Faith Is Not Belief Without Evidence

[ChristineES]

People have this idea that all of we that have faith, have it without any evidence. I want to make it clear that we do have evidence. Some of you may not accept it as evidence, and some of you will probably see it as faulty evidence, but it is with evidence that we have the faith. I don't expect anyone else to accept the evidence that I have for my own faith.

Any other thoughts on this?

 

[McBell]

People have this idea that all of we that have faith, have it without any evidence. I want to make it clear that we do have evidence. Some of you may not accept it as evidence, and some of you will probably see it as faulty evidence, but it is with evidence that we have the faith. I don't expect anyone else to accept the evidence that I have for my own faith.

Any other thoughts on this?

Faith is belief in something that your intellect would otherwise reject.
Otherwise, you would not need faith.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

People have this idea that all of we that have faith, have it without any evidence. I want to make it clear that we do have evidence. Some of you may not accept it as evidence, and some of you will probably see it as faulty evidence, but it is with evidence that we have the faith. I don't expect anyone else to accept the evidence that I have for my own faith.

Any other thoughts on this?

Confirmation bias.

 

[HerDotness]

Like what?

Give me an example of your evidence for one of your religious beliefs.

 

[Skwim]

As I just told you HERE
Faith is a firm trust in a belief.

As for having faith without evidence, that's what it basically boils down to. More to the point, its generally without firm evidence. If the evidence was firm your claim of faith would no doubt be a claim of knowledge; however, because it doesn't rise to the status of knowledge it can only be a belief, a belief you trust to be true.

 

[Nakosis]

People have this idea that all of we that have faith, have it without any evidence. I want to make it clear that we do have evidence. Some of you may not accept it as evidence, and some of you will probably see it as faulty evidence, but it is with evidence that we have the faith. I don't expect anyone else to accept the evidence that I have for my own faith.

Any other thoughts on this?

Individual have arbitrary thresholds of what they accept as being evidence. Your evidence may not surpassed someone else's threshold. So they'll dismiss it as non evidence.

So what? Is there any need of convincing someone else? If you are happy with your faith, why care if anyone else accepts it?

I mean if you can justify it for yourself. There's always room for doubt so it doesn't hurt to allow others to examine it for weakness for your own benefit.

 

[ChristineES]

Like what?

Give me an example of your evidence for one of your religious beliefs.

No, thank you. It is only evidence TO ME and it wouldn't be evidence to you- another reason to call it faith. I mentioned my evidence in another thread about two weeks ago and it was totally ignored.

 

[Sunstone]

It's been my experience that many of the faithful I know are more reasonable than they are sometimes given credit for being. People often enough paint them as having faith in things that are contradicted by a weight of reason and evidence. But that characterization -- while true of some folks (such as young earth creationists) -- seems unfair to many others.

I know many faithful who do not believe in things that they know are contradicted by a weight of reason and evidence. Instead, they have faith in things that lack sufficient reason and evidence, but which are not actually contradicted by a weight of reason and evidence.

 

[Tathagata]

If there is strong evidence for something, why do you need faith? Evidence destroys faith.

I dont have faith that the Earth is round, I know it's round. If there was no evidence of a round Earth, I would need faith. But since so much strong evidence exists for a round earth, I dont need to have faith because I now know that the earth is round.

Let me ask, do you KNOW that God exists? Or is there too much evidence lacking for you to declare that you know for a fact?



.
.
.

 

[ChristineES]

Individual have arbitrary thresholds of what they accept as being evidence. Your evidence may not surpassed someone else's threshold. So they'll dismiss it as non evidence.

So what? Is there any need of convincing someone else? If you are happy with your faith, why care if anyone else accepts it?

I mean if you can justify it for yourself. There's always room for doubt so it doesn't hurt to allow others to examine it for weakness for your own benefit.

I don't think anyone needs to worry about that. I don't need anyone else to accept it. I have mentioned it before, as I said in my last post- and I as I said, it was ignored (if anyone read it, they didn't respond to it). That's perfectly OK, but I don't want to post it if (it takes a lot of time and energy) if no one is going to even read it.

I expect people to dismiss- they can dismiss it all they want.

 

[HerDotness]

It doesn't make any difference that people around the world believe all kinds of things that we can be reasonably certain don't happen, then? That's okay as long as they really trust the authorities who tell them these things are right?

So, when a bunch of people trust a leader who tells them to sell everything they have and meet on a hilltop to be picked up by an alien spacecraft, that's okay for them to do that. That's just how faith is.

Extend that...Someone tells us a virgin was told by an invisible spirit that she was pregnant and would have a child fathered by an invisible spirit, we should believe that this actually happened because we trust the person who told us this, and that person assures us that it's true. So, while we don't know how this person whom we trust knows it's true, but we agree to believe it is. We ask, "How do you know that's true?" The answer is, "It says so in the Bible, and I know the Bible is true because it tells me it's the Word of God."

What's the difference?

 

[ChristineES]

If there is strong evidence for something, why do you need faith? Evidence destroys faith.

I dont have faith that the Earth is round, I know it's round. If there was no evidence of a round Earth, I would need faith. But since so much strong evidence exists for a round earth, I dont need to have faith because I now know that the earth is round.

Let me ask, do you KNOW that God exists? Or is there too much evidence lacking for you to declare that you know for a fact?



.
.
.

Because what I call "evidence" can be faulty, there is always that chance. If I was never wrong, then I couldn't call it faith. I, like anyone else, has a some doubt at times. I doubt there isn't anyone that doesn't have doubt at one time or another. There are only a few things in which we could never have any doubt, and even that is questionable.
But this is more philosophy than anything else.

 

[ChristineES]

It doesn't make any difference that people around the world believe all kinds of things that we can be reasonably certain don't happen, then? That's okay as long as they really trust the authorities who tell them these things are right?

So, when a bunch of people trust a leader who tells them to sell everything they have and meet on a hilltop to be picked up by an alien spacecraft, that's okay for them to do that. That's just how faith is.

Extend that...Someone tells us a virgin was told by an invisible spirit that she was pregnant and would have a child fathered by an invisible spirit, we should believe that this actually happened because we trust the person who told us this, and that person assures us that it's true. So, while we don't know how this person whom we trust knows it's true, but we agree to believe it is. We ask, "How do you know that's true?" The answer is, "It says so in the Bible, and I know the Bible is true because it tells me it's the Word of God."

What's the difference?

What I have personal evidence with is God, not what is written in the Bible. I have and will continue to question what is written in the Bible. My belief in God is somewhat separate from my religion- as illogical as that sounds.

 

[Nakosis]

If there is strong evidence for something, why do you need faith? Evidence destroys faith.

Or evidence justifies faith. But yes faith is only necessary when the individual lacks total certainty.

I dont have faith that the Earth is round, I know it's round. If there was no evidence of a round Earth, I would need faith. But since so much strong evidence exists for a round earth, I dont need to have faith because I now know that the earth is round.

Let me ask, do you KNOW that God exists? Or is there too much evidence lacking for you to declare that you know for a fact?
.
.

For me I am never 100% certain. It's always somewhere between 0-100%.

For God I'd say 70% certain "God" exists based on my personal experiences. Not being all knowing there is always room for doubt. Depending on additional knowledge/experiences that certainty may vary.

 

[Sunstone]

My belief in God is somewhat separate from my religion- as illogical as that sounds.

Actually, that makes sense -- at least to me.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Lewis describes Faith pretty well, comparing it to trust,

such as trusting his dentist wouldn't overdose him when knocking him out for an operation and won't screw it up, he many or many not have reason to believe these things, but the moment before you go out, it sure takes a lot of faith either way

 

[1137]

People have this idea that all of we that have faith, have it without any evidence. I want to make it clear that we do have evidence. Some of you may not accept it as evidence, and some of you will probably see it as faulty evidence, but it is with evidence that we have the faith. I don't expect anyone else to accept the evidence that I have for my own faith.

Any other thoughts on this?

I just explained this.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/130627-all-faith-2.html
There is a different between faith and fideism, and for once the OP's idea of faith is actually correct. Fideism has no evidence or rejects evidence / logic that opposes it. That is not the same as faith. I have no problem with faith, I have faith. But fideism is an insult to your "god-given" intellect.

 

[idav]

People have this idea that all of we that have faith, have it without any evidence. I want to make it clear that we do have evidence. Some of you may not accept it as evidence, and some of you will probably see it as faulty evidence, but it is with evidence that we have the faith. I don't expect anyone else to accept the evidence that I have for my own faith.

Any other thoughts on this?

Faith is about breaking through the obstacles of fear and doubt. Sometimes we fear thing irrationally and even when fear is justified faith can get someone through.

 

[HerDotness]

It is only evidence TO ME and it wouldn't be evidence to you- another reason to call it faith. I mentioned my evidence in another thread about two weeks ago and it was totally ignored.

Sounds like what I'd call UPG--unverifiable personal gnosis.

 

[wmjbyatt]

People have this idea that all of we that have faith, have it without any evidence. I want to make it clear that we do have evidence. Some of you may not accept it as evidence, and some of you will probably see it as faulty evidence, but it is with evidence that we have the faith. I don't expect anyone else to accept the evidence that I have for my own faith.

Any other thoughts on this?

This may be a semantic thing, but faith is basically defined as belief without evidence. That's not a problem, however. Ultimately everyone has faith: there can be no evidence that a statement and its contradiction cannot both be true, we believe it because we cannot conceive of a world that functions where that is false. That is non-evidentiary, and thus faith. (There are Atheists here who will disagree with me. They can suck on Agrippa's Trilemma and the hundreds of scholarly papers on the matter)

There IS a difference between EVIDENCE and CONFIRMATION. For something to rightfully count as evidence, it must contribute to the case that the explanation for which it vouches is the most reasonable explanation. Evidence that the faithful see is not that: to a dispassionate observer, it would not contribute more (or, usually, less) to the case of God than against.

To clearly see this separation articulated, examine some of Popper's discussions on the difference between science and pseudo-science. Now, I'm not making the claim that faith is pseudo-scientific (most of the time it has no pretension to science, so it cannot be the pseudo variant), but rather only that Popper makes a very clear distinction between contributing evidence and a theory that cannot take evidentiary support--which is where most articles of faith stand.