Why do people of faith try to use arguments and evidence to rationalize and support their faith?

Question

Serious question. As an atheist faith and reason are on opposite ends of the pole to me and I want to find out if it is different for others. As a scientist if some said the Earth was flat and offered their faith as evidence I would dissmiss it as a silly. If someone walked to the edge of the Earth and dropped a penny then I would believe it.

I put this in the Science section because it would be the best place for those that understand empiricism but also those that may have faith in a religion or supernatural powers.

Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

BTW, there is no such thing as the Hubble factor. There is Hubble's Law which states v = HoD

Answer 1

for the person that said astronomers have no proof of the universes age.Bologni! It is approx 13.7 billion years old.How you ask? One word. Redshift. The universe is expanding since the big bang.Redshift spectrum analysis proves this.Edwin Hubble discovered this decades ago.
When you see hubble objects millions of light years away.Doesnt that automatically tell you something?You are seeing light that is millions of years old.Light travels at a certain speed.Light year corresponds to how far light travels in one year.Anyways im not going to go way into this because for most people my point is obvious if your willing to hear it.

For the original question, the answer is that they are contradicting themselves.Or they have a lack of faith.Or they are just silly.I think they are just silly personally.Good luck with this question though yoiu are undoubtably going to get answers that try to prove god which is exactly why you are right to ask that question about faith to begin with.
If they have faith then there is no need for further ranting. You have faith, great! now have a coke, a smile, and shut your door.

Answer 2

Why do astronomers believe that the universe is a certain age, when they have no proof whatsoever? They have what they refer to as the "Hubble" factor. Depending on what value is placed in the hubble factor, the age of the universe can vary widely.

So in this case, science has created a formula, which requires "faith" to be believable.

How is that any different than religion?

Answer 3

It's really a question of philosophy. Religion makes some huge assumptions and then builds up a logical structure. Science makes the huge assumption that objective knowledge is possible and then builds up a logical structure. Not every philosopher accepts that there's such a thing as objective knowledge, so science is based on faith just as much as religion.

Answer 4

I don't know of any religious group who tried ot use evidence to support their theory as there is none. While there is evidence everywhere for evolution religion can only rely on human needs, fear, and misery (as in islam and used ot be in christianity). as an atheist I have often had religious friends try to "keep me out of hell" and it always starts with verse so and so or book of. This is all man made and intended for the control of the masses especially women.

Answer 5

Your question is obviously based on belief systems which do not require thinking or evidence. In Islam this is not so. Here is some of the evidence - http://www.harunyahya.com/

Answer 6

do you believe in a million dollars??? have you ever seen it??? exactly you don't have to see something to believe it whatever makes you happy is what you should believe in. People use arguments and "evidence" to support their faith because that what makes them happy. Thats why its not good manners to talk about religon and politics because everyone is different and everyone believes in something different.