- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 5,970
- Reaction score
- 4,516
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
faith
noun
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.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith
If you wish to use definition #1 then yes science requires faith.
If you wish to use definition #2 then no it does not, unless you take this definition to a literal extreme. In this case everything requires faith. Grass is green? you have faith your senses are not deceiving you to assert this.
If you wish to use definition #3,4, or 5 absolutely not.
If you wish to conflate these definitions to try to draw a parallel to science and religion then it is equivocation. It is trying to force incompatible usages and definitions into the same box when they are completely incompatible - and in the strictest sense diametrically opposed to one another (religious faith priding itself in being belief without evidence).
noun
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.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith
If you wish to use definition #1 then yes science requires faith.
If you wish to use definition #2 then no it does not, unless you take this definition to a literal extreme. In this case everything requires faith. Grass is green? you have faith your senses are not deceiving you to assert this.
If you wish to use definition #3,4, or 5 absolutely not.
If you wish to conflate these definitions to try to draw a parallel to science and religion then it is equivocation. It is trying to force incompatible usages and definitions into the same box when they are completely incompatible - and in the strictest sense diametrically opposed to one another (religious faith priding itself in being belief without evidence).