(October 26, 2009 at 4:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I don't need to 'trust' evidence. I would, however, need to trust without it. Evidence is only unreliable when it turns out not to be evidence, so by definition it doesn't require "faith".
I do not understand as this quote seems to be contradictory to:
"If you believe in evidence and you are let down, then the evidence was wrong so you actually had faith, not belief in evidence - because it turns out it was not evidence! Because if evidence turns out to be wrong then how was it ever evidence in the first place? You merely thought it was."
Given this, how can you know when you are exhibiting faith or accepting evidence?
