The investigator should have a robust faith - and yet not believe.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Uncertainty is a very good thing: it's the beginning of an investigation, and the investigation should never end.
It is by doubting that we come to investigate, and by investigating that we recognize the truth.
Faith is a personal matter, and should never be a cudgel to stifle inquiry. We tried that approach about 1,200 years ago. The experiment was called the Dark Ages.
There has to be a measure of faith. That's what this business is all about: trusting in something that may never show up, that you have no concrete proof of.
Must faith be exactly that, the willingness and ability to believe in the face of a lack of evidence? If one could find the evidence, would then the faith be dead?
I oppose any belief that contradicts experimental evidence as determined by the methods of science. All beliefs not in such contradiction may be considered as faith. Whether faith in a particular belief is beneficial or not is another matter.
I think it's very healthy to use journalistic and legal techniques to investigate the evidence for and against Christianity and other faith systems.
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
Faith is not trying to believe something regardless of the evidence. Faith is daring to do something regardless of the consequences.
If we are not careful, we will convey the message that investigators have to be perfect. Not true!