Many religions teach some version of the concept “faith”. Many religious adherents believe that faith is “belief without evidence”. The religious philosopher Kierkegaard said, “Without risk there is no faith, and the greater the risk the greater the faith … [to understand faith] is to understand that faith cannot be understood … must not be understood … and this absurdity, held fast in the passion of inwardness, is faith, the earnestness of facing the absurd.”
His picture of faith was as follows:
This picture argues that faith has primacy over evidence. I believe this interpretation is incorrect. I think this misinterpretation partly comes from scriptures that suggest faith is believing without seeing. Seeing is one type of evidence. Hearing, smelling, touching, feeling may be other types of evidence. I think that any scripture referring to “belief without seeing” really implies “belief without directly seeing.”
Faith is belief with evidence. It simply excludes evidence that comes from direct observation. Why does it exclude direct observation? Because if we have direct observation, then we have no need for faith. Direct observation leads to a perfect knowledge.
We have evidence for many things that we cannot directly observe. We have never seen an atom but we infer that they exist based on evidence. According to my definition of faith, it is appropriate to say that we have faith that atoms exist.
Orson Pratt, one of the original leaders of my religion, said, “Faith or belief is the result of evidence presented to the mind. Without evidence, the mind cannot have faith in anything … Faith in every fact, statement, truth, or proposition which we have confidence in, is, in all cases whatsoever, derived from evidence. Therefore, without evidence, faith can have no existence.”
This picture of faith is as follows:
This picture shows that evidence has primacy over faith. Only this type of faith can lead us toward a correct picture of reality.
at 4:38 pm
In Alma 19:10, Ammon says about the unnamed Lamanite queen, “there has not been such great faith among all the people of the Nephites.” I had always interpreted that statement as indicating her faith was great because she didn’t have evidence for what she believed. Did she have evidence? Or how was her faith so great without evidence?
at 4:20 am
Before I answer, I must admit to an assumption that I am making. I believe that scriptural passages cannot be interpreted in isolation. They must be compared to all other verses to get the appropriate context.
I think that verse in isolation can reasonably be interpreted as you have stated. But I believe that she did have evidence.
What was her evidence?
1) Witnesses that told her the amazing stories of Ammon.
2) Her personal interaction with Ammon gave her evidence that He was trustworthy.
3) Her husband’s trust in Ammon.
4) I believe that she experienced unstated spiritual impressions as well.
I do not think that any of these evidences would be conclusive, but they are evidences that would give one reasonable cause to believe.
I think that Ammon said that her faith was so great because she was so willing to act on the evidence that she had.
at 6:01 pm
Hey Gavin! I loved this post. Your argument makes perfect sense to me. What I like most about your posts is that you write and illustrate them with utmost clarity. I can tell that you really care about communicating truth to your readers by the obvious thought and effort that are apparent in your posts. I can’t wait to read more!