It could be both I suppose, faith as a verb, and faith as a noun.

Why people have faith is an interesting question, but for how people “faith” as answered by a psychologist I would suggest Daniel Gilbert’s Stumbling On Happiness.

It cannot ultimately answer the question “why”, no science can I think, but it can show that a lot of aspects of the faith experience are natural consequences of the “how”.

Tillich’s analysis of faith actually helps to show why most appeals to faith are misguided. He talked about how nationalism, racism, ideology, and religious triumphalism (”my faith is better than your faith”) are idolatrous. Why? They are overly loyal to something that isn’t truly ultimate.

But he also saw that the experience of faith — the experience of feeling compelled by an ideal or commitment, including things like nationalism or even atheism — reveals something true and meaningful about human life. Our capacity to make commitments, to latch onto metaphors and ideas and models, to see our lives in the context of some larger purpose (”secular” or “religious”) is what is deepest about us.

A: Five?

Q: No, just because we call a tail a leg, doesn’t mean it is a leg.

The odd thing about this is, if enough people — if most people — call a tail a leg, then it becomes a leg. But until then, if we go around making up our private definitions of commonly held words, then we’re just inventing word games and making it hard for other people to understand us.

Even if Paul Tillich told you that a tail is a leg, it still isn’t.

The way I see it, religious liberals need the multiple definitions of the words in order to contest more “traditional” people for understandings of religion. You don’t like the way those words are used by those others, because they exclude your understandings. Then I come along and seem like I want to uphold the traditional understanding, and that’s a problem for you.

But here’s the thing: I don’t think it does anything for me if the definition of religion is expanded, or the definition of faith is expanded. I shouldn’t have to fall into categories religious people prize to get respect. I suspect I’d go along with it if it were the only way to stop religious people from hating and fearing atheists, but it would taste bitter in my mouth, and it shouldn’t come down to that.

I’m not a part of your intra-religious competition with exclusivist co-religionists, but at the same time, I can’t ask for understanding on my own terms, and not grant you understanding on yours, even though I disagree with them.

So if you could somehow make your expanded definitions only apply to people who want and need them, not people who have abandoned the whole framework, that would really be a much better way. It wouldn’t magically create complete agreement between liberal religious people and non-religious people, but it would do something.

Experimental caution is good advice that could be justified by tradition. But I accept it based purely on experience and reason.

As a non theist I of course reject scripture unless it coincidently also agrees with reason and experience.

Citizen: I agree completely. I will cease to use the word faith to mean most probable.

But, yes, it is hard for me to think of folks as not “faithing,” for all the reasons I’ve tried to lay out. I think I understand why you don’t like being told you have faith in the way that it’s usually meant.

I want to make sure you know that I’m not using “faith” or “religion” in the same way they do. I don’t like the way they use them either. What I’m trying to do is take those words back.

I don’t understanding why “faith” is such an offensive word for you. I take you at your word, but I still don’t think I’m wronging you by saying otherwise.