First, let’s reiterate something obvious that everyone already knows: When one makes an effort in understanding and living Buddha Dhamma one will get many “Aha!” moments, which lead to real, unshakable saddhā.
pathfinder brought up how historical evidence can also help build faith (saddhā), and there is no question that they do — up to a point. However, they can potentially lead to more time wasting as dosakkhayo pointed out concerning the nature of evidence.
Let’s use as example the first Buddhist Council from pathfinder, and let’s suppose that an Ashoka pillar has just been discovered with some inscription that suggests that there was some kind of a gathering at the location mentioned in the tipitaka. Will that settle it? Not necessarily, as the pillar may spawn more interpretation — just like dosakkhayo pointed out — such as:
The inscription is vague
It may be about a gathering of some other sects
Disagreements among scholars as to the meaning of parts of the inscription
ad infinitum
So, do we then spend more time, potential endlessly, discussing the evidence?
I brought up Ashoka pillars because I personally find them convincing, and that may be the only kind of “evidence” available to us in modern times, along with stupas.
I remember reading about the Ashoka pillar at Lumbini, with the inscription that King Ashoka visited the site to honor the birthplace of the Buddha. And then many, many years back I saw the news about an ancient Buddhist shrine discovered there. With that, I was convinced that the Buddha was born in the area of Lumbini, like the tipitaka said.
Are all of my Buddhist friends convinced of the birthplace of the Buddha as I am? No. Some say that what I call “evidence” is still inconclusive; do I then spend more time to debate with them that it is conclusive, or do I just spend that time studying Dhamma? We all know what the right answer is.
Best,
Lang