Christ's birthday

[tackattack]

Evidence is completely subjective. That which a scientist considers evidence is a far cry from the idiocy that the faithful accept as evidence.

Don't we discuss this enough? There is no absence of faith in belief... only degrees of faith a person needs to believe.

I make a distinction between 'trust', for instance, and 'faith' though...

If there is a lack of evidence then the belief is 'faith'. Just because evidence is, obviously, subjective, doesn't mean that 'faith' does not have the connotations of irrationality that it does.

The fact that evidence is subjective and, say, Science does not claim to know the absolute when it cannot, it doesn't mean that scientists beliefs are faith-based. The fact that doubt is left open does not mean that our belief is not based on evidence. To say that all belief requires a level of faith is, in my mind, claiming that no belief is based on evidence. Because, how I understand it, having faith = not having evidence.

I understand that there must be 'trust' or 'belief' in evidence... but that is different to faith. The words 'trust', and 'faith', for instance, are not identical by definition.

With or without evidence, there can be trust... but there, by definition (at least how I understand it), cannot be evidence if you "have faith", for faith is belief without evidence.

So, the claim that anyone can have faith in evidence, I understand to be an oxymoronic claim.

If evidence is sujective, quantifiable, falsifiable adn repeatable what if from my pespective I have evidence that you can not percieve? If my "peers" in review see the same results what makes that evidence any different from yours? I see evidence in Faith but the leap of faith (better worded trust I agree) is much larger when you can not hope to understand the result of your hypothesis. I'm sure you'll all enjoy ripping this one to shreds.. it's not an attack though just a question.