|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 21:53:50 GMT
Why the hell could you not have evidence in something and believe it to the point of having faith in it.. but still have some doubts or understand that the evidence that you are basing that faith on is circumstantial... but still believe in it enough to support the belief that you are putting faith in? This goes back to what I said about evidence not being able to justify "complete confidence" (which I take to mean "certainty") in something. If you try to exclude or ignore doubts in order to have "complete confidence" then I'd say you have "faith" in the "complete confidence" sense. If you're just allowing evidence/reason to take you to the point it takes and you deem that enough confidence to act, then you only have faith in the "enough confidence" sense. I think these two senses are distinct but have been conflated throughout this thread. |
|
