Or are you saying that there is absolutely no faith (definition #2) involved?
This is where my concrete and literal reductionist tendencies come into play. I do not see this as a semantic shell game. To me “faith” is used in its classical sense as “belief/trust without evidence,” while a level of “confidence” is dependant upon the level of evidence.
In actuality I have no faith in anything.
I have a good level of confidence in cartographers’ placement of Ulan Baatar on the world map, though I’ve never been there, because I have evidence and experience that these guys these days are seldom too far off. I would not accept that placement on faith.
I have confidence in some of my peoples’ ability to perform assigned tasks because I have evidence that they have done so in the past. Faith would be a disaster in this arena since failure to perform up to the level of my faith would have nasty consequences for all concerned.
I have confidence in the scientific method because I use it, I see others use it and I have seen and experienced the result of its power.
I have confidence in the Theory of Evolution because I have read the literature, recognise the grounding in basic principles, recognise the logic and the use of scientific methodologies. I also am confident, not faithful, that if some nuance or other is not quite right, someone will point this out and it will eventually be corrected.
I have no confidence in faith because the evidence I have shows that such faith is based on emotion, much without reason, and in most cases turns out to be tragically wrong.
ABE: Let me be specific. The word "faith" as used in the popular vernacular has no place in a scientific discussion (except as a topic). It only leads to the confusion evidenced by the previous few messages in this thread.
Edited by AZPaul3, : various thingies
™ Version 4.2
