Well said John . The older I get the more I see the importance of works , helping the poor, those in need. The example of Thomas need ing prrof after he walked with Christ three years shows our inability at times to be 100 percent about anything .

I did not understand the female gender being assigned to God, I take it was not meant to be derogatory amd something out of another culture . Good comments by the particpants on Faith . I enjoyed reading them .

C.S. Lewis put it this way: "Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods."

Some here would probably question the role Lewis assigns to reason in that quote. I might change it to say "things your reason and heart once accepted" in order to take into account the relational/emotional component – again with the analogy of trusting a spouse in marriage and choosing to remain faithful even when things get rocky and you wonder "what the F was I thinking marrying this person; can I continue to believe in his/her love and in the existence of this relationship?"

I doubt that many people *come* to the point of having faith without feeling fairly close to your category (1) about their reasons for stepping/leaping into faith – even if for some it's more of an emotional "knowing" or trusting, than an intellectual "figuring out" (much like other relational decisions we make in life – with friends, spouses, etc.). But those are just my personal thoughts. Others here may answer your question differently.

Thanks, Julie, for the reminder to add The Decalogue to my Netflix queue. BTW, the atheist scientist in me has to point out that someone who worships science is supposed to pray daily to the deity of error bars.

It was good to make those calculations each day, but to place one’s absolute trust in certainty when certainty can in truth never be had is false worship.

I'd affirm what Julie and Karl both said about both the value and limits of "evidence". And I'd add that it's not just about religious matters that we can never have absolute certainty. This is true of all human knowledge. A "leap of faith" (not a "blind" leap, but a leap nonetheless) is necessary for pretty much anything of significance that we believe, since evidence can only ever get us so far and can never provide us with a final "proof". The movie Julie references is a perfect example – it doesn't matter if one's god is GOD, or if it is one's own rational capacity, either way, we don't really have "certainty", and if we pretend that we do, we're just fooling ourselves.

As to your question, I think Karl touched on it above – its all about balance. I don't think any of us would say there is no rational evidence for our faith. We don't believe that some guys just made up a story and we choose to believe in it – we believe that we are part of a historical story of faith. That said, since the modern era (and mostly in response to scientific objectivism which has its own problems) Christians have shifted from basing their faith on belief and love of God to basing it on whether or not it can be proved. So there are tons of books about say "The Case for the Creator" or "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." For many in the churches I grew up in, one then has faith in a collection of evidences or in certain logical arguments and not in God himself. Sure it would be good for the citizens of Jerusalem to understand about Jesus before following them, but if their heart intent was to trust in the proof and not Jesus himself, what's the point? Jesus said on other occasions that doing miracles would be pointless in certain crowds because all the people cared about was the entertainment and not the core of faith itself. And I'm sure as an atheist you've encountered the Christians that think they can argue you into the faith if they can only convince you of the evidence. It is that sort of faith (and its extreme coercion techniques) that I have issues with and what I speak out against in regard to certainty. Not that faith isn't rational or without evidence, but that it should never be reduced to external proofs. Those proofs can always change, are generally pretty weak, and are subject to interpretation. If I base my entire faith on a flimsy idea like say young earth creation, one of these days I will lose my faith when confronted with the facts of geology (that is if I allow myself to encounter counter-evidence).

A great movie that illustrates this is the first movie of The Decalogue series http://www.amazon.com/Decalogue-Special-Complete-Set/dp/B00009Y3OK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1254851123&sr=8-1(a Polish series that address each of the 10 Commandments in modern day settings). For the "No god before God" one sees the story of an atheist father who scoffs at religion and worships science. Each day he makes calculations based on the weather and tells his son whether it is safe to skate on the pond or not. Well, one day his son falls in and drowns and the man's god of certainty comes crumbling down. It was good to make those calculations each day, but to place one's absolute trust in certainty when certainty can in truth never be had is false worship.

Anyway, I think I've rambled enough.

The one answer that ever made sense to me is:
so you are free to BE an atheist.
A relationship with a God is different than a relationship with your wife. If you're convinced that your wife exists, loves you, and wants certain things from you, you are free to reject all that because you're equals. But if you're convinced that a God exists, loves you, and wants certain things from you, you pretty much don't have a choice but to listen – because it's a GOD speaking. Who the hell am I to argue with infinite wisdom, infinite power, when it gives a direct order?
So, if there is a God, and if that God loves people, it makes sense that He/She would love us enough to give us a choice about whether or not to obey Him/Her. That means He/She will not give ironclad, indisputable evidence. (Though one can consider that the entire physical universe – and the fact that the odds against intelligent life coming into being by chance are infinity to one against – are evidence. But obviously, not beyond dispute.)
As I said above, I don't always like it. But it does mean that humans can believe, and do, whatever we damn well please. If there is a God, it's pretty cool of Him/Her to refrain from acting like I would with absolute power. Me, I'd be issuing commands and thunderbolts every five minutes just 'cause I could. Presumably, infinite wisdom would have more maturity than that.