You seem to have missed my point.
My point is not that your faith in God isn't special, in fact I am trying to get you to realize that faith in God is very different than the trust we have that things will behave consistently.
If you conflate the two meanings in an attempt to make science look like a religion you are guilty of equivocation, plain and simple.
I have faith that my car will start in the morning because I have experience that under the same weather conditions as I expect tomorrow it has started before. My faith that it will start is based on past experience and the consistency of those experiences. If I did not have those experiences I would have no faith that it would start.
Do you believe in God because he was there yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, or is your faith deeper than that? I'm sure that your faith in God is not based on some consistency in his actions.
If for some reason you disagree with me and you claim that the definition of faith is predicated on the object of the faith then you are faced with a dilemma. By claiming that science is a religion and acceptance of evolution is faith based then you are elevating evolution to an equivalence to God. Or the definition of each of those you mentioned in your previous post
. . 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.
the Synthetic Theory of Evolution [my addition]
are different faiths than the faith in God (by the definition of faith you gave above) so you can't claim that science is the same as religion.
This can be simply stated. If the object of faith defines faith then all faiths with different objects are defined to be different. All faiths with the same definition must have the same or equivalent objects.
(BTW, this also works for the case where there are just two different classes of object, God and everything else) If you want to claim that evolution is a faith based religion you have to either elevate Evolution to equivalence with God, or lower your faith in God to be nothing but the observation of consistency and repeatability in physical events.
Or you can retain the specialness of your faith in God and just admit that science has nothing to do with religious faith.
My point is not that your faith in God isn't special, in fact I am trying to get you to realize that faith in God is very different than the trust we have that things will behave consistently.
If you conflate the two meanings in an attempt to make science look like a religion you are guilty of equivocation, plain and simple.
= = = = =
Wrong again.
God Loving; God fearing child-like faith . . . is very akin to . . . child-like faith in the child's loving earthly father. Pretty basic, really. Oh, it can reach magnificent heights and embellishments . . . but it's certainly basic in foundation and origin. And it's SPECIAL because of WHO GOD IS. It's common because of the human side of it.
I don't conflate anything. That's just reality.
Observers with INTEGRITY, OBSERVE REALITY and accept it as it is. LOL.
One doesn't need to lift a gnat's eyelash to make science look like religion.
Science:
1. has a list of dogma quite similar to religious dogma and defended just as fiercely and illogically as that of some religions.
2. a high priesthood who act as grantors of rights and privileges akin to such granted by the high priests of various religions.
3. a system of education and gate keeping to said lofty ecclesiastical positions depending on demonstrated lock-step kosherness with the doctrines of the faith of science is very much similar to the religious education systems of several religions.
4. a system of propaganda creation, vetting and distribution probably more strict, narrow, rigid and out of touch with objective reality at least as much as that of many religions.
. . . the list could go on . . .
SCIENCE HAS PROVEN ITSELF TO BE A RELIGION BY IT'S PRACTICES FOR MANY DECADES, if not centuries.