This question is really for EvidenceVsFaith as I still do not quite understand his usage of these two words but would like to.

Hypothetical:

Say you came to a town in Virginia and were looking for a CVS Pharmacy. You saw me on the street and asked for directions to the nearest CVS (of course you did not know it was me as I was just some stranger to you). I gave you directions and you followed them and found my directions accurate.

When you decided to follow my directions were you acting on faith or evidence or both?

It's a bit of both really. The evidence is the fact that most people give correct directions, and when someone doesn't know where the pharmacy is, they don't generally give directions to it. People who like to confuse lost people by giving them wrong directions are in the minority. Knowing this, the rational decision is to follow their directions and see where you end up.

Of course, the last part is testable. If the directions end up to be bogus, you realise and won't trust that person again. You might not trust any other people when they tell you either, or you might go and find a map.

The faith aspect is in the initial trust of the person, but it is based on previous evidence. It all depends on what you mean by "faith". If you mean faith as believing something without good evidence, or with only anecdotal or evidence based on opinion, then I view this the same as trust. I trust people generally to point me in the right direction.

If however you view faith as believing based on absolutely no verifiable evidence at all (i.e. as some people view faith in God), then it isn't the same thing in this case. The evidence is verifiable, as the pharmacy exists in the material world (or at least we assume it does since you are looking for one).

I would also add that believing a person's directions to a pharmacy is a "smaller" issue than accepting a ghost story or resurrection. The standards of evidence are different given what it specifically is that you are asked to believe. Accepting the existence and location of a pharmacy is not as hard to believe as a ghost in your attic.

If their directions are telling the truth and are correct, then it's evidence based and not faith-based. If they aren't telling the truth of have got the directions wrong, then my belief in what I think to be evidence is mistaken so my belief is actually faith-based.

What I think to be evidence and whether it's actually evidence or not are two different things.

And as Adrian says, as most people tend to give directions only when they know the truth, it usually is evidence, but not always. I could be mistaken, or I could correctly notice they were bizarrely lying for some reason, etc.

So in general it is evidence. But not always. It is not absolute because it can be evidence, it cannot be proof. Matters such as these aren't knowable enough to be absolutely proven. And even evidence isn't certain.

EvF

(October 27, 2009 at 1:20 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If their directions are telling the truth and are correct, then it's evidence based and not faith-based. If they aren't telling the truth of have got the directions wrong, then my belief in what I think to be evidence is mistaken so my belief is actually faith-based.

What I think to be evidence and whether it's actually evidence or not are two different things.

And as Adrian says, as most people tend to give directions only when they know the truth, it usually is evidence, but not always. I could be mistaken, or I could correctly notice they were bizarrely lying for some reason, etc.

So in general it is evidence. But not always. It is not absolute because it can be evidence, it cannot be proof. Matters such as these aren't knowable enough to be absolutely proven. And even evidence isn't certain.

EvF

That is what I thought you would say from some of your other posts. I do not think that is how people usually use the words. I think of the words more like Adrian and I think others do also. But all that doesn't matter as I really wanted to understand your point of view.

Based on your point of view then would I be correct in saying that the reasons I have for believing in God would really constitute evidence should they prove to be correct some day and your reasons for not believing in God would really be faith-based should they prove to be incorrect some day? (I know you do not think it will turn out that way but I am asking hypothetically.)

That is so astoundingly stupid I'm not even sure what to say...

Evidence isn't "wrong" or "right". Evidence can be explained as something supporting a statement. Whether or not the statement is true is irrelevant to the truth of the evidence. Think of a murder trial. Both sides will present evidence to plead their case. Obviously both sides cannot be correct, but that doesn't that one side's evidence is secretly faith just because it's wrong.

No that's not what I'm saying at all Rjh4.

I am speaking of evidence not proof, as the subject of the thread (and my name) is Evidence Vs Faith, not proof Vs Faith.

I am saying that on the whole when given directions it should be considered evidence I guess, because people usually tell the truth. The reason why it shouldn't be considered proof is because of course it's not always the case! And it is in no way proven to be. People can easily give the wrong directions either deliberately or accidentally.

My other point was simply that what one believes to be evidence and what is evidence are two different things. If I believe that the existence of the fruit oranges is evidence for the existence of a pixie that I claim lives in my back garden, the fact I believe that to be evidence does not make it so. It does not actually evidence it because it's a complete non-sequitur and doesn't even make any sense.

Just as the fact that creationists may believe they have evidence for creationism, does not mean that they actually have evidence for creationism. Evolution on the other hand, actually has supporting evidence that is verifiable. This is not absolutely proven to be evidence for if it was it would be proof and not evidence. However, it is a matter of fact of whether evolution actually has supporting verifiable evidence or not. The supporting evidence, the fossils, the DNA, either does or does not exist. Whether this is believed to be evidence is another matter to whether it actually exists.

Anyone could simply say that fossils and Dna, etc., is "Not evidence", but that doesn't change the fact that those pieces of evidence do physically exist and can be seen for what they really are by rational minds. Not everyone has to accept evidence for it to be evidence, and not everyone has to reject something as baseless and lacking in evidence, for it to indeed, be completely lacking in evidence and require utmost faith to believe in.

EvF

(October 27, 2009 at 1:20 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If their directions are telling the truth and are correct, then it's evidence based and not faith-based. If they aren't telling the truth of have got the directions wrong, then my belief in what I think to be evidence is mistaken so my belief is actually faith-based.

I'm sorry, but that's absurd, and no wonder Rjh4 asked the follow up question he did. The type of evidence that something is, is simply not determined by how wrong or right it is. If you believe that a pharmacy is where it is because someone said so, it's because of testimonial based evidence. You might believe the witness because you simple have faith the person won't lie, or you might believe them because the person looks local, you have no reason to suspect they are lying, and your experience in the past with asking for directions has generally been good. (Which I think is usually the basis for most people to accept directions given from a stranger, IMO) In either case, the evidence is still testimonial and not suddenly faith based because it was wrong.

From that perspective it would mean that faith doesn't exist. Because everyone has their reasons for believing. If the reasoning is valid then it's evidence. If it's invalid then it's faith. Because...if any reasoning=evidence then no one can truly have faith because everyone has evidence...because everyone has their reasons.

Evidence gives indication, it verifies things. If it does not then how is it, by definition, evidence?

EvF

EvF, you're essentially saying that as long as what is believed to be true, is true, then by whatever means you arrive at the conclusion, it's valid reasoning. That is absurd. If you are trying to make some sort of distinction between faith based reasoning and evidence based reasoning, you've failed miserably.

Reasoning never "equals" evidence. It is simply the collection arguments and evidence that make up your reasons. Faith could be included as an argument, a poor argument in my mind, but one never the less. Faith doesn't have only a religious connotation, just so we're clear. You can believe something to be true for bad reasons and good reasons. Even if it turns out to be true, that doesn't suddenly mean the bad reasons are good reasons, or evidence based reasons.