I'm sure many people here, when trying to explain the conflict between science and religion, between the philosophy of doubt and tentative knowledge and that of faith and revealed truth, have come up against this counterargument.
"It is true that I may have faith in the Bible (God, church, etc.), but everyone has to have faith in something. For instance, you have faith in the scientific method (or empiricism, tentative knowledge, etc.). So pointing out that I have faith is not a criticism, since you are guilty of the same crime"
My question is, what is the correct response to this type of argument.
First off, let's define faith. I'd define it as "belief without regard to reason" with empiricism being encompassed within the term reason. This isn't to say that faith can't be reasonable, but just that it doesn't matter if it is or not: it will be believe no matter what.
By that definition, is belief in the scientific methods ability to elucidate the truth considered a form of faith? If not, why?
If it is, is it a more "reasonable" faith. Can faith be categorized in degrees of reasonableness? For instance, is a faith in Santa Clause less reasonable than a belief in a creator? Is a faith that our perceptions give us a more or less accurate picture of the world a more reasonable type of faith than a belief in a creator?
Edited by JustinC, : empericism-->empiricism
™ Version 4.2