Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
I’ve noticed something very odd lately. Whenever I discuss the issue of faith, Christian apologists rarely if ever use the definition of faith as listed in the first chapter and verse of The Epistle to the Hebrews. Isn’t that odd? Why do you think that is? I believe the reason is that apologists realize just how “slippery” this definition of faith really is. To be blunt: It sounds really ignorant and silly! Is it really intelligent to believe something is a fact based simply on your desires (hope)??? Of course not.
So clever Christian apologists have come up with a new and better definition of faith (note: a better definition than “God’s” definition in the Holy Bible!). Here it is: trust. Faith is trust, more specifically, faith is trust based on past performance (that is what my former pastor would preach as the best definition of faith).
Wow. That doesn’t sound anything like “God’s definition”!
From philosopher Peter Boghossian:
A recent move by apologists is to avoid the use of the word “faith” entirely and instead to use the word “trust”. Given that the word “faith” is inherently problematic, I think this is an excellent strategy. The counter to this, however, is identical: “Without sufficient evidence how do you know what to trust? ” If the response is, “There is sufficient evidence,” then your reply should be, “Then you don’t need faith.”
—A Manual for Creating Atheists, p. 36