Do you prefer the comfort of faith, or the comfort of fact?

Question

Personally, I prefer facts. I feel there is a certain comfort that comes with knowing I can prove a fact wrong (assuming I'm smart enough), whereas with faith, I can only disagree with it, but never completely disprove it. That feels dangerous to me.

Answer 1

I would prefer comfort of the unknown.

Answer 2

Oh this is a good question. I love atheist. You guys make me think.
Let's see. I would say both. As Boar said, many of us study the way is was done, and there is a lot of fact in that. We are called the religion of homework and let me tell you...there is a lot of it. LOL
BUT, I do find comfort in faith. It's funny because I used to make fun of people who had these "spiritual" experiences with the gods. I always WANTED to believe in something, it just never really touched me in any serious way. Even when starting on my pagan path, I still remained skeptical. It's what I do best. There is always a "but" or a "what if" that swims up front for me to analyze every feeling or thought. Because who wants to feel stupid if they are wrong?!?
But, then my gods walked into my life and smacked me upside the head. Almost rather literally. It down right almost hurt. It was so absolute, for me personally, that I wasn't skeptical. I had no reason to be. It felt 100% real. It didn't feel "out there" or weird in the least. There are some things I know to be true FOR ME. The gods of my blood lines are one of them. Not everyone will feel them. Not everyone is meant to. I feel no need to prove it, or defend them in any way. There just is no need.
So I suppose I find comfort in both, because they both exist for me. I can't claim what is "true" for anyone but me. And this is MY truth.
I remember when I began my pagan path, I would ask people "How did you know your tradition was right for you?" Everyone told me that I would just know. I friend of mine explained it as "I felt like I was coming home". Coming home is and was EXACTLY what it felt like for me.

Answer 3

There is no comfort in faith. Only intellectual cowardice. It's the comfort a child feels by crawling under the blankets to get away from the 'monsters'.
The monsters don't exist, so the comfort is based on a false assumption.

Facts are FAR more comforting.

Answer 4

I prefer facts... that's the scientific version of facts, not the biblical version of "facts." The first answerer is very funny... "talk to god, he's psychic"? ROFL!

Facts and faith are NOT the same thing... facts are incontrovertible... proven... faith is a trust in something you cannot verify. CANNOT VERIFY means it cannot be a fact.

And please... enough with the "I prefer agnostic because an atheist says they know god doesn't exist." Look at the word... a = not or without, theism = belief in god... therefore, atheism means no belief in god. Period. It's not a statement that god doesn't exist. It's "there may be one, but I don't believe there is."

Answer 5

First, if something is proven to be false, then it is not a fact. As a Christian faith is something I live. Facts are just something to be used. Without spirituality the fact can be used for evil. Hence, facts produced the atom bomb. It is a fact that they can be misused, not too comforting. Recently a B-52 with live nukes flew across the United States by mistake.

I think the key here is that we cannot make a God out of science. Facts are tools; faith, love, spirtuality are what life is. We may not be able to absolutely define or obtain these three items, but to me, they are the quest of our life, and not facts.

Answer 6

Both. You need the faith after the facts ends. You have the good reason to have faith, and from the evidence given, you believe you are right.

We all should have faith in something. Look around how people act when they think they do not have faith.

Answer 7

I prefer Southern Comfort. No ice, just straight up and chilled. Neat.

Oh yes, though I would much rather cope with the the cold hard facts that daydreams as hard as it might be at times. Best to deal with reality than fantasy.

Answer 8

I'm a fan of *historicity,* myself.

Truth™ being an entirely subjective matter, I am most comfortable as a reconstructionist of my ancestral, ethnocultural folkways . . . the question then becomes not "is this true?" but rather, "is this what was believed and practiced?"

I feel it is a human instinct to seek something beyond one's self, and larger than us all. Some might call it fear of the dark, or fear of one's own mortality, but I disagree . . . it is above all an *aspiration,* not a fear, and distorted and degraded beyond usefulness to us when fear is its primary justification or motivation.

Beyond what we know, is what we cannot know. As these things can be neither proven nor disproven, we relegate them to "belief" when we would be better served by regarding them as worldview, and as custom.

Answer 9

Personally I prefer both, mankind has all kinds of facts, but a little faith really can soften the heart and that has a lot of comfort for me.

Answer 10

I like to know the facts, nice to know the difference between fact and fiction.

Answer 11

I prefer facts as well. That's why I classify my self as agnostic not atheist. I'm of the opinion that "I don't know and neither do you!". There very well could be a god or gods, but I don't think it will ever be proven one way or the other.