Sorry about my earlier, malformed reply. I accidentally hit the Submit button too soon. Let’s try this again.
Not, it isn’t. There is a tremendous difference between “evidence” and “proof,” as I just pointed out. In fact, I emphasized this very point – quite emphatically – earlier in this thread. One can have faith in something which is unproven, but for which one still has evidence.
Once again though, you’re painting a caricature. Contrary to your claim, “faith without or despite evidence” is NOT “exactly what trust is.” Faith and trust can be blind, but they can also be based on evidence. Consider the large number of historians who believe that Jesus Christ actually existed, for example, despite the lack of absolute proof. Many of them even believe that He rose from the dead, based on the historical evidence.
You claim that trust means having faith “without or despite evidence.” That simply isn’t true, and such thinking reflects the fallacy of the excluded middle. People can believe in things which are proven, and they can believe in things for which there is no evidence. However, there is a wide range of possibilities between those two extremes – that is, belief in things for which one considers evidence to exist, but for which absolute proof is elusive or otherwise absent.