# Why does faith not need scientific evidence to be certain? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919 "2012-11-13T20:53:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/81 "2012-11-15T02:14:02Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > We were discussing God, not religion. We are discussing a “god” that derives _directly_ from a religion and its texts. That god’s background, history, strengths, powers etc. derive directly from the religion. ---
**Author:** ![cougar58](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@cougar58](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cougar58)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/82 "2012-11-15T02:19:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If Christianity didn’t exist and you had never even heard of the Bible, what “god” would you have faith in? well there are/were literally thousands of gods to select from: the pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday or Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. If the Bible were written today, its author(s) would have easily lost their suit for plagurism in any US court. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/83 "2012-11-15T02:21:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We are discussing a “god” that derives _directly_ from a religion and its texts. That god’s background, history, strengths, powers etc. derive directly from the religion. I think you have that backwards. Religion is derived from the belief in God. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/84 "2012-11-15T02:25:51Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I think you have that backwards. Religion is derived from the belief in God. The God that is described in holy texts. People do not first believe in God, then go searching through various holy books until they find one that describes the “god” they found-a pre-formed “god”, with aspects already written down, is presented to them. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/85 "2012-11-15T02:26:59Z")
> [@cougar58](#): > > When science errs, it corrects itself…when errors are found in the bible, dogma mandates that no corrections be made. > > That is the primary difference between science and religion I think you’re the first person to bring up the Bible in this thread, and I’m not all that sure it’s relevant. The Bible is not synonymous with religion or faith. The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy certainly is not synonymous with religion or faith. And for that matter, one can believe in Biblical inerrancy without denying the need for change or correction in how one interprets or what one concludes from the Bible, just as scientists recognize the need for change or correction in how one interprets or what conclusions one draws from observations of nature. > [@cougar58](#): > > 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. > > God seems to think the value of Pi is a constant of 3, when in fact it is an infinite value 3.1415… This is just silly. If this is your best example of the Bible being wrong, it’s a pretty lame one, for several reasons, including the one that [Cecil noted](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3): [QUOTE=Cecil Adams] Interesting you should bring this up, though. In 150 A.D. a Hebrew rabbi and scholar named Nehemiah attempted to explain away the anomaly in Chronicles by saying that the diameter of the tub was 10 cubits from outer rim to outer rim, whereas the 30 cubit circumference was measured around the inner rim. In other words, the difference between the biblical notion of pi and the actual value may be accounted for by the width of the tub’s walls. How’s that for tap dancing, eh? Nehemiah lived a long time ago, but I feel he’s my spiritual kin. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/86 "2012-11-15T02:58:38Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The God that is described in holy texts. People do not first believe in God, then go searching through various holy books until they find one that describes the “god” they found-a pre-formed “god”, with aspects already written down, is presented to them. I doubt that. I can’t prove it but I’m pretty sure belief in God predated writing. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/87 "2012-11-15T03:03:50Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I doubt that. I can’t prove it but I’m pretty sure belief in God predated writing. Maybe “gods” did, but the big “G” “God”? The all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing “created the Earth in 7 days” “God”? _That_ deity came from the instruction book. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/88 "2012-11-15T03:05:39Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Maybe “gods” did, but the big “G” “God”? The all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing “created the Earth in 7 days” “God”? _That_ deity came from the instruction book. Possibly. But what bearing does that have on the subject? Is polytheism somehow more scientific than monotheism? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/89 "2012-11-15T03:14:30Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Possibly. But what bearing does that have on the subject? Is polytheism somehow more scientific than monotheism? Wow-That’s quite a leap you made just now. I think that what I am trying to point out is that faith is not a tool to find what you believe in. Faith is an iron cage that both imprisons your beliefs while also protecting them from scientific reason. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/90 "2012-11-15T03:40:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Wow-That’s quite a leap you made just now. I think that what I am trying to point out is that faith is not a tool to find what you believe in. Faith is an iron cage that both imprisons your beliefs while also protecting them from scientific reason. I gotta agree with the cage part, though science has caged people too. But faith is a perfectly good tool to find what you believe in, if you believe in non-scientfic concepts. Didn’t you point out that faith was a good way to find Oz and fairies? \ Yes, that was you. Science hasn’t found either of those. It’s just a matter of what you’re looking for. I’m not really good at defending the faithful. It’s not my thing. But I don’t like the way people are derided simply for having faith in some God. They believe in something that science can’t explain. Big deal. There are plenty of good people of faith who have made the world a better place. To me that should be the measure of a person, not whether they’ve acted on faith or strong scientific principle. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/91 "2012-11-15T06:21:10Z")
> [@Klisterhjernen](#): > > … I have now come to ask WHY it is that our faith DOESN’T need scientific evidence to be certain, and why experience and intuition is enough. Your question is poorly constructed. Your faith requires _no_ scientific evidence in the same way that living things require _no_ plutonium to keep on living and being healthy. Science and logic become anathema to religious doctrine when the former are rigorously applied to the latter. Your faith and intuition are not “enough”, they are refuge. Consider, for instance, that this omnid, this all-being Jehovallah deity, decided to visit a critical modicum of wisdom upon a select group of people and that it chose to withhold this crucial information from millions of other people. Thus, the deity’s own actions have consigned the vast majority of humanity to eternal damnation in specifically favoring one small-ish _chosen_ group. This, for many unbelievers, is the key piece of evidence against any exclusive deity, for that is the behavior of an utter asshole. It is better to believe in no god and be happy with the glorious void than to accept that everything is under the control of such a jerk. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/92 "2012-11-15T13:00:04Z")
> [@Klisterhjernen](#): > > Hello!! > As a devout Christian, I am constantly questioned about how I can possibly believe in God when there is no (or little) scientific evidence to support His existence. I have gotten quite tired of saying that “oh, I just feel it inside of me,” and so I have now come to ask WHY it is that our faith DOESN’T need scientific evidence to be certain, and why experience and intuition is enough. > > It would be great if the discussion is not limited to religion, and other arguments dealing with, for example, why our belief in extra terrestrial life can be certain without evidence are mentioned as well! I know this is tricky, but it’s kinda along the same lines (at least according to some of the atheists I have talked to). > > To really satisfy me, however, it would be great if some atheists could provide a couple of their arguments as to why we cannot be certain about anything without scientific evidence, just so that I get a good overview of all the perspectives! > > Thank you! Faith or belief doesn’t require certainity, that is why it is Faith. A person just accepts it with out checking; no matter what one believes in, weither is is a belief that a spouse is either unfaithful or faithful.etc. Once faith is proved then it would no longer be Faith but Fact. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/93 "2012-11-15T13:01:29Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Faith or belief doesn’t require certainity, that is why it is Faith. A person just accepts it with out checking; no matter what one believes in, weither is is a belief that a spouse is either unfaithful or faithful.etc. Once faith is proved then it would no longer be Faith but Fact. And which is better? ---
**Author:** ![Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/94 "2012-11-15T13:29:55Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I doubt that. I can’t prove it but I’m pretty sure belief in God predated writing. But belief in god did not predate storytelling. Well, actually, I can’t prove that. But we know most civilisations had oral traditions before writing was invented. If you look at our history without the assumption that god already exists, then it makes perfect sense for gods to be made up through story. Creation myths are a-plenty, right? If you make the assumption that god existed before storytelling, then it doesn’t make sense for there to be so many different gods all around the world, with very different creation myths. The assumption that god exists (having faith in it) causes more problems for understanding our history, and the universe’s history than it solves. > [@](#): > > I gotta agree with the cage part, though science has caged people too. But faith is a perfectly good tool to find what you believe in, if you believe in non-scientfic concepts. Didn’t you point out that faith was a good way to find Oz and fairies? \ Yes, that was you. Science hasn’t found either of those. It’s just a matter of what you’re looking for. Yes, faith is very good at making things up. We’re creative beings after all. We like telling stories to each other. The entertainment industry is a multi-million dollar business (and I’d include churches in that). Of course, faith never actually _finds_ anything in any meaningful sense of the word. But I guess if what you’re looking for is things that are made up, then that’s cool - faith is your tool. It’s just highly advisable not to tell anyone else about your imaginary friends, because we’re prone to laugh at that, unfortunately. ---
**Author:** ![cougar58](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@cougar58](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cougar58)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/95 "2012-11-15T16:06:40Z")
an example of science conforming to facts as they evolve: Stephen Hawkings, as noted in his famous book / film “a brief history of time” is obviosly not an atheist, he is agnostic. That all changed in 1992, when scientists discovered another planet / solar system…it was later discovered that in our galaxy, there are 90+ possible planets / solar systems. This made very clear that humans were not unique, nor was our planet/ solar sytem means of life support. In his latter book, “the grand design” Hawking concludes that “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” That refers to any of the 1000’s of Gods, with or without religion or manuscripts, such as the Bible, Torah, or Quran…or even Dianetics (condolences to Tom Cruise) ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/96 "2012-11-15T19:22:59Z")
> [@](#): > > There’s a lot of important knowledge in our lives that we acquired through trust and faith rather than reason. There is a difference between faith and inductive reasoning. I don’t have to test and verify every single thing I am told or suspect so long as I can inductively conclude that it is plausible and consistent with what I have experienced in the past. If my mother tells me not to touch a hot plate, I am not taking her advice as a matter of faith. I am reasoning that she has been correct in the past and the stove is in fact where hot things come from, so I accept her advice as plausible and consistent. I personally struggle with the issue of faith because God is both implausible and inconsistent with what I know. Yet other people have no problem looking at the world and coming up with arguments that the scope and complexity of life imply there must be a creator. I look at this as an example of people coming to opposite conclusions despite being given the same evidence. I call “faith” the belief in God despite a lack of reason or evidence. If we reason God must exist, or have evidence God exists, then we are talking about degrees of certainty and not “faith.” ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/97 "2012-11-15T20:06:26Z")
> [@cougar58](#): > > the pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday or Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. > > If the Bible were written today, its author(s) would have easily lost their suit for plagurism in any US court. Speaking of “plagurism”, did you just copy+paste that whole Mithras-‘n’-Krishna bit directly from _The Da Vinci Code_? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/98 "2012-11-15T20:10:11Z")
> [@cougar58](#): > > Stephen Hawkings, as noted in his famous book / film “a brief history of time” is obviosly not an atheist, he is agnostic. What do you base that on? My impression is that Hawking has always been an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![janeslogin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@janeslogin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/janeslogin)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/99 "2012-11-15T23:21:58Z")
I’ve been away from the classroom for several decades but I keep thinging that " epistemology" ▸ noun: the philosophical theory of knowledge must have an answer(s) to the OP’s subject line question. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919/100 "2012-11-15T23:54:26Z")
> [@Klisterhjernen](#): > > Hello!! > As a devout Christian, I am constantly questioned about how I can possibly believe in God when there is no (or little) scientific evidence to support His existence. I have gotten quite tired of saying that “oh, I just feel it inside of me,” and so I have now come to ask WHY it is that our faith DOESN’T need scientific evidence to be certain, and why experience and intuition is enough. > > It would be great if the discussion is not limited to religion, and other arguments dealing with, for example, why our belief in extra terrestrial life can be certain without evidence are mentioned as well! I know this is tricky, but it’s kinda along the same lines (at least according to some of the atheists I have talked to). > > To really satisfy me, however, it would be great if some atheists could provide a couple of their arguments as to why we cannot be certain about anything without scientific evidence, just so that I get a good overview of all the perspectives! > > Thank you! Religious Faith can never be certain. It is not a requirement, because it is inherently (sp?) impossible to demonstrate. What happens after one dies? If someone tries to tell you that they know the answer, with certainty, and that person has never died, that person is speaking with his/her asshole. The thing about faith, is that if one believes it, that is all one has to do. However, there is no shame in admitting that one simply does not know. In fact, I see a great bravery in people who break free from blind faith (not the band…) and still lead a good life, just because it’s a good thing to do. Not because their god demands it for entry to paradise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-faith-not-need-scientific-evidence-to-be-certain/640919.md?page=6)