[photon]

Originally Posted by Finny61

Faith to me isn't belief without evidence, something you can't prove certainly.. but in theory. If you were driving to Edmonton for some reason, I would have faith that you could get there safely if I felt you were a capable driver, something could feasibly happen it's not certain but based on what little I know I take faith that you would arrive safely. There is evidence, just very little.

I see what you mean, and that's a valid definition of faith, I just find it problematic to use it that way in a religious context, since in the driving example faith is synonymous with trust or confidence, but in a religious context I think faith means something different than just trust.

"Take something on faith." is a good example of what I mean.

In the example of having faith in science vs faith in God however they are not synonymous, since the "faith" I place in science is confidence based on a long detailed demonstrable history, while faith in God is different.

(I'm not denying that the strength of that faith or trust or confidence is weaker, it's just derived from very different sources)

Originally Posted by Finny61

With say God, there is a great deal of historical ties to us as people that seems to show there very well could be something outside of our logical realms.

That's the sentiment, I agree. Personally though I found that once I started to really examine that critically and objectively, that much of it wasn't based on anything substantive.

Originally Posted by Finny61

In religion faith is certainly without proof but through human history (cultural) you can likely put that fraction of what we know happened and say yes there is some possibility but very difficult to just outright assume as 100% truth. Obviously some religious tellings will seem extremely false due to advances in science and I agree with a lot of those but the human aspect of religion is something science can't touch, whether someone really existed or whether there is something over and above us all.

I agree, without omniscience it's impossible to say 100% anything. But anything that impacts the natural world is something science can touch (in principle anyway) and speak to.

For example the claim that Jesus physically existed and is a descendant of David is something that science could at least potentially address. Without access to DNA or something like that though there's no way to tell.. but not because science can't touch it, just because there's no evidence.

Same thing with God.. while science can't detect God, science can't actually detect anything directly! Science can only detect the effects something makes on something else. So science can't detect God directly, but there are specific claims made about specific gods that are testable. Studies about healing, or studies about the quality of life of believers, that sort of thing. That all depends on the definition of god(s) being used.