Does faith rely on the absence of evidence? Therefore evidence threatens faith?

Question

Evidence requires no faith, it only requires that you look at it. Faith on the other hand requires an absence of evidence. If there were evidence it wouldn't be faith...it would be knowledge. Faith is the 'gap filler' ...sort of like putty to fill in the cracks and holes.

However, does a lack of evidence in anything really need faith. Doesn't a lack of evidence or knowledge require action and discovery. Filling in the 'gaps' with faith admits defeat....admits that ignorance is our only choice.

Answer 1

Faith treats evidence as irrelevant. The evidence against the major world religions is overwhelming, but people continue to believe on the basis of "faith". At the same time, there is a certain power in faith to affect our own realities, so it is not useless. In fact, it is very important when the known evidence is in opposition to the desired result. faith allows one to believe that a different reality is somehow possible.

Answer 2

That would rely on the idea that evidence requires no faith. However, science or any field that produces evidence is based on a series of assumptions that require some level faith in them. In science, it is assumed that the scientific method is the correct way to obtain information. With this belief are the certain philosophical assumptions about what constitutes evidence or facts and those assumptions are based in the belief that that the world is a certain way. If one is trying to prove those assumptions with very theories that are based in them, you are stuck in a logical circle where things will undoubtably prove one another in the absense of external validation. At some point, a decision to believe or have faith in something is made.

Therefore, the very thing that is supposedly contradicting faith is in some ways based on it. Now, the evidence may thought to be well documented or reasonably sound, but then you are forced to look at those very terms. What does it mean to "reasonable" and how documented does evidence need to be to be well documented? I am willing to wager that all evidence that people hold to is based on some form of faith, whether it be the faith that the universe works in uniform ways that allow us to make theories and laws about how light travels or how organisms can evolve or faith that there is even a way in which empirical observation can be made.

Faith is not gaps. It's the foundation on which other things are built.

Answer 3

Faith means loyalty and a belief in the truth. You have faith that a chair will hold you up, even though you haven't checked the chair to make sure it's not broken. You have faith that a plane is safe when you fly on board miles above the ground, even though it is possible the plane could crash. Faith is based on what you know to be true, except that there are exceptions to the rule. In the case of God, I don't feel that there are exceptions to the rule, I honestly feel that I know God is real, God is as real as love or the wind. You can't see Him, and in the case of love, you can't hear Him or physically touch Him, but you know He's real. Faith is not something to fill in the gaps, living by faith is more powerful than living by sight. Living by sight is for people who aren't willing to risk anything. In the mean time, living by sight forces you to live in fear because you can't see the unknown, and you don't know what will happen. I would much rather live by faith than by sight. Thanks for reading, God bless. Also for the KJV guy, I like the KJV, don't get me wrong, but any translation past the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic isn't quite perfected. All translations now are taken from the original texts and are done in a way that the reader can understand. If you want the perfectly inspired word of God, go back to the original texts. If you want to understand it a little better, then find the version that best suits you, but I don't think the KJV is the only "correct version" of the Bible. That's my opinion, you don't have to agree, in the mean time, the Bible has the least mistakes of all ancient books, and hasn't changed except for the different translations. There are still followers of Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible today, so you can hardly say that Jesus just died. Most people who just die don't have such a quick growing and long lasting group of followers. In other words, Jesus didn't just die, or the story would have ended there. Jesus rose again, and He still is faithful to those who have faith in him. Thanks again for reading, and God bless.

Answer 4

No. Faith is belief independent of evidence. Denial is belief given extensive evidence to the contrary.

Here's a simple example. The ten, jack, queen, king, and ace of spades are shuffled and you don't look at the one card you are given. You guess that you have the jack. One of the other cards is turned over -- it's the ace. Now you have a better chance of being right. The evidence does not change your belief that the card is the jack. If the other three cards are turned over, and were the ten, queen and king, you can be all sure you have the jack, but you still haven't looked. With all favorable evidence, it is still a matter of belief. On the other hand if the jack were turned over on the second card, it would be foolish to think that your card is the jack; that is denial.

Answer 5

Faith is belief despite the absence of evidence.
Irrational faith is belief despite contrary evidence.
Skepticism is withholding belief until there is evidence.

I prefer skepticism over faith. As we gain more knowledge, faith is the gaps left behind. Mankind is gaining more knowledge at an accelerating rate, and already we are doubling our knowledge in less than a decade. I'm looking forward to faith becoming nothing more than Cantor's dust.

Answer 6

True faith is not the opposite of evidence.

Notice in Acts 2, Peter told them there was something they needed to "know assuredly" or believe, but before he got to this point there was an abundance of evidence. The apostles pointed out the miracles that had been done, they pointed out what the Old Testament said about Christ and they showed how these prophecies had been fulfilled, and thew talked about the witnesses who had seen the resurrection and these signs. They were shown evidence!

"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17) It is based on something. It is based on a standard.

Even "doubting Thomas" believed when he saw Jesus. Before this he said "Except I see... I will not believe." (John 20:25-29) He believed based on evidence when he had seen Christ.

The Bible often tells us to not just believe anything. We should "search the scriptures" to see if a teaching is true! (Acts 17:11)

Today we have the evidence found in the Bible. We can study and see if it, and the God it speaks of, is true.

Answer 7

Faith IS the evidence of things unseen. Faith doesn't "fill in the gaps" as there aren't any so called "gaps". The evidence people most usually refer to is creation, and there is evidence and faith isn't just there to fill in the gaps. Before one talks about what faith is, they should go and discover the true meaning before blabbing out random accusations. Filling in the gaps with faith isn't faith. It's a sorry excuse for faith for the ignorant. Real faith is not caring what the rest of the world thinks and going out and proving what you believe, without, like we said, caring. The ones who are too lazy to look for evidence and aren't even sure of the evidence blame everything ENTIRELY on faith. The ones who are sure of it and know that it's the truth and aren't afraid to speak up are the one's who know what faith is. You, don't.

Answer 8

Let me compliment Nova Angel's answer with a fictional example based upon real world actual events.

Say Bob is accused of murder. Say Joe is suspected of framing Bob, but all evidence points toward Bob being guilty and not framed.

Is Bob guilty? Probably, if not guilty of the crime, he is at least guilty of not hiring a better attorney or detective.

But the true crime is when the jury gets sick of sifting through the evidence and arguing as to whether or not there is a reasonable doubt that Bob committed the murder. So then Bob is convicted of murder.

Legally speaking, Bob was guilty.

In actuality, we don't know.

We take it upon faith in "the system" (legal system, and its laws) and that "the system" works.

And usually, well refined systems work, like law, but often they fail.

Many men innocent of the crimes they were convicted of go to jail because of the mistakes of others or sheer bad luck.

So is faith bad? No, having faith in law, for example, allows our society to run more smoothly, effectively and less crime-ridden. Is faith mutually exclusive to evidence? No. Often faith is based upon evidence. But remember, as previous answers have stated, observation of evidence and its "understanding" is also taken upon faith.

In the example of Bob's murder trial, evidence (but not proof) is what leads to the jury finding a way out of their obligation to seek the truth and in essence is what allows them to give up.

If people are lazy, stupid, or otherwise bad, evil, or inferior...it is due to circumstance, choice of that person or that person's abuse of faith or truth and not faith or truth it self.

Faith exists with or without evidence.

As stated earlier belief when evidence points to the contrary is denial, and when that evidence is overwhelming and leaves zero shadow of a doubt (which is technically impossible, but we can get close to zero doubt) then that is denial of facts or truth...that is foolishness and should not be confused with faith, that is on the contrary like the opposite of faith.

One could define faith to be one's conviction affirming a possible truth regardless of evidence and only strengthened by it.

However, we should be careful to know how we define "zero shadow of a doubt". Plus, in some cases, denial is not foolishness even with "overwhelming" evidence in contradiction. This is because that "evidence" could be propagandizing or simply mis-understood by its sharers.

As stated by an earlier answer, when we really get down to it, everything in life relies to some degree upon a certain amount of faith.

Often in the bible, God or Jesus seeks faith without miracles or evidence or "proof" not because evidence would destroy the faith, but because the people's fears that they've misplaced their faith (or would be misplacing their faith) shows a lack of trust in God and a lack of attention to the godliness (or lack thereof) of the supposed words and spirit of what God or the particular man of God was saying.

But then God or his prophet will then perform a miracle eventually anyway to get the attention of the people and to show God's glory, and finally to encourage faith in the Lord and faith in what the man of God is saying.

But then, this is just my opinion.

In conclusion, atheists and faithful alike, please don't be dissuaded from having faith in something just because a lot of bad "Christians" or other religious pretenders or "sheep" have given faith a bad reputation.

May God (or for atheists out there, May Nature or the Stock Market) Bless You.

Good Day.

~Definitely not Billy Graham.

Answer 9

Faith is believing before you have the evidence. Many times when you have faith, the evidence unravels.

Answer 10

Atheism is barely a loss of concept in gods. it is not an fact of any type. there is not any declare made via atheism that demands justification. Your Straw guy is uncovered and burned. My atheism is in line with a loss of information for any gods. it is not in line with any data in any respect. i do no longer assume my senses provide me precise guidance. I try my experience's ability to furnish me precise guidance via having my observations checked and rechecked for validity via numerous different self sufficient components. it is barely after my observations have been shown to be valid and precise that I settle for my experience's interpretation of that phenomenon. there is not any faith required or needed. Your solipsist reasoning is pathetic.