In order to be able to answer this question, we must first be able to construct a definition as to what faith is. Faith is rather difficult to define neutrally, for example, according to St Paul faith is "the conviction of things hoped for and the assurance of things not seen". On the other, Sigmund Freud argues that faith is "the believing of propositions upon insufficient evidence". In both contrasting definitions, faith is associated with the lack of evidence. Without evidence there is no certainty which then allows faith to take over. Faith in a sense can be perceived as the substitute for certainty. Unlike beliefs, or theories, faith does not require validation or any justification. In fact, faith is merely strengthened or weakened by either the presence or lack of evidence. With or without evidence, faith will remain. If faith required evidence, than faith would no longer be needed, because evidence provides certainty.
Faith is the combination of belief, action, and confidence. The idea of faith allows us to create assurance for things that we hope for. Every single person has faith. Whether it is in God, yourself, or others, faith remains present. But often the rationality of faith is called to question. Some argue that because faith is constructed on the basis of lack of evidence, the reasoning behind why one would have faith is deemed irrational. But often it is forgotten that nothing is completely certain. With that said, science is only able to take our understanding of the phenomenons of the world to a certain level of understanding. Referring to Ali's post on the clash between reason and faith, the use of the question chain effectively demonstrates the limits of science and reason. After a certain number of questions in the cycle, our knowledge becomes inadequate as we fail to reach the desired answer using reason. Because absolute knowledge is intangible, scientists must also have faith. Scientists must have faith that the universe is orderly and that us humans are capable of finding that order (TOK textbook). As soon as we have extended past the periphery of reason, we have no other choice but to resort to faith.
To answer the essential question "Does faith require evidence?", no it does not. Why? Because the idea that we create the foundation and strength of our beliefs in response to the presence of evidence is what fabricates the concept of faith. If we were certain of everything faith would not be necessary. As this is not the case, faith still and will possess a powerful presence that ultimately shapes the way in which people live their life.
Thoughtfully and logically set out, Adam, and I particularly like the notion that since certainty is virtually impossible, we must rely on faith when we cannot know anything for sure. By definition then, faith is belief without evidence, or at least the kind of evidence another person would recognize. Do you think faith can be wish fulfillment? In other words, what we take on faith is what we would like to be true, whether or not it is so? Also, I wonder if faith in some areas of human experience can become self-fulfilling because it fuels will power? Perhaps those who have faith in their own potential and ability are more likely to be successful than those who do not - even if another person without faith actually has more talent?
ReplyDelete