Faith, cont'd.

Ergo Sum: I'm sure, without me having to elaborate too much on this, you realize how absurdly general this definition of faith is. A conviction of things unseen -- I have not seen a Batman in real life. But can I truly hold on to a conviction of his existence? I could according to this definition of faith. The definition is incapable of distinguishing between faith and fantasy!

I agree, this is a very general definition. However, to your point of its absurdity: Does Batman exist? Well, obviously not: he's fictional. Belief in Batman is not faith, not a conviction of things unseen, but conviction of things non-existant! Faith in Batman would not be to have faith in the real sense. To have faith is to say "I believe in ______," blank being what is. You posit that this, if true, would make null the neccesity of faith. Initially, it would seem so. However, more specifically, faith sometimes requires the acceptance of what is, despite appearences to the contrary. Take your beliefs. You believe the sun does not revolve around the earth, despite initial appearences. Why? Astronomers have demonstrated logically the evidence for this truth and pointed to its probablity. Faith involves a similar process of reasoning. You have never watched the dance of the spheres- yet you believe it occurs in a certain manner. You have conviction of things unseen, despite initial appearences to a contradiction between what you believe and what you initially see. The science of the spheres we call Astronomy; the science of God we call Theology.