Reading one of your questions today, it struck me that that faith and evidence are two very different things, yet, seemingly the *same* thing to some. I was amazed that someone believed much of world history to be 'a lie' because it went against their 'faith'.
Anyway, my main question is:
'Believers', would you prefer faith or evidence to be used in court? If you were innocent and in the dock for suspected murder, would you prefer to be judged:
1. A man of God, judging by his 'Faith' alone?
or
2. An atheist, whose judgement takes into account evidence using science, i.e. DNA, forensics etc?
2007-10-12 00:43:10 · 6 answers · asked by Bajingo 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
* I mean, would you prefer to be judged *by*
...1 or 2?
Apologies for typo.
2007-10-12 00:46:23 · update #1
Since many can not be trusted I would most likely stick with evidence.
but I do believe in faith in the court rooms and right now that is what I'm using in a personal matter where I'm innocent and be falsely accused by a lady I worked for in her yard.
I've never heard of anyone saying what you mentioned though. It must be that one out of a 6million person.
2007-10-12 00:47:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
In our country (and most of the world), we have laws and a justice system. It is put in place to ensure people get a fair trial. IF God was the only Judge in every court, we wouldn't need anyone or anything else to determine guilt or innocence. God alone could do that. But since we are all only humans, we don't know all, as God does, we can't read minds, as God can.
We are fallible; imperfect, and therefore susceptible to making mistakes, assumptions, lying, manipulation, coercion, etc. So the only thing we have at our disposal to determine guilt or innocence is evidence (DNA, forensics, etc.).
But with God, He is beyond and above physical evidence; because He is not a physical being (except when Jesus came to earth in the physical form). So to know He exists, we only need faith.
2007-10-12 09:14:29 · answer #2 · answered by kaz716 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Going with your analogy, in most court cases, there is no proof. There's only evidence. And even then, half the time it's only circumstantial evidence.
I would prefer to be judged by someone who can follow circumstantial evidence to its logical conclusion.
By the way, DNA evidence is not always reliable. For example, if the murder scene or weapon was touched by many different people.
The best evidence is circumstantial evidence. For example:
1. Motive
2. Alibi
3. Was the person in the area when the crime occurred?
4. Could the person have PHYSICALLY committed the crime? (a 5 foot 90 pound woman probably would not have been able to fire a shotgun at close range)
5. Could the person have EMOTIONALLY committed the crime? (People who have high empathy levels are not usually capable of murder)
6. Eyewitnesses (but for many crimes, there ARE no eyewitnesses. For example, in most rape cases)
Like I said, circumstantial evidence. Much of religion is circumstantial evidence.
2007-10-12 07:59:36 · answer #3 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I'm a believer, but...
If I ever had to go to court, I'd much rather be judged by someone who uses scientific evidence.
2007-10-12 08:29:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question.
A reasonable and logical person would say number 2.
By the way who said that world history to be 'a lie' because it went against their 'faith'???
2007-10-12 07:47:01 · answer #5 · answered by Imagine No Religion 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Almost by definition, fundamentalists don't care about evidence. It's that simple. If it contradicts their faith, it must be wrong. You can not correct a fundamentalist.
2007-10-12 07:56:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋