Originally posted by Suzianne
Sounds like a non sequitur. I did not say the opposite of doubt is faith. I said doubt kills faith.
And while certainty does not require faith, faith can create certainty. Except if you also allow doubt.
Sorry, I wasn’t replying directly to your post; it’s just that mine came immediately after. Nevertheless, I wasn’t very precise—which you rightly point out.
There are a number of uses of “certainty”: for instance, psychological
certainty. Doubtless conviction (indubitability) may be strictly psychological. Epistemic certainty requires objective evidentiary reasons (and I would strengthen that by adding such terms as repeatable and testable).
A certainty that arises just because one is not permitted (or does not permit him/herself) to doubt (to question) would seem to by only a psychological certainty—an indubitability in which one simply refuses to doubt.
How “faith” plays into this (e.g., can "create certainty" )seems to depend on which usage of “faith” is involved. Here are the definitions from Merriam-Webster online:
a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestantfaith>
I tend to use “faith” more generally as simply “confidence”—the closest above is probably b(2).
I was perhaps also conflating “certainty” with “knowledge”—and I would say that one who knows something with epistemic certainty (based on some objective proof) does not need faith in any of the above senses. Maybe I am still being a bit sloppy; maybe some non-standard usage of the word “faith” is in play—if so, it needs to be defined.