A reason to believe?

[fr0d0]

Am I right in thinking - as I think I've heard you say at least similiar things before - that this evidence is only presented to you after you make the irrational leap of faith without evidence?

No. The rewards of believing are only presented afterwards. The bulk of the evidence, such as biblical text, is there for consideration before you believe. How could you trust information you don't yet have?

Faith = trust in information you accept to be true.

If all it were a delusion, but it did actually increase measurably one's happiness quotient... this would be a valid reason to believe, no?

Oops, almost missed this.

Well for me personally no. That would just be a placebo and I want more than a placebo (I also just can't help not being convinced by them - I habitually seek the truth and so I have difficulty pretending that things are better than they are anyway. I don't want placebos).

The point is, you would have no way of knowing if it was a placebo or not. Would you deliberately choose negativity over positivity ...or sadness over happiness?