my faith! Everyone has faith, even you, and mine's just as good as yours!" The critic of faith is portrayed as an automatic hypocrite. He MUST have faith too, he's just "in denial" about it, and is criticizing something he is equally "guilty" of.

I get a hint that you are trying to conceptualize a single thing called "faith" behind all of the various meanings and usages of the word (but not in the above defensive way) when you say something like this:

I assume a very broad definition of faith because I seem to see it everywhere I look. People everywhere and at every time in history are calling something faith.

Let's go back to the word "bark" for contrast. It would clearly be a mistake to search for a single definition of "bark", or even to imagine that some elusive, comprehensive definition is somehow out there beyond human understanding, waiting to embrace all of the different meanings of the word. That the one word "bark" means so many different things is nothing more than an accident of etymology, a matter of separate words with separate meanings, derived from different languages, converging by happenstance on a shared group of letters and phonemes.

For my part, I think it is unprofitable to indulge in those kinds of semantics since people determine the meanings of words through usage, and any attempt to dictate the meaning of a word that has such a fundamental relationship to the human condition is to unnecessarily restrict it.

If I insist for clarity when I say "bark" that I'm talking about the sound a dog makes, this is not a disservice to, encroachment upon, or denial of botany or sailing or the particular usages botanists and sailors might have for that word.

Whether I'm trying to define either the word "bark" or the word "faith", it's not a matter of "unnecessarily restrict(ing)" the meaning of the word, it's a matter of escaping the Mad Hatter's tea party -- a conversation where all the words can mean whatever each of the participants wants them to mean might be amusing for a time, but it's more likely to simply try your patience, and it's not at all likely to be productive.

When you try to relate things like suspension of disbelief while watching a movie to the word "faith", I think that's going too far with the word. I have no desire to deny anyone the enjoyment of their movies (especially not me, especially not after I practically built a whole new house for the purpose of having a home theater!), I merely have a desire to avoid making an already confusing word more confusing.

To get back to Dawkins, it's clear when you read his book that he's talking about meaning (2) of "faith", especially as it relates to meanings (3) and (5). He's especially opposed to faith that goes beyond lack of proof to outright denial of contrary evidence -- the kind of "faith" in something like creationism that turns inconvenient fossils into tests of faith and tricks of Satan.