DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - What is the role of faith in Buddhism? Do we need blind faith ?

**Chubrehege** · 09-01-2010, 07:08 AM

If faith = belief/conviction without or in spite of evidence, I don't see any other healthy approach to it but to minimize it with the goal of eliminating it altogether through direct experience and necessary inference.

You bring up an interesting point here of evidence. In my training class today as a child protective investigator we discussed evidence in legal proceedings. There were two main categories about this: type of evidence being presented and burden of proof required for the court to make a finding. The standard of evidence and burden of proof vary depending upon the type of hearing. I think it is safe to say that anyone who has faith in something is using some kind of evidence, even it is limited "it's in the bible," or "so-and-so told me so." The levels of burden of proof that I am aware in courts:

1) Probable cause: reason to suspect a certain fact is true (used for police to search and CPIs to remove children on a temporary basis)
2) Preponderance of the evidence: more evidence in favor of one conclusion over the other (in court: the state concludes that it more likely than not that a child has been abused and requires parents to take certain actions to rectify situation)
3) Clear and convincing: stronger evidence than with preponderance, pretty sure about the the truth of a situation (used to terminate parental rights)
4) Beyond a reasonable doubt: no reasonable doubt about the truth of a situation in the mind of a "reasonable person"

Obviously these are subjective terms, but may help us in determining what constitutes blind faith and what constitutes "reasonable confidence." Interestingly, it seems as though the four can be used in sequence as well. Starting with probable cause, about the Buddha's teachings removing suffering for instance, and moving towards being beyond reasonable doubt. Also, it seems that the evidence used to verify the Buddha's teachings would have to include empirical evidence that cannot necessarily be verified with certainty externally... any thoughts?

09-01-2010, 07:08 AM	#13
Chubrehege Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 485 Senior Member	If faith = belief/conviction without or in spite of evidence, I don't see any other healthy approach to it but to minimize it with the goal of eliminating it altogether through direct experience and necessary inference. You bring up an interesting point here of evidence. In my training class today as a child protective investigator we discussed evidence in legal proceedings. There were two main categories about this: type of evidence being presented and burden of proof required for the court to make a finding. The standard of evidence and burden of proof vary depending upon the type of hearing. I think it is safe to say that anyone who has faith in something is using some kind of evidence, even it is limited "it's in the bible," or "so-and-so told me so." The levels of burden of proof that I am aware in courts: 1) Probable cause: reason to suspect a certain fact is true (used for police to search and CPIs to remove children on a temporary basis) 2) Preponderance of the evidence: more evidence in favor of one conclusion over the other (in court: the state concludes that it more likely than not that a child has been abused and requires parents to take certain actions to rectify situation) 3) Clear and convincing: stronger evidence than with preponderance, pretty sure about the the truth of a situation (used to terminate parental rights) 4) Beyond a reasonable doubt: no reasonable doubt about the truth of a situation in the mind of a "reasonable person" Obviously these are subjective terms, but may help us in determining what constitutes blind faith and what constitutes "reasonable confidence." Interestingly, it seems as though the four can be used in sequence as well. Starting with probable cause, about the Buddha's teachings removing suffering for instance, and moving towards being beyond reasonable doubt. Also, it seems that the evidence used to verify the Buddha's teachings would have to include empirical evidence that cannot necessarily be verified with certainty externally... any thoughts?
	Quote