Faith being belief in something in spite of no evidence. In fact it can only exist while there is no evidence - one can't have faith in the earth being round if you've flown anywhere or been to space.
It comes down to two forms which I personally view differently. Faith on a personal level, ie faith in a person (effectively a greater form of trust) I do see the value in. Faith pertaining to the world around us (which corresponds to religious faith), I see as at best useless and at worst damaging.
This is mainly because faith in the latter context is specifically designed to keep people in thrall to their respective deity, but does little to actually help our species progress or survive. We've learned by now that we hold the keys to our own destiny via our ability to use logic and reason. It's that ability - that evidence based thinking - which built the railroads and brought the internet online. Evidence based thinking gets results, it advances us. Faith based thinking accomplishes nothing, and often hinders progress when groups of people attempt to get accepted scientific fact banned from schools or lobby against certain branches of research.
Personal faith differs because we can't know the mind of another person, therefore evidence based thinking cannot wholly apply. We can make assumptions based on personality, but that's not going to be 100% foolproof. And there might be a future where we possess the means to absolutely know someone's mindset and completely predict how they will act, but that sounds like a disturbing and unpleasant world to me. At that point I can turn around and state that it is better to simply act on faith than go down that path. Where personal liberty is concerned, (relative) ignorance is indeed bliss.
As an additional note, I agree with purklefluff that atheism is not the best term to use as a catch all for "non religious folk", especially pertaining to this subject. The belief that there is no god full stop (the definition of atheism) differs to the non belief specific to whatever mumbo jumbo is being peddled by religions. It is in fact not possible to be a proper atheist and a credible scientist - even people such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris - while they might identify as atheists - are actually agnostic due to it not being possible to prove a god doesn't exist. Atheism requires just as much faith as any given theism, especially when you stop to consider the concept of god in non religious terms. A better label than the current one of atheism would be something like anti-dogma: it is a symbol of rejecting not the idea of god but of the specific idea of god as laid out by any given religion.
also, the definition of atheism is *NOT* the belief there is no god. This is wrong. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a diety. A subtle, but notable difference.
I do not Believe there is no God, I am not that bold and presumptious. I disregard every single god claim to date, and reason that it is unlikely there is a god in the universe. However, since I do not believe in a god, i am a non-theist.. Atheist.
You are combining the aspects of Gnosticism, and Theism.
(a)Gnostic means not gnostic, (a)theist means not theist. a GNOSTIC ATHEIST is one that subscribes to the "doctrine that there is no god" and an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST is one that simply lacks belief in a god.
No where in the word atheist does it say doctrine that there is no God. I am an ATHEIST but do not believe there is no god. I just lack the belief in God. There is a CLEAR difference. One makes a claim about the existence of god, and the other doesn't. One requires the proof of your position, the other does not.
gnos·tic
ˈnästik/Submit
adjective
1.
of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge.
a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
1.
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
So, I should amend my original post and say that you are half right. Those who profess that there is no God are atheists, but happen to be Gnostic Atheists, and are on the hook to provide evidence for the claim no god exists..... But those who lack the belief in the existence of a diety are also atheists. They just happen to be agnostic atheists, who make no such claim, but instead simply reject the baseless claims of ultra powerful invisible god-men. Both are atheists. And people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris both fit into this catagory of atheists.
Styrofoam, "gnosticism" carries extensive connotations that are wildly different from and unrelated to "agnosticism". The words contain the same Greek root, but notwithstanding their appearance they are not antonyms. They're like "aesthetic" and "anesthetic".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Styrofoam, "gnosticism" carries extensive connotations that are wildly different from and unrelated to "agnosticism". The words contain the same Greek root, but notwithstanding their appearance they are not antonyms. They're like "aesthetic" and "anesthetic".
I believe he's referring to a particular way of discussing forms of atheism, someone made it a talking point years ago despite the confusing language. There is a wiki article about "agnostic atheism".
Nonetheless talking about belief in terms of knowledge is useful. Many scientific atheists would be ignostic by this mode of identifying, taking the position that deities are incoherent concepts about which not only is there no evidence but about which no knowledge is possible.
I believe he's referring to a particular way of discussing forms of atheism, someone made it a talking point years ago despite the confusing language. There is a wiki article about "agnostic atheism".
Nonetheless talking about belief in terms of knowledge is useful. Many scientific atheists would be ignostic by this mode of identifying, taking the position that deities are incoherent concepts about which not only is there no evidence but about which no knowledge is possible.
Be careful. Ignosticism is a position that goes even beyond "no knowledge is possible". "No knowledge is possible" is, after all, just the original definition of agnosticism; you can have a concept about which no knowledge is possible, but which is still coherent. For example, entropy ensures that we will never know what Julius Caesar's first baby words were, but "Julius Caesar's first baby words" is a perfectly coherent concept - in fact (disanalogously to God) we can be quite certain that he uttered them.
And for what it's worth, I think ignosticism is a silly position. God is defined in philosophy as the omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent entity who created the universe. Regardless of your opinion on this entity's existence or even the logical consistency of those terms put together, the fact remains that they are all quite clearly defined and easy to understand. There are other concepts in religion and philosophy about which you can be ignostic, if you think they are poorly defined and handwavey - a lot of stuff from mystical and obscurantist traditions is like this (see again: gnosticism). But God? Just does not fit that bill.
I believe he's referring to a particular way of discussing forms of atheism, someone made it a talking point years ago despite the confusing language. There is a wiki article about "agnostic atheism".
Gnostic Atheism is a particular term used by a subset of atheists to refer to what is sometimes called "strong atheism" because they dislike the implicit value judgment of "strong" and "weak" so they chose words that reflect "to know" and "to not know". Potentially confusing because of the existence of Gnosticism, obviously, but English is like that. Flying fish don't actually fly either.
Be careful. Ignosticism is a position that goes even beyond "no knowledge is possible". "No knowledge is possible" is, after all, just the original definition of agnosticism; you can have a concept about which no knowledge is possible, but which is still coherent. For example, entropy ensures that we will never know what Julius Caesar's first baby words were, but "Julius Caesar's first baby words" is a perfectly coherent concept - in fact (disanalogously to God) we can be quite certain that he uttered them.
And for what it's worth, I think ignosticism is a silly position. God is defined in philosophy as the omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent entity who created the universe. Regardless of your opinion on this entity's existence or even the logical consistency of those terms put together, the fact remains that they are all quite clearly defined and easy to understand. There are other concepts in religion and philosophy about which you can be ignostic, if you think they are poorly defined and handwavey - a lot of stuff from mystical and obscurantist traditions is like this (see again: gnosticism). But God? Just does not fit that bill.
Many monotheistic gods have traits other than "the omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent entity who created the universe" and many other gods lack some or all of those traits. The traits of god vary depending on who you ask. The definition you gave is purely the definition used by a particular intellectual tradition that has retreated over the years. Many Christians would add traits like "responsible for the Bible" and "helped me win money betting on sports" to the list of God's traits. Other cultures might point to a concrete thing as being a god.
I'd say that even the definition you provide is potentially incoherent: For example the definition you quoted is dependent on us accepting that anything with the traits "omniscient omnipotent benevolent entity who created the universe" must be God. If we were to discover five such entities they could not all be God to a monotheist but all of them are god according to the monotheist. The handwaveyness comes from godhood being a moving target.
Gnostic Atheism is a particular term used by a subset of atheists to refer to what is sometimes called "strong atheism" because they dislike the implicit value judgment of "strong" and "weak" so they chose words that reflect "to know" and "to not know". Potentially confusing because of the existence of Gnosticism, obviously, but English is like that. Flying fish don't actually fly either.
So... they don't like the implicit value judgment of "strong" and "weak" (which is actually completely absent in the philosophical usage of the terms), so they choose a different term with far more in-depth and less accurate implications?
Many monotheistic gods have traits other than "the omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent entity who created the universe" and many other gods lack some or all of those traits.
Are these traits clearly and consistently laid out by the people describing their god? Then they describe a coherent concept. And regardless, the definition I gave is the standard one for philosophical discussions about theism and atheism. I can't prove that every single person using the word "god" is using it coherently any more than I can prove that every single person using the word "doorknob" is using it coherently, but that's a far cry from the ignostic claim that the concept of God is always incoherent and cannot be meaningfully talked about.
Many Christians would add traits like "responsible for the Bible" and "helped me win money betting on sports" to the list of God's traits.
I don't think you're acknowledging the distinction between essential (or "definitional") traits and incidental traits. I'd be willing to bet almost all of these Christians would say that God would still be God had he in his wisdom decided not to do these particular things.
I'd say that even the definition you provide is potentially incoherent: For example the definition you quoted is dependent on us accepting that anything with the traits "omniscient omnipotent benevolent entity who created the universe" must be God. If we were to discover five such entities they could not all be God to a monotheist but all of them are god according to the monotheist. The handwaveyness comes from godhood being a moving target.
The monotheist in this case is simply incorrect in his assumption about the number of gods, just as he'd be incorrect if the atheist position were true, and just as the atheist or polytheist would be incorrect if his position were true. And for him to be incorrect, there must be a coherent proposition for him to be incorrect about. If the concept of "God" were incoherent, nobody could be wrong about it any more than they could be right about it, and you couldn't construct the hypothetical that there are five of them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Gnostic Atheism is a particular term used by a subset of atheists to refer to what is sometimes called "strong atheism" because they dislike the implicit value judgment of "strong" and "weak" so they chose words that reflect "to know" and "to not know". Potentially confusing because of the existence of Gnosticism, obviously, but English is like that. Flying fish don't actually fly either.
So... they don't like the implicit value judgment of "strong" and "weak" (which is actually completely absent in the philosophical usage of the terms), so they choose a different term with far more in-depth and less accurate implications?
Many monotheistic gods have traits other than "the omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent entity who created the universe" and many other gods lack some or all of those traits.
Are these traits clearly and consistently laid out by the people describing their god? Then they describe a coherent concept. And regardless, the definition I gave is the standard one for philosophical discussions about theism and atheism. I can't prove that every single person using the word "god" is using it coherently any more than I can prove that every single person using the word "doorknob" is using it coherently, but that's a far cry from the ignostic claim that the concept of God is always incoherent and cannot be meaningfully talked about.
Many Christians would add traits like "responsible for the Bible" and "helped me win money betting on sports" to the list of God's traits.
I don't think you're acknowledging the distinction between essential (or "definitional") traits and incidental traits. I'd be willing to bet almost all of these Christians would say that God would still be God had he in his wisdom decided not to do these particular things.
I'd say that even the definition you provide is potentially incoherent: For example the definition you quoted is dependent on us accepting that anything with the traits "omniscient omnipotent benevolent entity who created the universe" must be God. If we were to discover five such entities they could not all be God to a monotheist but all of them are god according to the monotheist. The handwaveyness comes from godhood being a moving target.
The monotheist in this case is simply incorrect in his assumption about the number of gods, just as he'd be incorrect if the atheist position were true, and just as the atheist or polytheist would be incorrect if his position were true. And for him to be incorrect, there must be a coherent proposition for him to be incorrect about. If the concept of "God" were incoherent, nobody could be wrong about it any more than they could be right about it, and you couldn't construct the hypothetical that there are five of them.
[/quote]
Fair enough, I many not be sufficiently familiar with the concept of coherence in philosophy or with ignostic claims to evaluate them. Nonetheless it seems to me that the definition of god is a moving target, not just between people (where it can change radically) but even in the course of a single discussion. The vague not-even-Deist sort of god used for these kinds of discussions is evidently meant to avoid that but seems to sacrifice a lot of important defining traits to achieve it.
I can believe in things without evidence. However, I cannot believe in things that are impossible to prove that they do or do not exist, especially when there are so many things that point against them existing (but they still exist because "faith").
I can believe in things without evidence. However, I cannot believe in things that are impossible to prove that they do or do not exist, especially when there are so many things that point against them existing (but they still exist because "faith").
I'm not sure how someone can not believe in a incomprehensible supernatural force of some sort that created existance. Really, its only thing that makes sense.
I can believe in things without evidence. However, I cannot believe in things that are impossible to prove that they do or do not exist, especially when there are so many things that point against them existing (but they still exist because "faith").
I'm not sure how someone can not believe in a incomprehensible supernatural force of some sort that created existance. Really, its only thing that makes sense.
I am assuming that this wasn't sarcastic due to the lack of an emoticon (sorry if it was, it is so hard to tell over the Internet). I honestly don't know what to believe for the creation of the universe, as their is little-to-no proof of what happened before the universe was created on either side of the argument. However, in all other things it makes more logical sense to assume that there isn't a higher power that intervenes in things.
I can believe in things without evidence. However, I cannot believe in things that are impossible to prove that they do or do not exist, especially when there are so many things that point against them existing (but they still exist because "faith").
I'm not sure how someone can not believe in a incomprehensible supernatural force of some sort that created existance. Really, its only thing that makes sense.
I am assuming that this wasn't sarcastic due to the lack of an emoticon (sorry if it was, it is so hard to tell over the Internet). I honestly don't know what to believe for the creation of the universe, as their is little-to-no proof of what happened before the universe was created on either side of the argument. However, in all other things it makes more logical sense to assume that there isn't a higher power that intervenes in things.
It was not sarcastic at all. Science has taught us that we can not create something out of nothing. No amount of science can explain the beginning of existence because it had to come from something other than a physical property. I'm not saying their is a power that intervenes in things.....but I also know science cant explain the start of existence.
I do not buy into religion too much although I do think it has a place in a society. I do believe a supernatural or godlike force created existence. I do not pretend to understand it or know anything about it but to me that seems the most plausible means of creating something out of nothing.
Think about it, space is not some segmented existence and it stretches further than the mind can comprehend. Seems like all of it had to be created at the same time.
To say that something had to have created the universe is a purely deistic and scientific assertion that has nothing to do with religion. To bring religion into it is misguided and dishonest - you might as argue that, because the universe could not have come into being on its own, then it was obviously either Superman or Spider-Man who created it.
To the Atheists/agnostics out there, I wanted to ask: Is there value in faith?
By this question, I'm not talking about a religion, like a 'religious faith', or a 'person of the faith'.
I'm talking about:
-believing in things you cannot prove
-believing in spite of a lack of evidence
-believing in thing that you simply because you want to believe(ex. trust)
Do you see value in taking things by faith? Or is this entire paradigm of thought just stupid, childish, nonsensical, and logically erroneous?
If you mean the broadest possible sense, like believing I'm not a brain in the Matrix despite the fact I can't prove it one way or another, then there's practical value to acting on the assumption that it's true, though not necessarily believing it's true. By necessity, you need to at least act as though some basic assumptions are true in order to function in the reality you're experiencing. However, these have practical justification and thus don't really require 'belief' in order to work. I tentatively believe I'm not a brain in a vat, because of Occam's Razor, but if you asked me if I was at all certain I'd immediately say no. I'd also say it's largely irrelevant.
However, we should still try to make the minimum number of baseless assumptions possible - and only maintain those that have practical value. The default position of every claim should be to disbelieve it until evidence is provided (or you are already in possession of such evidence), otherwise you end up believing contradictory things.
It's worth noting that a lot of evidence already exists thanks to our human experience, and we don't need a full legal presentation at any given moment. I don't have 'faith' that chairs won't collapse when I sit on them. Of all the chairs I've ever seen and sat on, I know that very few have ever had a structural problem and broken. I also know that if chairs had such problems, there would be much more common complaints than there are and the companies would likely be sued.
Trust actually has a lot of evidence. If I trust that the stranger standing behind me in line isn't going to murder me in cold blood, right there in public, that's not belief without evidence. I have a lot of evidence to show that most people don't murder people at any given moment. This is a basis for my belief, my trust. Trust is earned through experience and is also practical. If you decided to trust a known child-murderer with taking care of your children, that would be ridiculous because you have evidence that this person murders kids. That sort of belief because you want to believe doesn't just have no value, it's dangerous. The same thing goes for believing in healing-through-prayer because you want to believe, and thus convincing someone to not get medical care.
Ultimately, belief without evidence as a general principle leads to bad results. It does not have value in the vast majority of cases. It is also very difficult to separate those small number of cases where it does have value from the times it doesn't. It's like a belief that there is a treasure chest buried in a specific spot on a specific beach without any form of evidence. Most of the time, this belief is going to produce no good results and a lot of wasted time and effort. However, if there actually was a treasure chest there - and no way to tell ahead of time - that belief would produce good results in that specific instance.
Unfortunately, there's no way to tell ahead of time which beliefs-without-evidence will produce good results. If there was, those beliefs would likely have evidence. So, as a rule, we're probably better off if we believe as few things without evidence as possible. Even the assumption that we aren't just in the Matrix probably shouldn't qualify as a belief, just an assumption that has demonstrable practical value. Heck, even if I *was* in the Matrix - it'd hardly change the fact that I still want to get a promotion at work. My enjoyment in this world is still demonstrable and working towards those ends has benefits.
also, the definition of atheism is *NOT* the belief there is no god. This is wrong. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a diety. A subtle, but notable difference.
I do not Believe there is no God, I am not that bold and presumptious. I disregard every single god claim to date, and reason that it is unlikely there is a god in the universe. However, since I do not believe in a god, i am a non-theist.. Atheist.
(a)Gnostic means not gnostic, (a)theist means not theist. a GNOSTIC ATHEIST is one that subscribes to the "doctrine that there is no god" and an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST is one that simply lacks belief in a god.
No where in the word atheist does it say doctrine that there is no God. I am an ATHEIST but do not believe there is no god. I just lack the belief in God. There is a CLEAR difference. One makes a claim about the existence of god, and the other doesn't. One requires the proof of your position, the other does not.
gnos·tic
ˈnästik/Submit
adjective
1.
of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge.
a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
1.
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
So, I should amend my original post and say that you are half right. Those who profess that there is no God are atheists, but happen to be Gnostic Atheists, and are on the hook to provide evidence for the claim no god exists..... But those who lack the belief in the existence of a diety are also atheists. They just happen to be agnostic atheists, who make no such claim, but instead simply reject the baseless claims of ultra powerful invisible god-men. Both are atheists. And people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris both fit into this catagory of atheists.
one more edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I believe he's referring to a particular way of discussing forms of atheism, someone made it a talking point years ago despite the confusing language. There is a wiki article about "agnostic atheism".
Nonetheless talking about belief in terms of knowledge is useful. Many scientific atheists would be ignostic by this mode of identifying, taking the position that deities are incoherent concepts about which not only is there no evidence but about which no knowledge is possible.
Standard: UWG Bant Control
EDH: UArcum Dagsson
Modern: Affinity
Vintage: BUR Grixis Control
Legacy: W Mono-White : U Merfolk : BUG Esper Stoneblade : RBG Punishing Jund : B Reanimator : RU Sneak and Show : GB Infect : RG Red/Green Devotion : RUG RUG Delver
Be careful. Ignosticism is a position that goes even beyond "no knowledge is possible". "No knowledge is possible" is, after all, just the original definition of agnosticism; you can have a concept about which no knowledge is possible, but which is still coherent. For example, entropy ensures that we will never know what Julius Caesar's first baby words were, but "Julius Caesar's first baby words" is a perfectly coherent concept - in fact (disanalogously to God) we can be quite certain that he uttered them.
And for what it's worth, I think ignosticism is a silly position. God is defined in philosophy as the omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent entity who created the universe. Regardless of your opinion on this entity's existence or even the logical consistency of those terms put together, the fact remains that they are all quite clearly defined and easy to understand. There are other concepts in religion and philosophy about which you can be ignostic, if you think they are poorly defined and handwavey - a lot of stuff from mystical and obscurantist traditions is like this (see again: gnosticism). But God? Just does not fit that bill.
Would you care to expand on your reasoning here?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, that's Gnosticism.
Gnostic Atheism is a particular term used by a subset of atheists to refer to what is sometimes called "strong atheism" because they dislike the implicit value judgment of "strong" and "weak" so they chose words that reflect "to know" and "to not know". Potentially confusing because of the existence of Gnosticism, obviously, but English is like that. Flying fish don't actually fly either.
Many monotheistic gods have traits other than "the omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent entity who created the universe" and many other gods lack some or all of those traits. The traits of god vary depending on who you ask. The definition you gave is purely the definition used by a particular intellectual tradition that has retreated over the years. Many Christians would add traits like "responsible for the Bible" and "helped me win money betting on sports" to the list of God's traits. Other cultures might point to a concrete thing as being a god.
I'd say that even the definition you provide is potentially incoherent: For example the definition you quoted is dependent on us accepting that anything with the traits "omniscient omnipotent benevolent entity who created the universe" must be God. If we were to discover five such entities they could not all be God to a monotheist but all of them are god according to the monotheist. The handwaveyness comes from godhood being a moving target.
Are these traits clearly and consistently laid out by the people describing their god? Then they describe a coherent concept. And regardless, the definition I gave is the standard one for philosophical discussions about theism and atheism. I can't prove that every single person using the word "god" is using it coherently any more than I can prove that every single person using the word "doorknob" is using it coherently, but that's a far cry from the ignostic claim that the concept of God is always incoherent and cannot be meaningfully talked about.
I don't think you're acknowledging the distinction between essential (or "definitional") traits and incidental traits. I'd be willing to bet almost all of these Christians would say that God would still be God had he in his wisdom decided not to do these particular things.
The monotheist in this case is simply incorrect in his assumption about the number of gods, just as he'd be incorrect if the atheist position were true, and just as the atheist or polytheist would be incorrect if his position were true. And for him to be incorrect, there must be a coherent proposition for him to be incorrect about. If the concept of "God" were incoherent, nobody could be wrong about it any more than they could be right about it, and you couldn't construct the hypothetical that there are five of them.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Precisely.
[/quote]
Fair enough, I many not be sufficiently familiar with the concept of coherence in philosophy or with ignostic claims to evaluate them. Nonetheless it seems to me that the definition of god is a moving target, not just between people (where it can change radically) but even in the course of a single discussion. The vague not-even-Deist sort of god used for these kinds of discussions is evidently meant to avoid that but seems to sacrifice a lot of important defining traits to achieve it.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I'm not sure how someone can not believe in a incomprehensible supernatural force of some sort that created existance. Really, its only thing that makes sense.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I am assuming that this wasn't sarcastic due to the lack of an emoticon (sorry if it was, it is so hard to tell over the Internet). I honestly don't know what to believe for the creation of the universe, as their is little-to-no proof of what happened before the universe was created on either side of the argument. However, in all other things it makes more logical sense to assume that there isn't a higher power that intervenes in things.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
It was not sarcastic at all. Science has taught us that we can not create something out of nothing. No amount of science can explain the beginning of existence because it had to come from something other than a physical property. I'm not saying their is a power that intervenes in things.....but I also know science cant explain the start of existence.
I do not buy into religion too much although I do think it has a place in a society. I do believe a supernatural or godlike force created existence. I do not pretend to understand it or know anything about it but to me that seems the most plausible means of creating something out of nothing.
Think about it, space is not some segmented existence and it stretches further than the mind can comprehend. Seems like all of it had to be created at the same time.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
There are many physicists who would disagree with you.
If you mean the broadest possible sense, like believing I'm not a brain in the Matrix despite the fact I can't prove it one way or another, then there's practical value to acting on the assumption that it's true, though not necessarily believing it's true. By necessity, you need to at least act as though some basic assumptions are true in order to function in the reality you're experiencing. However, these have practical justification and thus don't really require 'belief' in order to work. I tentatively believe I'm not a brain in a vat, because of Occam's Razor, but if you asked me if I was at all certain I'd immediately say no. I'd also say it's largely irrelevant.
However, we should still try to make the minimum number of baseless assumptions possible - and only maintain those that have practical value. The default position of every claim should be to disbelieve it until evidence is provided (or you are already in possession of such evidence), otherwise you end up believing contradictory things.
It's worth noting that a lot of evidence already exists thanks to our human experience, and we don't need a full legal presentation at any given moment. I don't have 'faith' that chairs won't collapse when I sit on them. Of all the chairs I've ever seen and sat on, I know that very few have ever had a structural problem and broken. I also know that if chairs had such problems, there would be much more common complaints than there are and the companies would likely be sued.
Trust actually has a lot of evidence. If I trust that the stranger standing behind me in line isn't going to murder me in cold blood, right there in public, that's not belief without evidence. I have a lot of evidence to show that most people don't murder people at any given moment. This is a basis for my belief, my trust. Trust is earned through experience and is also practical. If you decided to trust a known child-murderer with taking care of your children, that would be ridiculous because you have evidence that this person murders kids. That sort of belief because you want to believe doesn't just have no value, it's dangerous. The same thing goes for believing in healing-through-prayer because you want to believe, and thus convincing someone to not get medical care.
Ultimately, belief without evidence as a general principle leads to bad results. It does not have value in the vast majority of cases. It is also very difficult to separate those small number of cases where it does have value from the times it doesn't. It's like a belief that there is a treasure chest buried in a specific spot on a specific beach without any form of evidence. Most of the time, this belief is going to produce no good results and a lot of wasted time and effort. However, if there actually was a treasure chest there - and no way to tell ahead of time - that belief would produce good results in that specific instance.
Unfortunately, there's no way to tell ahead of time which beliefs-without-evidence will produce good results. If there was, those beliefs would likely have evidence. So, as a rule, we're probably better off if we believe as few things without evidence as possible. Even the assumption that we aren't just in the Matrix probably shouldn't qualify as a belief, just an assumption that has demonstrable practical value. Heck, even if I *was* in the Matrix - it'd hardly change the fact that I still want to get a promotion at work. My enjoyment in this world is still demonstrable and working towards those ends has benefits.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane