People say they accept religious beliefs by faith. What do they mean?
ChatGPT said:
When people say they accept religious beliefs “by faith,” they usually mean that they accept those beliefs without requiring proof in the way that science or logic might demand. Instead of relying on direct evidence or demonstrative reasoning, they trust or commit to certain ideas — about God, the soul, salvation, etc. — because they find them deeply convincing, spiritually necessary, or because they trust the authority (a religious text, a tradition, a community, a personal experience) that tells them these beliefs are true.
In other words, “faith” here means a kind of trust or confidence that goes beyond what can be verified or proven. It’s not necessarily blind or arbitrary (although it can be), but it’s belief in the absence of — or beyond — sufficient empirical evidence.
Some further nuances:
- For some, faith is seen as a virtue: believing without seeing is seen as spiritually stronger than believing only when there’s proof.
- Others see faith as trust based on prior reasons (for example, trusting in a tradition because it has guided them well so far), but those reasons don’t logically compel the belief the way a mathematical proof would.
- In philosophy of religion, thinkers like Kierkegaard even argue that faith is a kind of “leap” — a move beyond reason into commitment.
Would you like me to also show how different thinkers (like Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Plantinga) have defined “faith”?
You said:
yes
ChatGPT said:
Great — here’s a clear rundown of how some important thinkers have understood faith:
1. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
- Faith for Aquinas is “assent” to truths revealed by God.
- He thought faith is reasonable, but it’s not based on reason. That is, you can have arguments that make belief in God plausible (like his “Five Ways”), but ultimately you accept divine truths (like the Trinity) because of God’s authority — not because you can prove them.
- For Aquinas, faith is a virtue: the will, moved by grace, accepts what the intellect cannot fully see.
Summary: Faith is a rational, voluntary trust in divine revelation, based on the authority of God.
2. Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855)
- Kierkegaard thought faith is not a matter of evidence or probability at all.
- He describes faith as a “leap”: you leap beyond the absurd and the unknown, committing yourself passionately even though it seems irrational.
- For him, the act of faith (especially Christian faith) involves embracing paradox (like God becoming human) and involves deep personal commitment.
Summary: Faith is a passionate leap beyond reason into trust in the absurd or paradoxical.
3. Alvin Plantinga (1932–present)
- Plantinga argues that belief in God can be “properly basic” — meaning it doesn’t need to be proven from other beliefs; it can be rational to believe in God directly, the way you trust your memory or senses.
- He sees faith as something that can be grounded in our basic human cognitive faculties functioning properly in the right environment — what he calls “warrant.”
Summary: Faith is rational if it is properly basic — it doesn’t need arguments to be justified.
Other quick views:
- Augustine: “I believe in order to understand” — meaning faith comes before full understanding.
- Pascal: Faith involves a wager: it’s better to bet on God’s existence and be wrong than to not believe and miss infinite reward.
In short:
- Aquinas: Faith is reasonable trust in God’s authority.
- Kierkegaard: Faith is a personal, passionate leap beyond reason.
- Plantinga: Faith can be rational even without arguments — like trusting your senses.
Would you like me to also show how critics of religious faith (like Hume, Nietzsche, or Russell) define it differently? That contrast can be very interesting.
You said:
yes
ChatGPT said:
Excellent — here’s a clear look at how some critics of religious faith have defined or attacked it:
1. David Hume (1711–1776)
- Hume thought beliefs should be proportioned to evidence.
- He argued that faith — understood as belief without sufficient evidence — is irrational.
- In his view, if something doesn’t have strong evidence (especially in the case of miracle claims), you should withhold belief.
- He also suggested that religious faith often arises from emotion, fear, or habit, rather than rational reflection.
Summary: Faith is believing without evidence, and that’s unreasonable.
2. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
- Nietzsche viewed faith — especially Christian faith — as a sign of weakness.
- He thought that believing in another world (God, heaven) was a way of denying life, an escape from the harshness of existence.
- He mocked faith as “the will to believe without knowledge”, seeing it as part of the “slave morality” that praises weakness, suffering, and dependence.
Summary: Faith is an unhealthy denial of reality and a symptom of weakness.
3. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970)
- Russell said faith is “belief without evidence”, and sometimes “even in spite of evidence.”
- He argued that science progresses by questioning and doubting, whereas religion demands submission and unquestioning belief.
- For Russell, this made faith not only irrational but also dangerous, because it encouraged dogmatism.
Summary: Faith is irrational and opposes the critical spirit of inquiry.
Quick contrasts:
| Thinker | Faith is… | Judged as… |
|---|---|---|
| Hume | Belief without evidence | Unreasonable |
| Nietzsche | Psychological escape | Weakness |
| Russell | Dogmatic belief | Harmful to reason |
In short:
Where Aquinas or Plantinga might see faith as a virtue, critics like Hume, Nietzsche, and Russell see it as an intellectual or moral failing — a way of believing where you ought to doubt.
Would you also like a brief chart summarizing positive vs negative views of faith? It might make the comparison even clearer at a glance.
You said:
yes
ChatGPT said:
Here’s a simple, clean chart showing positive vs. negative views of faith:
| Aspect | Positive View (Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Plantinga) | Negative View (Hume, Nietzsche, Russell) |
|---|---|---|
| Definition of Faith | Trust beyond or without complete evidence | Belief without sufficient evidence |
| Relation to Reason | Harmonious (Aquinas) or transcending reason (Kierkegaard) | In conflict with reason |
| Source of Faith | Divine revelation, grace, or personal commitment | Emotion, fear, weakness, or habit |
| Moral Evaluation | A virtue (trusting in the trustworthy or embracing existential truth) | A flaw (intellectual laziness, weakness, or dogmatism) |
| Impact on Life | Leads to hope, meaning, salvation, authenticity | Leads to denial of reality, irrationality, suppression of critical thought |
Summary:
- Positive thinkers see faith as a courageous or necessary trust where reason alone is insufficient.
- Critics see faith as an irresponsible or even harmful abandonment of reason.
| Faith is… | Justified when… | |
|---|---|---|
| William James | A leap needed for action | Waiting for proof would prevent living fully |
| Sam Harris | Universal trust vs. religious dogmatism | Only justified if open to correctio |