The question still remains: is the trust I place in logic and science a variety of faith? (probably in the sense of definition 1)
i think they are alike. Let`s look at some examples.
1. Person. We usually confident in people we know well, we trust them
basing it on quite simple reasoning: "if he/she was "good" before ths person
unlikely to fail us now(in a future)". With people we don`t know, or know slightly it can be transformed into: "he/she is a decent citizen, therefore it is unlikely for him/her to fail us"
But, frankly speaking, it is more rare to have trust in complete strangers when it come to some seriuos issues (seriousness everyone defines for oneself)
2. idea. "This idea proved to be right before (in various cases), therefore
we extrapolate that it will work well in any other occurences never encountered before" (the degree of positive outcome often defined in terms of probabilities, those probabilities tend to bear tint of individuality - simply some trust more, some less)
Very similar with science. We trust the theory (though, usually limits of its
application well defined) to work well and not to fail us in a future. But since every theory has its boundaries, when we encounter the evidence which
doesn`t fit current theory (-ies), we trust that our logic (or we trust scientists if you like it this way) will find the explanation(s) and will build another theory(-ies) encompassing or complementing the previous one.
It reminds me forecasting the values of a trend, when the equation is built
on previously collected data.
Therefore i can`t get rid of a feeling that there is some hew of irrationality
in this trust, but it doesn`t derogate science at all.
As i said above it can be considered as some instrument of stabilizing.
`Cause if we shall stop trusting our mind we shall admit then that all theories we`ve created in science have nothing to do with nature, but just a product of our mind.
We trust facts, cause and effect relations and logical constructions
(disregarding the logic`s types) our intellect makes.
=======================================
Unfortunatly, i can`t say much about religious faith (especially, the frentic forms of it) from my own experience , because i can put up with idea of God or Demiurge (though, not the one(s) described in various scriptures or myths) and i can live well without existance of such idea or entity (i don`t have to tell you thet the idea can well exist without the object representing it)
But let me elaborate a little bit on this subject. As i mentioned, i leave aside fanatics, especialy those ones who even deny the achievements of modern
science. Let`s take a look at ....mmmm... let`s call them "reasonable believers" (doesn`t matter deists, agnostics or whatever else, but since these forum is more overanxious about people of the Book, i guess i`ll emphasize on them mostly)
First. Maybe, what is called
supernatural explanation (or mysterious) was born before the
scientific explanation. But with ages natural science developed and with every step could substitute some supernatural explanations with theories and logical constructions. But the question of
primary cause is still unanswered what leaves room for a god as creator. Disregarding the stage (varied in different belief systems)
at which creator stoped influencing this world, believers feel greatfull for the possibility to live here an witness its beauty. They do not reject science,
many of then even accept that in future it will explain more, but they still
have reasons to believe in god.
Second. There is always a ... sort of arguement between "physics" and "lyrics" (as we say here in RF). Because in spite of existance of physiology, psychology, psychiatry and such inner world of a human being often exceeds all the logics (it is well seen on a personal level and less on a bigger scale of a society).
Emotional, sentient (i am not about sensuous), aesthetic often irrational.
And it also leaves a room for supernatural or divine.
Every sapient creature (and not only sapient) strives for better, for comfort
(physical and emotional), for balance. If someone finds out that idea of god
(any of its development in religion, laws, rituals and such) brings him peace,
warmth and comfort, and this discovery is proved repeatedly, it becomes a fact.
We tend to trust facts. It doesn`t matter that this is very individual fact,
since we speak about inner world. And even more, communicating with others
person might find out that such facts also work for them, and they even might verbalize their experience if not in same then in similar words.
Take love, for example, with due efforts and explanations it can be reduced
to the chains of chemical reactions and needs of species in survival. It can be
very logical. But at the same time such explanation shall bring to ground
and simplify our attitude toward this feeleing called "love". What is so
exciting and "miraculous" about set of chemichal reactions and ultimate need to reproduce? Frankly speaking, i wouldn`t feel comfortable in a world where the attitude will change. Will you?
The "relation with god" for believers is no different from this "love" thing.
Should they deny all the greate feelings they experience and reduce all to
chemical bouds and electric signals?
Who cares about what inspires my inner world, especially if it leads to honorable ddeds? And why should they nowdays, when religion doesn`t govern anymore? Anyone obsessed with preachers? I am not, i always have polite words to tell them mind their own lives but not mine (if polite speech don`t work, i wouldn`t disdain abusive language then
). If they will not stop bothering me, i can go to police station and claim that this preachers invade my privacy. I even can just pass by or close my door right in front of their noses, pretending that i don`t notice them. Just that simple.
---- offtop ----
yeah, i know one counterargument to follow. It probably will be that we should care about what inspires the inner world of muslims, because Islam is aggresive and dangerous. Ought to tell, that i am not even going to bother and answer such comments, due to their pure emotionality and dragged in logic (i guess, logic screamed and objected such abuse, but who listened?
).
-----------------
Third. Once i`ve heard that lot of religion is sphere of spirituality. Maybe. If religious practice works for someone better than moral philosophy, let it be so. The richness of this world is in its varieties not in uniformity
