Well, they're going at it in the comment section of The Guardian. Seems in "The Lay Scientist" column, Martin Robbins wrote an article: Science is Not My God, trying to explain the difference between religious faith (it will work because I know it will) and confidence in scientific discovery (it works because it has in the past, and has a track record for working). He then takes up the question: are atheists who condemn the religious for faith being hypocrites? (His short answer, no)

The comments section is telling: the dukefest between the religious, the science-minded, and the stickler-grammarians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-la...1/jun/10/1

Confidence in something based on facts is not equivalent to confidence in something based on belief.

Confidence, trust, belief, faith. Equatable. Question is not if a thing is based in these... it is in what that thing is and what the evidence which these formed around is

The difference between 'faith' and confidence?

When I walk into a room, confident the light is not out and flick a switch, it is not a world shattering paradigm when it fails to light. Compare that with faith.

If there is a similarity, then I lose my 'faith' in whatever I am looking at when it doesn't work. And when I fix it and test it, I may regain my 'faith' that it does work.

See, isn't it fun how mutable language is?

Mhm, quite fun

And I agree with your distinction. Ultimately they say the same thing differently though

Tell those assholes at the Guardian that "faith" doesn't only mean faith in some God, nor does having faith in the science that keeps your airplane in the air mean you are going to Heaven.

Letting the "other side" determine what words mean, limiting the debate and hobbling our responses, it just stupid.

(June 10, 2011 at 9:46 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: Tell those assholes at the Guardian that "faith" doesn't only mean faith in some God, nor does having faith in the science that keeps your airplane in the air mean you are going to Heaven.

Letting the "other side" determine what words mean, limiting the debate and hobbling our responses, it just stupid.

Agreed. Whoever gets to do the defining gets to shape the discussion.

Which is why it is so troubling (on this side of The Big Pond anyway) that Christians in particular are trying to define atheism as a religion. Because the next not-quite-so-obvious step is: if they succeed (by defining the word instead of atheists and grammarians defining it), they can then move on to an agenda which has been brought up so many times before (Scopes monkey trial, et alia). If atheism is a religion, and science is its "mantra," it does not belong in schools or in public fora (such as courts, universities, &c.)

There is some precedent for this here. An example is the twenty-five year fight Wiccans went through to have the pentacle (an encircled pentagram) accepted as a religious symbol to be placed on veterans grave markers by the Veterans Administration. The VA opposed it in court for twenty-five years (and finally lost last December) because:

1) Wicca is not an organised religion [not required by the rules]
B) the symbol is "offensive" [though protected speech under the I Amendment], and
iii) President Bush (sr.) outlawed entry by executive order into the Armed Forces with a religious designation of Wicca (I was a Navy recruiter when this happened, and rather than have me wind up in a potential constitutional fight with the chain-of-command over this, my command transferred me to Spain for three years). They didn't get my dog tags, though they did ask to replace them with a set that had "no preference" on them for religion.

(On the above, this is a problem my wife has had upon entering hospitals as a patient: they ignore her writing "atheist" on her admission paperwork and change it to such things as "Protestant" or "Christian." Can't sue 'em, though: 'just an administrative error, you see.')

That said, when the VA first started using symbols other than a Mogen David and a Latin Cross (after WWII), they adopted a symbol for atheists who wish to have it on their marker. This is an example that some religious organisations use as "proof" atheism is a religion: the government allows the use of a symbol for it on grave markers.

(I would prefer if the government got out of "approving" religious symbols for grave markers entirely: you want one, you pay for it, religious or not. And many atheists prefer not to use the "government-approved" religious symbol for atheism anyway. The government claims they regulate this to prevent non-religious, commercial, or offensive symbols from appearing on government-supplied markers.)

This is also why I am so wound up about the definition of "agnostic," as I equate "I don't know" to mean "I don't believe." (Agnostics just claim their reason is "they don't know for sure.") They just have a different reason for their atheism - but they still do not believe. It muddies the waters of the debate, because Christians are quite happy with agnostics here saying they are not atheists - that means they are theists, by their setting the definitions. Thus, agnostic speech can also be thrown out of public fora.

As for the Guardian, I did write an E-mail. I can't really go over and "tell 'em" though: England is a bit far from Nebraska.

I guess technically, if you look at a possible definition of faith below (#1 and #2) and don't consider the others, than it could be considered faith -- technically.

FAITH:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.


That being said, my answer would be an unequivocal, NO. Because obviously, in this area of discussion and in this arena, "Faith" has only one meaning - #3.

I guess what I'm saying is that the actual term, faith may be subject to interpretation by those who would already have a biased agenda.

Science is the judicious selection of confidence or doubt based on sound, rational, continually updated assessment of probability. Faith is confidence in defiance of rational and sound assessment of probability. Agnosticism is doubt in defiance of rational and sound assessment of probability.

Confidence when supported by science is not equivalent to faith just as doubt when raised by science is not equal to agnosticism.

(June 10, 2011 at 4:39 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

---

The difference between 'faith' and confidence?

When I walk into a room, confident the light is not out and flick a switch, it is not a world shattering paradigm when it fails to light. Compare that with faith.

If there is a similarity, then I lose my 'faith' in whatever I am looking at when it doesn't work. And when I fix it and test it, I may regain my 'faith' that it does work.

See, isn't it fun how mutable language is?

---

Wow Syn, what a perfect analogy for my faith in God.

(June 11, 2011 at 4:09 am)Cinjin Wrote: I guess technically, if you look at a possible definition of faith below (#1 and #2) and don't consider the others, than it could be considered faith -- technically.

FAITH:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.


That being said, my answer would be an unequivocal, NO. Because obviously, in this area of discussion and in this arena, "Faith" has only one meaning - #3.

I guess what I'm saying is that the actual term, faith may be subject to interpretation by those who would already have a biased agenda.

So who gets to define what faith is. I agree with your post, except the no portion, because I (as a peson with faith in God and faith in science) define faith as in 1 and 2, regardless of the topic (which is where 3 fails. It completely restricts the topic to theology).