Why is Faith a Virtue?

Why should we respect people’s faith when they have no evidence or proof?
Where else in our discourse do we encounter this? When was the last time that someone was admonished to respect someone else’s beliefs in history, physics, or mathematics?If I told you I believe there was a diamond buried in my backyard that is the size of a refrigerator, it might occur for you to ask me why.*What if in response I gave you the kind of answers that you hear from religious moderates, answers that describe the good effects of believing as I do?“Believing that there is a diamond in my back yard gives my life a lot of meaning.”“I wouldn’t want to live in a universe where there wasn’t a diamond buried in my backyard the size of a refrigerator.”Others will tell you that “Medical studies have shown that people who believe that there is a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in their backyard live longer, happier lives.”It’s pretty clear that responses of this sort are deeply inadequate. Why don’t we apply this same demand for proof to religious faith?Now watch this 2 minute video on teapot atheists!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVQoxrrMftA
(If you do not watch this video, do not bother responding.)Why do religious beliefs, or faith, get a pass when everything else in life is held to a higher standard?Why is faith a virtue?
Why are faith-based beliefs even more of a virtue when held despite evidence to the contrary?*Diamond analogy borrowed from Sam Harris, The End Of Faith, Chapter 1.

Good question. Let's define the terms.I'm using faith as in a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.A virtue is a character trait valued as being good. Faith may not fall under the four western cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice, but is still seen as good to christians based on my experience and the following passages:"Without faith, it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6)"Jesus said to him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.'" (John 20:29)"Now abide, faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is Love." (I Corinthians 13:13)"For we are living a life of faith, and not one of sight." (2 Corinthians 5:7)Aquinas believed that (living) faith is a virtue:"The will can not strive after God in perfect love unless the intellect have true faith toward him.""It is by human virtue that human acts are rendered good; hence, any habit that is always the principle of a good act, may be called a human virtue. Such a habit is living faith. For since to believe is an act of the intellect assenting to the truth at the command of the will, two things are required that this act may be perfect: one of which is that the intellect should infallibly tend to its object, which is the true; while the other is that the will should be infallibly directed to the last end, on account of which it assents to the true: and both of these are to be found in the act of living faith. For it belongs to the very essence of faith that the intellect should ever tend to the true, since nothing false can be the object of faith, as proved above (1, 3): while the effect of charity, which is the form of faith, is that the soul ever has its will directed to a good end. Therefore living faith is a virtue.""The faith of which we are speaking is based on the Divine Truth, which is infallible, and consequently its object cannot be anything false; so that faith of this kind can be a virtue."-Summa Theologica SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Home"Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further."
- Soren Kierkegaard, Summa summarum This one is harder to answer. It is what I have seen.Let's put it another way. Can faith be strong or weak? I think that it can. One can have stronger faith or convictions than another. A particular individual's faith can be shaken or destroyed after reading a book or listening to a lecture, while another believer, whose faith is stronger, will not be swayed by the literature or lecture.I'm saying that to believers, faith, despite evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary, is stronger than faith which has not been tested.

I could have also told you that it was proof of the flying speghetti monster but that would not have been true either.Do you have anything to add to the conversation?

This is not the place to discuss the merits of the evidence on either side of the argument. But I hope we can agree that evidence exists on both sides.

It is not as big as a concession as you may think.Maybe I should digress a little here. I see the bible as evidence. Just not good or scientific evidence. The sock missing from my last laundry load is evidence of the Flaying Speghetti Monster (he raptured it), but it is not good evidence.And that is not the type of evidence that I was referring to in my first post. I meant scientific evidence.Yes, let's stay on topic. I'm thinking of a way to respond to jar.

Do you ask others to believe it?Faith said: Why is it a straw man?I am absolutely certain that if nobody had heard of christ or christianity up until this point, and you happened accross the new testament, you would not believe it. Edited by Chief Infidel, : No reason given.

The topic is faith. Is it a virtue? Let’s try to stay on it.Do you ask people to believe your faith or not? If you ask them to believe it, you are asking them to respect it. Why not? Why have you shoehorned the word “blind” in there?People can have faith based on tradition. This is fact. Dawkins’s argument was not that faith in the teapot was based only on tradition, but authority as well. And if faith is not based on tradition and authority, how can we explain that the biggest predictor of one’s faith is the faith of their parents? Is it just a coincidence that different religions encompass different areas? For example, we have protestants in Northern Ireland, and catholics in the south.Please explain to me why it was a straw man. I may not be as smart as you, I need things in easily understood terms. I do not see how I was wrong at all. Your story fails to address what I said for two reasons. I said that I am absolutely certain that if nobody had heard of christ or christianity up until this point, and you happened across the new testament, you would not believe it.In your story, the KGB naval officer (?) already heard of christianity - his job was to dismantle it. In my hypo, you had not heard of christianity. Second, he did not just happen across the new testament. There was divine intervention. How can anyone who experiences such personal revelation or divine intervention call what they believe faith?Again. Let’s get back to the topic. Is faith a virtue? Why?Let’s talk for a moment about times when faith is not a virtue. Here are some examples:
Jonestown.
Doe Applewhite’s group having faith in catching a ride on the spaceship behind the Halle Bop comet.
Men flying 767’s into the side of sky scrapers.I say that faith is NOT a virtue. Why do you think it is?

Why not?

Well then how does faith work?Here is what Dawkins said: I still don't understand why your faith is different than the faith in the teapot. If you are going to say that your faith is based on "historical fact" then how would this be different than the stories "handed down for generations" in the teapot analogy?Are you saying that your faith is different because it's true?
How do you know it is true?Also, twice now you have brought up torture. I do not see how this is relevent. But you mention personal knowledge. Can you explain that?

Man has been wrong before. By the millions. There are even more muslims than christians, some are very extreme. These people are not "just kidding" about Islam when they fill their pockets with ball bearings, bolts, and rat poison and then blow themselves up in the mall or crash jats into the side of a building at 400 mph. Who brought them to the point of being able to believe, Allah?There were also many many people who believed in polytheism throughout the ages. In Japan, people sincerely believed the emperor was descended from god. People died for Pharaoh. Many people had real beliefs. How are yours different?Edited by Chief Infidel, : No reason given.

Thank you. This goes to the heart of my question. Why is it a virtue to base beliefs with life and death implications on something other than empirical evidence?If someone would like to bring up the good of faith, I would also like this question answered in light of Heaven's Gate, Jonestown, suicide bombings, witches being burned at the stake, the spanish inquisition, and all the other atrocities carried out in the name of religion.

Yes, I know. I responded to you because I liked your point. The questions were directed at anyone else reading the thread who would like to answer them.

Faith, it seems very circular. The bible is true because it is written reports of the truth?If this is the case, why isn't the koran true? Or the Iliad?

Okay then the mahabharata. Plenty of miracles in there. Millions of hindus out there. I'm sure that hindus have been killed/tortured for their beliefs.What evidence do you have for god that hindus do not have for krishna?Edited by Chief Infidel, : grammar

I want make sure I totally understand your faith. You have faith in god because god is in the bible. The bible is the word of god. End of discussion? Period?I know your evidence is the bible which is self-verified by god but where does your faith in the inerrancy of the bible come from? I do. Except the mahabharata is longer and older than the bible.Can you see where I am having trouble with your circular reasoning in this?Why is it virtuous to believe in something without evidence? Edited by Chief Infidel, : No reason given.