[PatrickHenry]

I may regret this. Anyway, if those I've pinged aren't interested, feel free to ignore the thread.

[PatrickHenry]

Vanity ping.

[The_Victor]

Can you get the people who need to see this to actually read it?

Bump for education.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You probably will. ;)

I propose that the definition for faith be modified along the following lines:

the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation.

As a non-religious example, my marriage vows to my wife. We don't know we're going to stay together but we have faith that we can work out our problems and stay together.

[atomicpossum]

Fanatic - Anyone who disagrees with me.

[Old_Mil]

It is interesting that it is only in the scientific endeavors that individuals seem to be predisposed to paint the term theory with the veneer of fact. I suspect this has to do with the increasing politicization of science by liberals and a desire to present Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian ideas as carrying more evidentiary weight than they actually do in real life.

Interestingly, Webster has no problem also explaining the word with the terms:

"speculation, an unproven assumption, a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action," and "conjecture."

I would think that such description of the word would be more appropriate for all fields of endeavor.

[RadioAstronomer]

I have a link I will post when I get home that fits in this nicely. :-)

[MRMEAN]

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

Albert Einstein

[Dimensio]

I'm afraid that this won't be of much use. Those of us who aren't anti-science Luddites already know these definitions, and many of the creationists here on FR have made it clear that they want to make up their own definitions of words and insist that their made-up definitions are the ones that scientists really mean, no matter what the scientists claim to mean.

[furball4paws]

A scientific speculation is much different than any old speculation. When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhate unrelated things that are known or appear to be unlikely. This becomes a very informed guess. The better the scientist and the greater his experience, the better chance his speculations will prove to be true.

[andysandmikesmom]

Say, PH, why wasnt I pinged to this thread?....found it by chance...and I need it more so than many others...

For instance, I read with interest, about 'believing' in TOE..Thats what I say, I believe in TOE...(so it would seem, I am using 'believe' in the sense of common usage), but it would actually be more correct to state that I accept TOE or that I have confidence in TOE...well, I have learned something today....I am still mulling it over in my mind, but will try to be more accurate in the future...

[ovrtaxt]

Your definitions of belief, faith and knowledge are inapplicable to the experience of many people.

What if I make a decision based on pure 'faith', then evidence or personal experience arises later which confirms my 'belief'? Is it still faith? Not by your definition. Then it becomes knowledge.

For example- what if I am addicted to certain substances, activities and practices. (Which I was.) Then I have a salvation experience where I put my faith in Jesus Christ. (Which I did.) Then, I instantly have no more of these addictions, and remain addiction free for fifteen years. (Which I have.)

Now I have knowledge. Or is it still faith?

[spunkets]

"Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith"

The word belief is generally used with some corresponding Bayesian probability of being true. That depends on the priors(cognitive content) of that individual's cognitive system and whether, or not that cognition is rational, or irrational. The distinguishing feature is rationality, or the absence of it, in the belief system.

Rational cognition requires the use of logic, real evidence and consistent principles. An irrational system is arbitrary in every way regarding those features. In general any rational belief system will have a similar and consistent value attached to a belief. That is not true in an arbitrary system. In a rational system, any belief can be added, or altered with new evidence, in a simple, consistent and logical way. In an arbitrary system, that is not true. Each irrational system is a unique one, however similar, in an infinite sea of irrational possibilities.

In general any change in an arbitrary system requires the system itself to change. A change of an arbitrary to a rational belief system requires a change in foundation. That's a major obstacle. Rationality, more or less, is resisted, because it poses a threat to the foundation of the entire system.

At any ratte, "religious faith" is not a general description of belief. Nor does perception generally apply to cognitive content. Belief simply refers to any cognitive content held as true. Whether it is, or not, doesn't matter.

Knowledge in a similar way depends on the belief system. One can have knowledge of bagvita's belief system, of which bagvita's beliefs were his knowledge. Both the words belief and knowledge require qualifiers. In general though, the word knowledge implies that one actually knows.

[Virginia-American]

I'd add the definition of Occam's Razor.

[SuziQ]

Check this one out!

[adam_az]

Empiricism. Definition of empiricism could definitely help. As well as a description of the scientific method.

[RightWhale]

Seems fair.

[Creationist]

These are Coyoteman's definitions:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary, 1968. Before word meaning were changed to fit your ideals

the-o-ry = 1. a speculative orig., a mental viewing; contemplation 2. a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done 3. a systematic statement of principles involved [ the theory of equations in mathematics] 4. a formulation of apparent relationships of underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. 5. that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than in its practice pure, as opposed to applied, science etc. 6. popularly, a mere conjecture, or guess.
Number 4, apparent also means = appearing ( but not necessarily ) real or true. Number 5. evolution has no visible proof so it does work in the principle area. A theory is not always well substantiated, as with the theory of evolution.

These are Coyoteman's definitions

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary, 1968. Before word meaning were changed to fit your ideals.

dog-ma = an opinion that which one believes, in LL. (Ec.), a decree, order < Gr. dogma, opinion, judgment < dokein, to seem: see DOCTOR 1. a doctrine: tenet; belief 2. doctrines, tenets, or beliefs collectively 3. a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion 4. Theol. a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and authoritatively affirmed.
doctrine 1. something taught; teachings 2. something taught as the principles or creed of a religion, political party, etc.; tenet or tenets; belief ; dogma 3. rule, theory, or principle of law 4. an official statement of a nation's policy, esp. toward other nations.
SYN.-doctrine refers to a theory based on carefully worked out principles and taught or advocated by its adherents [ scientific or social doctrines] dogma refers to a belief or doctrine that is handed down by authority as true and indisputable, and often connotes arbitrariness, arrogance, etc. tenet emphasizes the maintenance or defense, rather that the teaching, of a theory or principle.

These are Coyoteman's definitions:

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary, 1968. Before word meaning were changed to fit your ideals.

hy-poth-e-sis = groundwork, foundation, supposition < hypotithenai, to place under < hypo-, under + lithenai to place: an unproved theory, proposition, supposition etc. tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or ( working hypothesis ) to provide a basis for further investigation, argument, etc -- SYN. see theory.

These are Coyoteman's definitions:

Faith: Belief in the first proposition (tooth fairy) requires faith, which is belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof.

Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary, 1968. Before word meaning were changed to fit your ideals.

faith = 1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence 2. unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc. 3. a religion or a system of religious beliefs 4. anything believed 5. complete trust, confidence or reliance 6. allegiance to some person or thing; (evolution) FR-evolutionist are dogmatic about the evolutionary theories. The evolutionary hypothesis is the basis for their faith in speculative assumptions of misinterpretation of observations. Their belief is based on facts and data which has been falsified. Time the talisman of evolution is the only way to make the model work.

My hypothesis is that I guess that the theory is based on speculation and assumption through observation with a presumptive opinion which gives an impression of reason, like it had any logical proof. It may be knowledge to understand assumptions even though they are speculative. I am sure your confidence and faith in your belief of the theory is all the reason you feel dogmatic about it.

So I will use the real meaning of the words when discussing this polemic of creation vs evolution. I will not be malign as some FR-evolutionist like to be in their ortund way during their onslaught of flamming. I know that creation is veritable it does not perpetrate tripe to enhance its malleable theory. Spurious an evanescent it is.

FR-evolutionist are Dogmatic in their opinions on the belief by faith their religion. It has been dilligently scrutinized by erudite men and proved spurious and desultory.

[Aracelis]

Excellent resource as always, PH. Thanks for the ping, RA!

[restornu]

I wish you well with this thread..

I hope it continues to linger for a long time..

I checked in today and see SuperBowl has recess this I had to hunt for you!

Be nice to see what you Evos really think with out all of the commotion...

Some day maybe the other side can have a fervent yet affable dialogue!

My best!

[hawkaw]

Thanks for doing this thread!