[Glice]

Ooh, I likes you I do. [Edit: I was referring to Alyasa, not that I don't like any of you other schmucks]

This is pretty much the same question you were asking of spirituality a few posts previous - wherein lies proof? This is one of my favourite bits of theology, where you come across the diverging sense of proof between the 'rational' (using that term loosely) and the spiritual - spirituality & faith both have their proofs, but empirical ration may not admit these proofs to be valid; further, empirical ration is so wrapped up in its 'perfect system' that it will never admit of a proof which is not universally viewable. I like to counter that with "I don't understand microwaves" because I don't, and no amount of 'proof' is going to make them make sense to me. Rational, schmational, I get faith, I don't get microwaves.

Faith is, so far as I can make out, not an irrational response to the world, but a willing acceptance of questions which will never be answered. It would take an absolute masochist to break down all his/her edifices, and they would never succeed (to much not being clever when we're young/ too much being much cleverer when we're young). I summarise thusly: there are always questions to which we don't know the answer, for which we construct, consciously or unconsciously, edifices to protect ourselves. This does not apply merely to the religio-metaphysical questions, this applies to everything which we don't think about every time we encounter it (if you drive, do you think about whether or how the car works, or do you trust that the manufacturers, and all the other intermediaries and suchforth have not contrived to destroy it? Is this not a faith of sorts?)

I choose faith as a deferral of existential questions. Please feel free to do otherwise, should you so chose.