I wasn't making a distinction between belief and faith, no. Substitute in the word 'world-view', if you like - that would probably get my meaning across better.

I goofed that quote thing. Sorry about that.

"World-view" is even worse. You need to distinguish between "belief" and "faith". By "belief", as I understand it (as well as most scholars of religion), you are speaking of a state of understanding based on some evidence. "Faith" is a condition based on no evidence. So if you ask what you are asking there is a distinction between those two things and which you mean will determine your answer.

Sorry Ed, I'm obviously using the terms in far more vague a way than you would like. I disagree that faith is based on 'no evidence but, in any case, I was using belief and faith interchangeably.

I'm talking about things that are beyond the realms of scientific enquiry, like 'There is a supreme being', 'All living things are reincarnated in a form that depends on their deeds in the previous life', 'When we die, that's it; there is no eternal soul or afterlife'.

My initial question was this: 'Is it okay for religious belief to be impervious to external evidence? Or is a certain element of doubt healthy?' It seems no-one wants to play so I'll go and sulk in the corner....

Hey, am I no one? The point of your question hinges on whether or not you mean 'belief' or 'faith', because faith is indeed impervious to external evidence. The question then becomes, if we mean faith strictly, 'what is evidence'?

I would say there is an aspect of faith that is evidence-based. For example, I have faith that we can untangle mysteries using evidence-based approaches. That is based on the fact that we've done just that in our small corner of the world. Whether or not this extrapolates to the universe I don't know but my supposition that it does is faith-based.

Incidentally, I'm wondering if there's a logical fallacy (no true Scotsman) when you say faith is impervious to external evidence? If someone's faith is changed based on external evidence, does that mean it wasn't faith because, by definition, faith is impervious to external evidence?

I think Ken is right!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

For once wikipedia has a good article.

If you want to use commonplace terms, then Kevin is alright. But, as a moment's thought will reveal, use of commonplace terms in this discussion is not fruitful. More exact terminology is needed.

Ed, sorry on two counts - for not getting to your post for a while and for saying 'no-one' when you had replied to my question!

When I (and, I think, Christians generally) use the word 'faith' I don't mean something that is completely beyond evidence, but neither do I mean something entirely evidence-based. I'd use the language of relationships; for example I have faith that my housemate will help me if I need a favour. This is not a testable scientific hypothesis but it is based on previous events. Likewise with faith in Jesus Christ, I think.

I don't know how followers of other religions would treat this question about faith and belief; do we have followers of any other religions in the house, so to speak?

Kevin, let me amplify things by pointing out that belief-states and faith-states are not mutually exclusive. Any confessor may have both states at the same time. Most belief-states can be show to be invalid pretty easily. Yet, when that happens, the confessor continues to assert his faith-state. Why? Because the faith-state is not based on evidence.

When Nebuchadnezzar is going to put the three men in the oven, what do they say? "The God of Israel will deliver us. But if not, O king, know that we will not bow down to your idol of gold." There is faith in a nutshell.