Christ's birthday

[Edwardo Piet]

I can see how that would conflict with your forum name, EvidenceVsFaith

How so?

As far as I know... Evidence just gives a person all the more reason to believe something is true

No, evidence is a valid reason. It actually evidences (gives evidnece to) the belief if your belief is evidence-based. It gives a valid reason to believe, or the valid reason to believe. A belief is rational if you have valid reason to believe in it, or IOW, if there is evidence that your belief is true. Evidence doesn't just give reason, it gives valid reason, it is valid reason.

Trust in evidence is like trust in myself and my friends... Trust = confidence = belief = faith

Confidence and truck can be with or without evidence. Faith cannot, faith lacks evidence. You don't have to "have faith" in things that have evidential support. You only need to 'trust' in the sense you'd be crazy not to with all the evidence in your face *thinks of creationists and holocaust deniers, etc.*.

Of course, it only equals faith so far as the basic ideas behind all of them go... and people usually use faith to refer to believing something without, or even in spite of evidence.

Yes as I said, I do think that - because that's what the dictionary says and it's a common usage. Faith is more than just belief or trust, it's more specific than that. The connotation is different.

I just think that such a position requires a lot of faith... whereas proof requires but a blink if it is good proof

But if the evidence is valid then it must be true or it isn't actually evidence, it is merely believed to be so. If the proof is invalid however, then your belief is not evidence-based and so it is faith-based.

What one believes to be evidence is different to what actually is evidence. If I believe the very existence of fruit to be evidence of the existence of a giant invisible intangible Pixie called Kevin Franklin, that doesn't mean it's actually evidence - just that I believe it is.

Your analogy isn't true because we always need a reason to believe in something... even if that reason is ridiculous

If the reason lacks evidence then it needs faith - it's not a matter of whether it is "ridiculous" or not per se - it's not a matter of 'personal incredulity', it's a matter of whether there's evidence or not. If a reason to believe has evidence supporting it then it's a rational reasoning, that's valid. If a reason to believe does not have evidence supporting it, then the belief must by definition be a faith-based belief as opposed to evidence-based, since it lacks evidence.

Faith is belief without evidence. "Faith-based" thinking is the exact opposite to "Evidence based" thinking.

In other words: we need a reason to have faith... we need some sort of evidence before we can believe in anything... even if that evidence is only so much as "It feels right" or Pascals Wager.

See my insane pixie example above. Whether one believes they have evidence or not, does not mean that one actually has it.

If your belief has evidence, has actual, valid indication - then your belief is evidence based, it doesn't require faith. If your belief does not have evidence, then you by definition must have a faith-based belief because it lacks evidence.

Faith is belief that lacks evidence. If it is merely to be used to mean a word such as "trust" then trust is perhaps a better word to be using on the matter since "Faith" also has this connotation of necessarily lacking evidence, and it also has a religious connotation, etc.

EvF