[MD] Faith

[ian glendinning]

DMB et al,

I think we end up debating the meaning of the word "faith" yet again.

When you said this (quoted and re-quoted)
"Faith, by definition, is a belief held in the absence of evidence. The
amount of evidence supporting the belief in tomorrow's sunrise is more than
ample and so requires no faith."

The problem is the absoluteness / relativeness of terms like
"absence", "more", "ample" and "no".

No-one believes anything without "any" evidence, faithful or not.

The question is how much evidence, how objective or otherwise, how
well observed, how well founded, and how well argued on top of those
selected foundations, etc. ie "what counts as sufficient evidence".

Science is a well argued and well formed process, but you still have
to believe in that process and you still have to "have faith in" it's
metaphysical roots, and suspend disbelief where it gets small, large,
complex, unpredictable, awesome and emergent, simply because its
explanatory arguments are "good".

Faith (as a word) carries religious baggage, (and no doubt definitions
that refer to lack of evidence) but I don't think it helps to deny
that science (including solar astronomy) requires a little faith too.

You distinction of what counts as evidence or not ....The difference
between scientific belief and religious faith is great, but not
absolute .... it is simply a pragmatic one. (and I'm with you on the
working defintion) - I just don't think we get anywhere with is /
is-not debates. Horse for courses ... now what was the question again
...

Ian