On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Joe Niederberger <firstname.lastname@example.org> > wrote: > > > http://www.edge.org/conversation/taking-science-on-faith > > I've heard this argument before, that faith in science is like faith in > religion, and to me, it just doesn't withstand any scrutiny. This is an > example of being overly influenced by a word. The context of science and > the context of religion are very different contexts and the word "faith" is > being used as a label for two very different states of mind. And we must > agree that we are talking about "states of mind", not the word "faith". >
We should be clear that the idea that "faith" is a "label" for a "state of mind" is in itself debatable.
I'd link it more closely to "brand loyalty" which is not a "mental state" per se.
You commit, beyond what is reasonable in some way, to an ideology. You become a "saint" by "club standards".
Not a mental state, this "faith", not a "feeling" though specific feelings may be a *consequence* of one's faith (in a brand, religion, ideology, sports team etc.). Iconography is important.