I read this book over the weekend and was curious if anyone on this forum had read it. I recommend it quite a bit, even if you do not wish to be "that guy." The book basically goes over a bunch of different scenarios and conversations about religion and how to navigate those discussions in a compassionate and thoughtful way.

A couple of the overarching lessons from the book when confronting faith:

-Faith can be defined as "Pretending to know things you do not know." This one stuck with me.

-Asking the question, "What evidence would have to be provided in order for you to agree (insert their religion) is false" is quite useful in these discussions.

-Generally, not being a dick and not arguing for the sport of it yields the best results. Religion is something people fall into based on a singular moment (death in the family, etc) but getting out of the religion takes years of tiny course corrections.

Curious, for the theists on the forum: What evidence would have to be provided in order for you to agree your faith is false?

Probst,

As a theist here are my initial thoughts

I don't agree with your definition. You begin with a contentious premise.

Yep. good question.

I don't agree with this either. Sure some people come to religion this way but I think most people are just born into their faith. Also you seem to assume people don't have good reasons for their faith.

I don't have a good black and white answer I can just jot down here but open to discussing more.

That definition of faith sounds like it makes the rest of the book somewhat tautological.

How about this?

Faith is a claim of knowledge for which no sufficient evidence exists.

Better?

It's still pretty bad. Faith is far broader than this. It does not necessarily constitute neither a claim, knowledge nor lack of evidence (though any evidence will typically never be empirical).

In its absolutely broadest sense faith is trust in an idea, a leap from uncertainty to acceptance. And even though religious philosophy contains many, many variations of what faith is, that one is certainly also used.

Its not my definition. Its the author's definition.

I do not believe there are any good reasons for faith (pretending to know something that you do not know).

Are there other things in your life you have faith in without the need for evidence?

So can you interchange the word "Faith" in your statement with the word "Hope?"

I will make the assumption that you cannot.

If you cannot insert the word "Hope" for "Faith" than what you are claiming would seem you are certain of. Which would lead me to believe you are claiming to know something that, by your own admission, you do not know.

No, you can't interchange it with hope. Hope is a desire and belief in a good outcome. Faith does not necessarily constitute neither desire nor anything about positive outcomes.

Fairly obvious stuff.

I agree with what you are saying. What are you basing your faith upon? Referencing the OP, is there any evidence that could be presented to you that would make you discontinue this faith?

I start with the indisputable fact that "experience is" and then I have faith in the observable being the only sound basis for constructing understanding of the world.

This seems very in line with pretending to know something you don't know. Help me understand what you mean.

I'm not "pretending" anything. In the context of presuming, pretending is also a horrible word since it carries connotations of deceit. To use it still does not paint a picture of anyone looking for answers, but of someone looking to paint the world with his own.

Nor have I made any claims of knowledge. I have merely said I have faith in the observable being the only sound basis for understanding the world. I trust that idea. I don't know it.

When you say "the observable" what does that mean? Trees, butterflies, your parents... Don't let me put words in your mouth I'm just trying to understand your position.

You are saying that because of "the world and the things in it" you believe in an idea that is unknowable?

Apologies for not following the thought process.

The word "pretending" connotates deceit as TD states above. This is just a really bad place to start.

Lestat, I don't think faith is primarily a claim of knowledge

These definitions are worth looking at, especially 1-3.

You would have to provide a logical demonstration that the concept of God was false.

Do you need a logical demonstration for the concept of the Norse God Thor or Poseidon to be false in order to not believe in it?

I don't think it constitutes deceit, I think it constitutes delusion. For example, if you are Christian then you must perceive a Muslim as being delusional. That is, pretending to know something which you know to not be true.

If faith is not a claim of knowledge, then when you use it can't you just exchange the word for "hope" or "trust?"

I consider those to be aspects of primitive religions and their concept of God. I do not consider them to be particularly useful to me, but there really is not a believe or not believe decision involved. An analogy would be the Bohr model of the electron. I do not consider it to be very useful, but it is not really involved in the fact that I believe there is an electron.

Nope. Do you?

The observable follows from experience, and as I have stated I trust the idea that it is the only sound basis for constructing understanding of the world.

I have no idea if it is unknowable, so the answer to your question is "I don't know".

I'm not following this. So, in order for you to believe in something, you do not necessarily need models or evidence.

In order for you to NOT believe in something, you need a logical demonstration for its non-existence.

I don't know either.

If the observable follows from experience, what experience have you had with faith which allows you to "trust" (in other words "hope") it be true? I don't feel you are being specific.

I do not need a logical demonstration of anything's non-existence, only something's existence.

Are you sure you mean a "logical" demonstration?

I'm sorry, I do not know what you mean.