I was challenged on my stance on faith. I think it came down to a difference of definitions.
The two main definitions I’m concerned with are: accepting a belief without evidence, and trust.
I have no problem with trust. I think it’s one of the pillars of society. You need to trust Amazon to ship you the goods after you’ve paid. The world would fall apart if Amazon only sometimes shipped you the goods.
My problem is believing something without evidence. If I told you I was a millionaire, I would hope that you say “prove it”. Even if I can’t prove it, I should at least provide some evidence that would suggest that I’m telling the truth. I should drive a fancy car, have a fancy house, or wear fancy clothes. If I lived in the slums and was on welfare, you would have no reason to believe me. You would have a healthy amount of doubt.
To accept everything you’re told at face value would be foolhardy. If I have a history of telling the truth, then you have a reason to trust me in the future. My reputation could be used as evidence, which you could use to form a belief about my millionaire status.
In no aspect of my life do I need faith. I don’t use faith when crossing the street, even though a car could run me over. I use reason. I say to myself “well I’m taking my chances here, let’s give it a shot.” I accept that I can’t have perfect certainty.
To illustrate: if you’re playing roulette, you don’t need faith that the ball is going to fall on black. You just accept that it might, or it might not. There’s a percent chance of it falling on black.