Do you figure “I lack a belief in unicorns” is a faith-based statement?
After all, I lack a belief that I’ve won multiple Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor – mostly because, y’know, I lack any evidence of ever having done so. When I thusly state my unremarkable lack of such a belief, do you think I’m displaying faith?
Maybe you can define faith. Faith has been called belief in things not seen. The difference between faith and provisional belief is that most people who have faith seem immune from changing it based on new evidence. Faith is clearly stronger than belief. Lots of people claim that God never shows himself because it would destroy our faith, which is somehow important.
Saying creator god still doesn’t narrow it down. There are two reasons to believe in such a god. The first is that there was some evidence it existed. Now, ancient writings which god cosmology right could be evidence of something (though it might be aliens.) But all religions get it totally wrong.
The second reason is that there is some need for a creator, which is basically god of the gaps. Even if someone buys into this, they should have no religion, since they don’t have the slightest bit of evidence that this god has anything to do with us. Or is even a god - it could be some sort of extra-dimensional grad student in a universe creating class.
Hardly anyone reads Paradise. I like the Ciardi translation myself. One interesting thing - Dante knew full well that the earth was spherical long before Columbus, further invalidating the flat earth myth.
Actually you can. It is done by positing the thing you want to disprove, and showing it causes a contradiction. Thus, you can prove that a bi-omni god (omnipotent and omniscient) does not exist by assuming one and asking if he can change his actions so that what he foresaw himself as doing is no longer true.
You can’t prove an existential negative - that unicorn could be hiding somewhere you haven’t looked yet.
No, it would be a provisional belief, except for nitwits who refused to accept the Greek proofs of a round earth. Creationists today refuse to accept the evidence for evolution. That if faith - but hardly something to emulate.
Those who have provisional belief, and not faith, either are willing to accept they are wrong or actively try to falsify their belief, if they came up with it.
Notice that religions don’t try at all to falsify their beliefs.
I discovered to my shock that people who write spiritual books have no concept of getting evidence beyond anecdote for their beliefs, and have no concept of comparing their beliefs with others. In science you always try to show why your hypothesis is a better fit to reality than competing ones. When I suggested that the author of a spiritual book compare her solution to the worlds problem she looked at me uncomprehendingly.
Religious people often talk about a crisis of faith. As far as I can tell, they resolve it not by finding more evidence but just by deciding it feels better to believe. I’m not like that. When I had mine, I looked at the evidence, decided that this stuff was bogus, and dropped religion immediately.
“I lack a belief in unicorns” is a definitive statement that stands on its own regardless of whether or not unicorns exist. However, your lack of belief in unicorns is a result of history, reason and logic that informs you unicorns don’t exist. So yes, one could argue that you have faith in a lack of unicorns.
The same could be said for your lack of Academy Awards, although I have faith that those are, indeed, real 
OK, I see what you are saying. I guess I reject the definition of faith as “belief in things not seen.” That is how I would define “blind faith.”
To me, faith informs belief, not the other way around. I guess you could say that I see faith as existing because you can’t prove a negative. So you need faith to inform your belief regardless of whether you’re atheist or theist.
Evidence (history)+Reason+Logic+Faith=Belief in (or lack of belief in) ____________.
This is a perfect weekend for me to catch up on some reading. First Saturday I’ve had off work in months and I’ve been doing nothing but reading, farting around on Dope, and watching football. I have faith that this hasn’t not been a good day. 
I think your definition of “provisional belief” closely resembles my definition of “faith.”
And your definition (THE definition?) of faith resembles my definition of “blind faith.”
Which would mean, by extension, that your definition of “blind faith” probably matches my definition of “stupid.”
What you call ‘faith’ in this sense is not the common usage of the term - and you are stretching the definition until it becomes meaningless.
Lets take this a different tact - and perhaps define ‘faith’ for a common usage -
faith == belief without, and sometimes in spite of, evidence.
Now one can use the term ‘faith’ more generally than that, and it can be based on some evidence - (I have faith in my teammates based on X) - but this is not the faith you are referring to.
Requiring evidence of something is the exact OPPOSITE of faith.
Stating that ‘there is no evidence for X’ requires no faith at all
a ‘lack of belief’ requires no faith. saying that it does is only making your argument that much more ignorant of the facts.
The world was always round - the evidence for it was always there - even if man lacked the understanding of it.
Now - if you are trying to suggest that the ‘evidence’ for your god is there - that we lack the understanding of it - then you should be able to point to said evidence objectively - if it requires ‘faith’ to see it - then it is NOT objective evidence. (hoofprints are not evidence of unicorns, they are only evidence of hoofprints)
‘Unicorns do not exist’ is an example of the default position - it is not a faith based statement - it is a statement that is ‘falsifiable’ when evidence of unicorns is presented - until such evidence is presented, it is assumed true. It is not speaking to the evidence for or against unicorns, nor is it a ‘belief’.
A faith based statement is “X exists” as the default statement.
As for my statement “you can’t prove a negative” - that was clumsy wording on my part - you can prove a negative - in this context, its usually via lack of evidence for (in otherwords, the default position is never falsified) - but what I really meant to say is that in logic/science you cannot ‘prove’ that something does not exist (you may have been looking in the wrong place, using the wrong tools, etc) - you can only prove existence thru objective evidence.
Let’s try this:
Blind faith = belief without, and sometimes in spite of, evidence.
Faith = Provisional Belief
Proof =/= Lack of evidence
Maybe I’m just wrong on a purely semantic level, but the above equations may better help explain the viewpoint I’ve been trying to get across.
Blind Faith == belief that is not based on evidence, persons exhibiting this often do no research into the matter and will not accept any information that may be contrary - its a complete and un-relenting ‘belief’ in something without any evidence for it.
Faith == belief that is not based on evidence - faith in something can be earned thru study/experience (I have faith in my abilities), but context is everything here.
Proof == evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
Evidence == something which shows that something else exists or is true; a visible sign of something
Belief == a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true
‘Lack of evidence’ only ‘proves’ that there is a lack of evidence for X - it, in and of itself, proves nothing.
Hold on just a second, there.
What happens if – to use your phrasing – someone just has “Evidence (history)+Reason+Logic” without the “+Faith” you’re tacking on at the end there?
You said my lack of belief “is a result of history, reason and logic”. Really go with that for a second: imagine someone says “Well, history and reason and logic are coming up empty on me ever having won Oscars; upon adding faith, I believe I’ve won those awards despite all the evidence.”
Imagine someone else says “Well, history and reason and logic are coming up empty on me ever having won Oscars; I therefore lack belief.”
It seems to me they both start with Evidence (history)+Reason+Logic, at which point the former adds an extra step while the latter – doesn’t.
addendum -
YOu can either use evidence/proof to inform your belief - or you are exhibiting ‘faith’ in your belief.
A lack of belief (I do not believe in X) does not require any faith at all - in fact, it is a complete absence of ‘faith’.
Faith in ‘something’ can be informed by evidence (my car started yesterday, I have faith it will start tomorrow) but that is more so ‘provisional belief’ based on evidence - you really have no ‘evidence’ for what will happen tomorrow.
Well, there’s no evidence that I am now, or have ever been, Storm from the X-Men. And there’s no reason to think I’ll spend tomorrow as a white-haired black woman who can control the weather. In the absence of faith, I thus lack a belief that I’ll wake up in the morning as her. Is that about right?
(Gus? Are you on-board with that? That one can slap “accordingly” on the end of some statements, while others cry out for a “but with faith” rider?)
If “history and reason and logic are coming up empty on me ever having won Oscars,” you can be reasonable in asserting that you’ve never won Oscars. No faith necessary.
Correct, faith is only necessary when truths have not been established.
I still would argue that Evidence =/= proof.
For example, say Dick is married to Jane. Let’s then say that Dick was murdered. Let’s also say that next-door neighbor John was having an affair with Jane. Let’s also say that the murder weapon was found in John’s bushes.
You have motive (the affair/jealousy, etc.), you have a murder weapon, and you have various other evidence linking John to the murder.
With a leap of “faith,” one could conclude that John killed Dick.
You don’t have proof, you have a belief.
Even reasonable doubt (the opposite of provisional belief?) is a long way away.
…You guys (gals?) are making my head spin though, thanks! 
I accept your truth accordingly, but with faith…
So what happens when someone says “history and reason and logic are coming up empty on there being a God,” followed by standing there and blinking and mentioning something about being reasonable this and no faith necessary that?
I would guess that person to be an agnostic, on the verge of taking a leap of faith and becoming an atheist. No?
There is no ‘leap of faith’ there - in this case, you have a preponderance of the evidence that John killed dick - you then have to prove - with the evidence - that john killed dick - If you went to the judge and said “well, I think John did it - he had reason to (why does having an affair == reason to kill?) and the bush contained the gun” - If that was all you had - judge would laugh - if you have proof that the gun was John’s, John’s fingerprints on the gun, evidence that that gun killed dick, etc - then you can ‘prove beyond a doubt’.
But - you are mixing metaphors here - as in this scenario you have
a) evidence of an affair
b) evidence of a gun
c) evidence of ownership of gun
d) evidence …
(snipped - I think you get the point).
Its the totallity of the evidence that informs the belief that John killed Dick.
IF all you had was “John owned a gun, John screwed Jane, Dick was killed” - then you might have ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ that John did it - but you would not have antyhing else.
NO - NO - NO
That is not a ‘leap of faith’ - that is dismissing faith - you cannot take a ‘leap of something you do not have’.
get it?
You’re over-complicating my metaphor.
Yes, a lawyer would need to present all of that evidence in order to “prove” murder.
In this metaphor though, I’m just Gus across the street. I’ve only got the evidence based on what I’ve overheard/read in the paper, etc.
And that’s what was presented in the original metaphor.
So I, Gus Mayo, believe that John did it. But that belief requires faith.
And we’re, as a society, a lot farther away from proving definitively the objective truth of “where the universe came from”
in other words:
I think I view “faith” and “provisional belief” as the same thing.
Perhaps, in the views of some, “faith” is a word that has been hijacked by theists.
So, would be fair to say that this “someone” would be an agnostic on the verge of holding a provisional belief in atheism?
no - you still don’t get it -
Atheism is simply a ‘lack of belief in god or gods’ - you do not ‘believe in atheism’ - it is not a ‘belief system’ or thing to ‘believe in’ - it is a simple definition.
as for the earlier analogy (dick, jane, john) - the neigbor may believe it - his belief would be informed by the ‘faith’ he places on sources of information he has - you’re really screwing the two terms around.
Belief == a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true
Faith == belief without evidence
In your analogy/metaphor - you have some evidence to inform your belief - so it is not pure ‘faith’.
Wether or not we know ‘where’ the universe came from is not a matter of faith - it is a matter of fact - trying to claim that ‘supernatural being X created the universe’ is a matter of faith - and it is faith without evidence to back it up - the existence of the universe only proves that the universe exists - it does not prove anything else.
IOW - it does not matter ‘where’ it came from - only that it ‘is’ - trying to claim anything beyond ‘it is’ is a matter of faith. searching for the wheres/whys and hows is what seperates science from the ‘god did it’ crowd.