(November 24, 2008 at 2:07 pm)Daystar Wrote: Adrian, you made a good point. How about this. My faith in the case of the man shot by the woman was made in faith of my past experiences. It could have turned out either way. I could have been right or wrong, but eventually my theory was proved as true, accurate and fact. The evidence I had in proposing that theory wouldn't have been solid evidence to a rookie cop and not without good reason. He hadn't the experience.Well again I think we are thinking of different meanings of the word "faith". You seem to define faith as believing in something that hasn't been proven yet, whilst I would say it was believing in something without good reason or evidence. If you have faith in something or you follow evidence, you can still be right or wrong in both cases.
For instance, we used to believe the Sun went around the Earth. This was a perfectly logical deduction because we understood that things move and we could see the Sun move and not feel the Earth rotate. Ergo the Sun orbiting the Earth was a good explanation of the evidence. It was based on reasoning, so I wouldn't class it as a faith issue. Of course, as new evidence was introduced, we changed our explanation to what it is today, and the explanation is as proven as it can be by modern science.
So again I find flaw with your definition, since it would put the first theory as mere "faith" when it did rely on evidence and reasoning.
