Evidence Verses Faith

[Daystar]

This isn't a post directed personally at EVF or FVE, but I would love to hear your thoughts on it.

I started to make this post several different times and it hasn't been right. I have been accused of being to wordy, which is funny to me, so I will just come out and say what I want to say.

I am a retired homocide detective. Not rich or educated by any means, but I love to learn and talk about the Bible. More so with atheists because they don't have as much religious influence. Actually they have it but it is sort of second hand. Their limited understanding comes from the pagan / Xian myths.

I want to talk about the importance of faith and evidence. One of the last cases I worked on was that of a man who was shot in his own apartment. The gun was dropped beside his body. I walked into the place and saw only that much and knew that he had been shot by a woman most likely; possibly a child, elderly person or imigrant but most likely a young woman. The rookies couldn't understand how I could have thought that and were amazed when two days later a young woman turned herself in for shooting the man.

How did I know? Faith or evidence? I had faith in my experiences on the job and thus all the evidence I needed. When a woman shoots a man out of passion she will most often drop the gun as if to separate herself from what she realizes she has just done. She doesn't think to hide the weapon and she doesn't care about the gun anymore.

Inexperienced killers having been backed into some corner might do the same but since this was a young man in his own apartment it was most likely a woman. I could have been wrong but I wasn't.

Another case I worked on years ago a man was witnessed in a park standing over a man shot to death holding the murder weapon in his hand. I didn't think he had done it even though most would have taken the scene as evidence of his guilt. It turned out he didn't do it.

Faith and evidence can both be wrong. Faulty.

I have faith in the Bible because it proves itself to me. I have gotten to know it well and it never fails me. Its evidence speaks to me. Not so with you. Primarily because you believe in the myth of Christendom and observe its bloody history.

The soul, for example. I could write a big post on what the soul actually means from the Bible and you wouldn't be at all interested other than to say that it doesn't fit with what most Xians teach. That is because they teach a pagan influenced version of the soul.

What does it matter to an atheist? Well - for one thing you would be dismissing the Bible through someone elses biased interpretation without investigating what the Bible itself says, which by the way, you shouldn't do with my interpretation either, but also because when a Xian says to you that your soul is going to be tormented in hell forever it would be nice, I would think, to point out to a Xian that that isn't true.

It is important to know what you are dealing with if you are going to deal with it.

[Tiberius]

I don't think your example counts as "faith". Faith is a belief that isn't based on a proof or evidence, however in your case your belief was based on evidence. Your experience in previous cases made you believe that this was a woman who murdered the man because of the dropped gun. That to me counts as evidence and not as faith.

Another example for instance. Suppose I am in an unknown personal universe, and I have no idea how the laws of this universe works. So I take a ball and drop it. It falls upwards towards the ceiling. I do the experiment again, and the ball always drops upwards. "Aha", I think to myself, "Gravity works upside-down in this universe". I take the ball again, and prepare to drop it.

Now, I believe that the ball is going to fall upwards, because in all previous attempts (let's say there were 100 of them) it did so, and the conditions were exactly the same. When I release the ball, it could go down of course, but that isn't the question. The question is whether my belief in the ball falling upwards is based on faith or evidence. I would say evidence, and until the ball drops downwards I would continue to say it was a belief based on evidence. Once it drops down, I would have to rethink my beliefs, but up until that point I don't think it could be said to be faith.

What do you think?

[Daystar]

I don't think your example counts as "faith". Faith is a belief that isn't based on a proof or evidence, however in your case your belief was based on evidence. Your experience in previous cases made you believe that this was a woman who murdered the man because of the dropped gun. That to me counts as evidence and not as faith.

Adrian, you made a good point. How about this. My faith in the case of the man shot by the woman was made in faith of my past experiences. It could have turned out either way. I could have been right or wrong, but eventually my theory was proved as true, accurate and fact. The evidence I had in proposing that theory wouldn't have been solid evidence to a rookie cop and not without good reason. He hadn't the experience.

My theory was, to me, an example of the Biblical definition of faith. Hebrews 11:1 - Faith is the assured expectation ("Assured expectation." Literally "a sub-standing." Greek hypostasis; Latin substantia) of things hoped for, the evident demonstration ("Evident demonstration." Or, "convincing evidence." Greek elegkhos; Latin argumentum. Compare John 16:8) of realities (Literally "of things." Greek pragmaton) though not beheld.

That is pretty much what happened. The point, though, was that I could have been wrong. Even with the "Greek elegkhos or convincing evidence."

Another example for instance. Suppose I am in an unknown personal universe, and I have no idea how the laws of this universe works. So I take a ball and drop it. It falls upwards towards the ceiling. I do the experiment again, and the ball always drops upwards. "Aha", I think to myself, "Gravity works upside-down in this universe". I take the ball again, and prepare to drop it.

Now, I believe that the ball is going to fall upwards, because in all previous attempts (let's say there were 100 of them) it did so, and the conditions were exactly the same. When I release the ball, it could go down of course, but that isn't the question. The question is whether my belief in the ball falling upwards is based on faith or evidence. I would say evidence, and until the ball drops downwards I would continue to say it was a belief based on evidence. Once it drops down, I would have to rethink my beliefs, but up until that point I don't think it could be said to be faith.

Yeah. We have yet to see things differently as I see it so far. From my perspective at this point in our conversation the problem may be that you see faith as blind faith, which the Bible doesn't encourage. Perhaps you see that as such for personal reasons due to a mythological influence in Xianity and a scientific inability to explain the supernatural but is that what we are talking about? I don't think so.

Lets say that an unknown extra terrestrial being came down to earth and the first thing he found was a Bible, which he was able to read and understand and the supernatural acts performed in it were not an impossibility to the being?

[CoxRox]

Daystar, you have conveyed some good points about 'faith'. I am understanding you better in this post.

[Meatball]

Sorry to jump in, but we've got a good discussion going and I can't resist.

In regards to 'Faith' vs. 'Blind Faith', I see this as two sides of the same coin. I understand you are defining faith as more of a trust than anything. Blind Faith is simply a harsher way of stating this. In your example, you indicate that you had faith that the shooter was a young woman because of your experience in the field. I would attribute this conclusion to reason, not faith.

If our rookie cop believed your hypothesis, I would say he was relying on faith. He knows you are experienced, and knows you are often right. He doesn't understand how to arrived at the conclusion of the young woman, but he believes you in an act of faith.

My apologies if that sounds disjointed, it was written over an hour between bursts of real work.

[Tiberius]

Adrian, you made a good point. How about this. My faith in the case of the man shot by the woman was made in faith of my past experiences. It could have turned out either way. I could have been right or wrong, but eventually my theory was proved as true, accurate and fact. The evidence I had in proposing that theory wouldn't have been solid evidence to a rookie cop and not without good reason. He hadn't the experience.

Well again I think we are thinking of different meanings of the word "faith". You seem to define faith as believing in something that hasn't been proven yet, whilst I would say it was believing in something without good reason or evidence. If you have faith in something or you follow evidence, you can still be right or wrong in both cases.

For instance, we used to believe the Sun went around the Earth. This was a perfectly logical deduction because we understood that things move and we could see the Sun move and not feel the Earth rotate. Ergo the Sun orbiting the Earth was a good explanation of the evidence. It was based on reasoning, so I wouldn't class it as a faith issue. Of course, as new evidence was introduced, we changed our explanation to what it is today, and the explanation is as proven as it can be by modern science.

So again I find flaw with your definition, since it would put the first theory as mere "faith" when it did rely on evidence and reasoning.

[Daystar]

Daystar, you have conveyed some good points about 'faith'. I am understanding you better in this post.

If you are right about that, CoxRox, and I hope you are, I have done the nearly impossible. It isn't easy, you know. This stuff.

---

Sorry to jump in, but we've got a good discussion going and I can't resist.

In regards to 'Faith' vs. 'Blind Faith', I see this as two sides of the same coin. I understand you are defining faith as more of a trust than anything. Blind Faith is simply a harsher way of stating this. In your example, you indicate that you had faith that the shooter was a young woman because of your experience in the field. I would attribute this conclusion to reason, not faith.

If our rookie cop believed your hypothesis, I would say he was relying on faith. He knows you are experienced, and knows you are often right. He doesn't understand how to arrived at the conclusion of the young woman, but he believes you in an act of faith.

My apologies if that sounds disjointed, it was written over an hour between bursts of real work.

No. That is pretty much what I was saying. My faith was dependant upon my knowledge of the subject, the rookie couldn't grasp that he could only question it. He will learn.

---

Well again I think we are thinking of different meanings of the word "faith". You seem to define faith as believing in something that hasn't been proven yet, whilst I would say it was believing in something without good reason or evidence. If you have faith in something or you follow evidence, you can still be right or wrong in both cases.

I wouldn't define faith as something that hasn't been proven yet, that is science. Science doesn't give a great effort to prove things that are proven, does it? I certainly wouldn't say that faith was something that comes about without good reason. Blind faith is buying into science or religion without good reason. I wouldn't buy into anything without good reason and I don't think anyone would. You may see it that way but that is because you are perhaps limited in what you have to reason with. Your religious influence.

But my point was that with either evidence or faith you can be wrong, especially when faith or evidence is taken as fact.

For instance, we used to believe the Sun went around the Earth. This was a perfectly logical deduction because we understood that things move and we could see the Sun move and not feel the Earth rotate. Ergo the Sun orbiting the Earth was a good explanation of the evidence. It was based on reasoning, so I wouldn't class it as a faith issue. Of course, as new evidence was introduced, we changed our explanation to what it is today, and the explanation is as proven as it can be by modern science.

Yes.

So again I find flaw with your definition, since it would put the first theory as mere "faith" when it did rely on evidence and reasoning.

Hmmm ... interesting.

Faith and evidence. There it is. One man's faith is another man's evidence and one man's evidence is another man's faith.

[CoxRox]

''Faith and evidence. There it is. One man's faith is another man's evidence and one man's evidence is another man's faith.'' I would agree with this.

I tried to debate 'faith' in this post here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-257.html and I had to conclude that having to employ 'faith' in any situation immediately puts you at a disadvantage because you are suspending 'certainty' and holding out for 'proof' which you believe one day will be manifested. (This was not the case in the 1st century. The apostle Paul and the first century Christians supposedly had supernatural experiences- they witnessed miracles; Paul had a personal encounter with Christ, etc that meant their faith was not really the same faith I have to employ. Non believers coming into contact with them would initially hear their claims and then after a miracle, they would have had 'evidence' that what they were being told was true. Even Jesus recognised people's problems with believing something because someone tells you to believe it. Doubting Thomas was given the proof he needed to believe). When we talk about faith in a 'natural' situation there is a good chance we will see the end result- (you did find out who killed the man), but to have faith that the 'supernatural' exists- I can see how scientific minds have a problem with us believing this.....I struggle with it myself......

[Daystar]

''Faith and evidence. There it is. One man's faith is another man's evidence and one man's evidence is another man's faith.'' I would agree with this.

I tried to debate 'faith' in this post here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-257.html and I had to conclude that having to employ 'faith' in any situation immediately puts you at a disadvantage because you are suspending 'certainty' and holding out for 'proof' which you believe one day will be manifested. (This was not the case in the 1st century. The apostle Paul and the first century Christians supposedly had supernatural experiences- they witnessed miracles; Paul had a personal encounter with Christ, etc that meant their faith was not really the same faith I have to employ. Non believers coming into contact with them would initially hear their claims and then after a miracle, they would have had 'evidence' that what they were being told was true. Even Jesus recognized people's problems with believing something because someone tells you to believe it. Doubting Thomas was given the proof he needed to believe). When we talk about faith in a 'natural' situation there is a good chance we will see the end result- (you did find out who killed the man), but to have faith that the 'supernatural' exists- I can see how scientific minds have a problem with us believing this.....I struggle with it myself......

I understand what you are saying and I pretty much agree with you, but at the same time I would add three points

1. That some people, like Jesus said, wouldn't believe if the stones came to life and told them.

2. The demons know and yet shudder. They don't have to rely on faith because they know and yet that doesn't make a difference.

3. Proof in ones man eyes may be an illusion. Doubting Thomas, for example saw the marks that Jesus showed him which were not there earlier. The magic practicing priests up against Moses were able to perform some impressive acts themselves.

Faith is the expectation of things though there is no convincing evidence beheld, but that doesn't mean that there is not good reason to believe it unless you are wrong yourself. The Jews thought that Jesus was going to be an earthly King to save them from their earthly foes. They were wrong and they were stumbled by it. When ones religious will supersedes that of God's will it often stumbles people. Scientists though, who are working on their ideas and they fail then they start again having faith that they have the right idea and will eventually succeed - so it is with faith.

[CoxRox]

Daystar, I mostly agree with your 'take' on this.

You said:

'Faith is the expectation of things though there is no convincing evidence beheld, but that doesn't mean that there is not good reason to believe it unless you are wrong yourself.'

I would add that to have faith you do need to have a starting point, or some 'evidence' that does convince you to some extent, otherwise you would then have 'blind' faith. (I agree that my 'evidence' may not be someone else's evidence). Because I want there to be a loving God as this could very well mean an eternal purpose for us humans, seems a very good reason for me to believe in Him, but I am honest enough with myself and know that I need more than just this to belive in Him. I need 'evidence'. I believe I have sufficient 'evidence' for me to maintain a fairly strong belief (it does waver somewhat from day to day).