|
Phage, that's very true.
Our normal mode of function in the world is to follow a trajectory of evidence until it crosses a reasonable threshold of rational support, and then to act as if it is true. When contradicting data emerges, we modify our trajectory and our conclusions. In either case, we act as if the conclusion is true even though we haven't reached the level of mathematical certainty.
I would argue that the best definition of "faith" isn't much different. It is following a trajectory of evidence until it crosses a threshold of rational support, at which point we act upon it as if it were true, in the absence of contradicting evidence. When contradicting evidence emerges, then we are obligated to reexamine the original conclusion.
Faith is not "believe something is true, even when all evidence points against it." Faith is believing something is true, because the chain of evidence follows a trajectory that can be reasonably extended to conclude that the thing is true, even when the chain of evidence isn't complete.
... and so say we all. Thus spoke Zarathustra. Amen.
|