Hi Bob,
-> MB>  Regardless of these prerequisites, I can say, that I believe
-> >that the  requirment of faith is a given; if on the one hand
-> >science requires  physical evidence, and on the other hand faith
-> >requires that one  should  never hold any possibility as being
-> >impossible.
-> BS> But that leaves one open to believing anything.
   MB overstates his case, yes.  But trust produces evidence,
and evidence presupposes trust.  Faith as 'belief in'
{holding beliefs in X}
is a red herring {A greek deviation, a cognitive formiulation
of religion}.
->  How does one
-> >choose what to believe and what to disbelieve,
   By experience.
-> as far as things
-> >requiring faith?
   The concept of "require" needs explication.
   1)You are pretty much 'required' to believe in the
continued, unobserved existence of physical objects,
and --unless you are mad--in other  people's minds.
   2)Yet if you make judgments about what is good,
you, in another sense, are 'required' to acknowledge
{i.e. you are implicitly recognizing} a Standard
of Good.
   3) If you pledge your love to X, you are obliged to consider
her worthy of trust;  that is required.  This "faith"
might fly in the face of alleged evidence:  Someone says,
"I saw here with X"  your {required} reply as one committed to loving
her, "I'm sure it was innocent."
   Hal.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------