Isn't the expression, 'if there were proof there would be no need for faith' a tired worn out overused copout

Question

Isn't the expression, 'if there were proof there would be no need for faith' a tired worn out overused copout

Answer 1

well what else can they say? "we're so afraid of the unknown that we'll believe baseless unproven stories for comfort". But they couldn't though could they?

Answer 2

i think a leap of faith is required to live each day--and i don't reference a belief in god.  the observation of humans often fills me with dismay...but,even in the absence of so much evidence to the contrary, i seem to have some blind faith that we are capable of  so much better.

Answer 3

It is about as tired, worn out and overused as appeals to the material as the sole source of explanations in regards to the mysteries of existence.

Answer 4

While the phrase is certainly used constantly, I think why it is used is for those with faith to rationalize and justify their beliefs. As for "tired worn out overused copout" I really do not think yes or no, --it just is part of the concept. Those who do not believe in a higher power uses "there is no evidence to support it" frequently, so it boils down to an expression to justify, rationalize and give an "answer" to why they believe what they believe.

Answer 5

I can't tell if this question is rhetorical or not.

Aesthetically, I think it's worn out, but I don't necessarily think it's a cop out in all cases.  It's actually what makes the problem of induction interesting.

The fact is that we do put "faith" in many things.  That's how induction works on a very fundamental level.  We gather information from past experiences and base many of our predictions, and later decisions, on the assumption that the world will follow previous trends.  But how is it that we can justify that the world won't just go topsy-turvy one day and blow all of our past assumptions to the wind.  This is the kind of philosophically rigorous and challenging skepticism that makes Hume a legend and Taleb a bestseller.  There is not yet a proof of the validity of inductive claims, so we have to rely on very fallible presumption.

But none of this legitimizes the existence of any gods.  All one needs to do to someone who says this is very calmly and Socratically nod, pull a Dawkins move on them, "I see, and what evidence do you forward as a basis for your claim in x?"  Most answers come from the unintelligent and proselytizing tacticians as, "Because I've seen/felt/experienced this god('s presence)," but anecdotal evidence is never sufficient for legitimate induction on a claim, no matter how many people have however many creative stories to tell.

Answer 6

In practice that is actually an epistemological fallacy (aren't they all?)"

If there were no faith, no search for proof would be necessary, because no one would care. We would all be atheists.

The remark has been made more than once that if religion had not been invented, we would be centuries ahead of where we are in science and may actually have taken science in very different directions than we did.

Answer 7

Yea... and its not always true. faith is not everything sometimes you have to have a proof in order to trust others

Answer 8

A bit.

But the truth is our minds are designed to make rapid decision from limited data.

We all run on faith.

Answer 9

It is only a cop-out if it is used as an alternative to seeking truth.  In the same way, dismissing faith as "unreasonable" is a cop-out.  There are things that simply cannot be proven, and even atheists have faith - the faith that it is a godless universe.