You seem very defensive on the subject. I was just pointing out that a lot of science requires faith of what others have taught us. But so does most other subjects as well. History, for example. By definition it has to be passed on but a lot of people question others' take on it. I assume science could be the same. And truthfully, if you ask most Americans if they have been following the Kansas situation, I doubt there would be many who have. And what does the federal "No Child Left Behind" Act say about teaching evolution?
Not defensive at all. Revolted by ignorance would be far more accurate.
I was just pointing out that a lot of science requires faith of what others have taught us.
No. That's a misuse of the term "faith." Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or logical argument. Science is the opposite. Any scientific proposition can be tested. Which is quite unlike creationism and ID, I should add.
How do you know you're posting in English?
You're using alternate definitions of the same word to try to make a point. Like the word "theory", "faith" has different meanings depending on the context.
When people say "I've got faith in modern medicine can remove this mole", they are using faith in the sense of being trustworthy.
That is far different that "faith" in a religous context which, at least in the Christian sense, is belief without proof.
You are using defintion #1 in part of your sentence and definitions 2,4,5 and 6 in the other part and then saying that the since the words are spelled the same, they must mean the same thing.
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth) n.
Idiom: in faith
[Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fids. See bheidh- in Indo-European Roots.] |