“It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, “mad cow” disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principle vice of religion.” - Richard Dawkins Many other philosophers and professionals of academia criticize religion for its reliance on faith. More specifically, they condemn the act of using faith to reason –rationalizing actions based on something other than evidence or proof. My argument does not necessarily confine itself to the focus frame of religion, but more generally, I argue that it is justified to form beliefs that are not grounded in sufficient evidence. I will use my initial motivation for this topic as an appropriate introduction for this argument. Throughout the semester I was genuinely intrigued by the atheistic arguments of astounding philosophers –most notable and influential on my own beliefs were the ideas of Hume, Dawkins, Clifford, and even Nietzsche. In light of this and the logically superior option to argue against the existence of God, … I did. In fact, I was four pages into what was shaping out to be the best paper I’ve written since my secondary school thesis on underwater basket weaving. At some point, however, I could not continue writing. I had no passion, desire, or any sense of purpose while trying to grind out the final couple pages. I did not believe in what I was writing. I tapped into the revolutionary texts of the aforementioned philosophers and used them as secondary sources to a paper that lacked its most important primary source: my own motivation. And it was in light of this, that I discarded the progress I had made and began writing on something that I think exists in the core of philosophy