FWIW b_sharp, I am using the word "faith" in precisely the same sense intended by Pope Benedict XVI in his recent, highly controversial Regensburg Inaugural Address. And I find the reaction I'm getting around here from certain quarters to this usage is eerily similar to the reaction the speech got from certain quarters of the Islamist world.
I'll stick by my usage as the fundamental one. Not least because the Pope does -- who is an extraordinarily brilliant metaphysician and epistemologist as well as superb theologian.
My use of the word "faith" is not "equivocal." It is essential.
In another post (to which I cannot seem to respond for whatever reason, since I "time out" on every attempt), PatrickHenry took issue with my assertion that Western science has roots in classical antiquity and the Judeo-Christian tradition. In essence, his argument went: the classical Greeks were the first scientists, but Judeo-Christianity is superfluous to science. If you don't mind I'll reply to him here.
I would only like to point out here that Christianity is a synthesis of both the patriarchs and prophets of Israel and the great Greek metaphysicians, principally Plato and Aristotle. The term Logos is a Greek word denoting both "word" and "reason." We find it in the very first line of the Gospel of Saint John: "In the beginning was the Logos; and the Logos was God, and was with God." For the great Greeks, man was "microcosm" -- an image or reflection of the Cosmos itself. Christianity upped the stakes to another category altogether: Man is made in the image of God Himself, the Way and Truth, Who expresses Himself as the Logos, as the reason, or intellect, that constitutes the order of universal reality. Intelligent beings made in his image are therefore able, via the gifts of reason and free will, to "penetrate the mysteries" of the universe.
It is this very Christian understanding that gives science its confidence in its ability to perform its task. That the universe is intelligible and therefore knowable owes preeminently to the divine Logos from which it received its origin. Both classical metaphysics and Christian theology regard the universe as shot thought with reason, as ordered by intellect from the beginning; therefore the universe is intelligible to intelligent beings.
There is absolutely no similar statement regarding the essential constitution of the universe emanating from Eastern cultures at all. And arguably, that is the reason why they could not produce science -- though their arts and literatures are pretty amazing.
In short, in the West, faith and reason are inseparable; and the acknowledgement of this is what has made Western culture and civilization so extraordinarily, even uniquely, successful....
Lovely, comparing us angry Islamist radicals.
I assume we agree on that point. And also that the Greeks I mentioned were pagans.
... but Judeo-Christianity is superfluous to science.
I didn't say that. Or anything remotely like that. But I'm still wild about you, BB!
Beautiful thoughts.. Also quite groovey is Gods decision to use Paul(Saul) to take the gospels to the gentiles.. Jesus chose the other apostles, Paul also, I believe.. Paul was educated in latin, greek, and hebrew knowledge and the sematics and dialectic of those cultures.. The other Apostles were hebrew waifs of various occupations, teenagers even.. Paul was uniquely trained to relate to those of other cultures.. and to understand the mischief of the judaizers(Galatians).. He was perfect..
Is Jesus COOL or WHAT?...
"FWIW b_sharp, I am using the word "faith" in precisely the same sense intended by Pope Benedict XVI in his recent, highly controversial Regensburg Inaugural Address. And I find the reaction I'm getting around here from certain quarters to this usage is eerily similar to the reaction the speech got from certain quarters of the Islamist world."
"I'll stick by my usage as the fundamental one. Not least because the Pope does -- who is an extraordinarily brilliant metaphysician and epistemologist as well as superb theologian.
He may very well be brilliant. He may have also come up with a very valid definition for the word. I don't know, I haven't read his definition. Nor do I know that your use is faithful to his interpretation without knowing his version. Perhaps you could explain to me what his definition is?
Aside from that I can only go on what you posted previously. I have reprinted that comment at the top of this post.
You define the term 'confidence' as 'with faith' while describing a situation, the process of methodological naturalism, where confidence is based on observation. Even those natural laws you mention are based on observation. That observation is that when we perform tests, even such basic tests as starting your car in the morning, the results are consistently and reliably the same. Our entire life is spent testing actions and effects. With those that recur regularly and predictably we gain confidence that they will recur reliably in the future.
"My use of the word "faith" is not "equivocal." It is essential.
Unless you are placing your 'faith' in God (which I understand to be a religious faith) within the definition of faith as a learned function of consistent and repeatable effects, you are indeed equivocating.
Since you have yet to define the term 'faith' as you intend it to be understood, I have no idea if it is essential or not.