Sure it is, Freedumb2003. Faith is foundational in any exercise of reason. You've got to have faith in something or reason has nothing to do, and no way to do it. For instance, how could science be done without confidence that there are things to be learned and logic and valid natural laws by which they may be known? The word "confidence" = "with + faith."
I'm not quibbling here either. Faith has apparently become so disreputable to you that you have forgotten how central it is to your even being able to get out of bed in the morning, and to orient yourself in the world of man and nature.
Science believes all the time: It believes in the importance of the questions it is asking, it believes that the design of the experiment to test the proposition is suitable, it believes that the evidence it gathers and qualifies in the prosecution of finding the answer to the question is appropriate.... It believes in the power of reason and logic. It believes in "objective" physical laws that can be faithfully applied to problems to get valid answers. Science believes all the time, at every step; and so, I imagine, do you -- though you apparently do not recognize it....
I'd only wish to add that it was exclusively within the Western civilizational orbit -- which is traditionally classical and JudeoChristian in belief -- that systematic science even got started in the first place. And nowhere else. I'll leave it up to you to discover why that is. It really is an "interesting problem!"
Anyhoot, my two cents for whatever they're worth to you. Thanks for writing!
It's always so funny . . .
those throwing rocks at faith fail utterly to realize how immobilized and lifeless they'd be without it.
. . . at stop lights . . .
. . . at the MD's . . .
. . . at the food counters . . . especially when contemplating spinich! LOL . . .
. . . in close relationships
. . . in the Papal encyclicals proffered by the High Priests of the religion of science . . . many of which have been proven to be hoaxed, fudged etc. . . .
. . . that their car will start on cold mornings . . . wellll . . . that some cars will . . .
. . . that their spouses or significant other's will come home again day after tomorrow.
. . . that chance plus time makes sense . . .
. . . the list is virtually endless.
I am not arguing origins. I am arguing that the study of the history of science is interesting but no longer germain to the scientific process.
There are wonderful people thinking and publishing Great Thoughts that certainly provide new perspectives. But they are external to the Scientific Process (until someone finds a way to actually apply them to the rigoroush standards of science).
And you are so nice, I feel badly that I still would like to see the quotes from Darwin.
But I would.
You're correct that science began "exclusively within the Western civilizational orbit." However, the Greeks -- Euclid, Aristotle, Archimedes, Eratosthenes, etc. -- who were undoubtedly the originators of what we call science, were neither Jewish nor Christian. The West didn't become Christian until the early 300s (AD). Western Civilization was flourishing for at least six centuries, probably seven centuries or more, when the prevailing religion was worship of the Olympian gods. Paganism.
But poor ol' Zeus just can't get any respect these days.
My apologies for entering the discussion late.
BB, here you are using the term 'faith' equivocally. I would be very interested in how many Christians here would consider their 'faith' in God to be as pedestrian as the trust we have that common events will occur consistently.
By reducing the Christian (or other religion's) concept of 'faith' to be equivalent with the 'faith' we have that our car will start in the morning is to rob it of all significance in the hearts and minds of spiritually centred people.
Instead of rendering religious faith to be equivalent with the common trust of repeatability, simply to enable you to claim science as just one more religion, perhaps you should separate the two and present scientific 'faith' for what it is - the observation that specific events produce specific effects consistently enough to be used in the prediction of future events/effects, and present religious 'faith' for what it is - the God given intuitional realization of his existence and power despite and beyond what the consistencies of the physical world provide?
I'm sure you didn't mean to make your and other Christian's faith as mundane as 'God does stuff often and reliably enough for us to believe in him'.