In a deposition submitted under oath, Hal White said:
-> BS> But that leaves one open to believing anything.
 HW>    MB overstates his case, yes.  But trust produces evidence,
 HW> and evidence presupposes trust.
    How does trust produce evidence?  Trust is usually built upon
 evidence of something being trustworthy.
 HW> Faith as 'belief in'
 HW> {holding beliefs in X}
 HW> is a red herring {A greek deviation, a cognitive formiulation
 HW> of religion}.
    I'm not sure I agree, but then maybe I'm misunderstanding your
 statement.
->  How does one
-> >choose what to believe and what to disbelieve,
 HW>    By experience.
    That leads to a lot of different things in which to believe, but you
 may be right.
-> as far as things requiring faith?
 HW>    The concept of "require" needs explication.
 HW>    1)You are pretty much 'required' to believe in the
 HW> continued, unobserved existence of physical objects,
 HW> and --unless you are mad--in other  people's minds.
 HW>    2)Yet if you make judgments about what is good,
 HW> you, in another sense, are 'required' to acknowledge
 HW> {i.e. you are implicitly recognizing} a Standard
 HW> of Good.
    I agree.
 HW>    3) If you pledge your love to X, you are obliged to consider
 HW> her worthy of trust;  that is required.  This "faith"
 HW> might fly in the face of alleged evidence:  Someone says,
 HW> "I saw here with X"  your {required} reply as one committed to loving
 HW> her, "I'm sure it was innocent."
    Yeah, but that seems to put the cart before the proverbial horse.
 Love and trust are, or should be, built upon evidence of the previous
 trustworthiness of the object of our love.
... Is fearr fear a chiniud.
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------