2 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
I feel like my user name obligates me to chime in here.
Regarding your first point: Good job pointing out a potential Motte and Bailey[1] You're right that there are two(at least) definitions of faith being floated around. Harris and Dawkins like to deal with the easy one to dismiss and many religionists do hold that view. Others don't and Kierkegaard was one of them. This writer seems to be making an effort to nail down a definition that aligns with Kierkegaards. That's a project worth undertaking and I think criticisms should be leveled at what he's defined, rather than the definition he's purposely moving away from or at the fact that multiple definitions exist.
1: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/
Regarding your second: You're still stuck in the previous definition since your criticism is that you're acting from evidence or not really knowing. He's not defining faith as a lack of evidence or as "knowing", but as the movement of trust we make from not infallible evidence to action. All of his examples are to show that he's not talking about the no evidence definition, he's talking about the actual thing you do in those situations.
Comment by Gugteyikko at 25/01/2020 at 00:09 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Thanks for your thoughts! I recognize that the author and Kierkegaard are not talking about my second definition, and I used their definition in point 2. I just brought up the other one because the comments on people who criticize faith were off-base.
I’m fine with a saying that I use faith **if** the definition does not include accepting any proposition on insufficient evidence. This definition would not apply to someone who affirms God’s existence on the basis of faith, and I’ve never actually heard any Christian use this definition when talking about their own religion. It seems like a misleading and unhelpful definition.