I don't think you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I think you trustthat it will rise because you have very good reasons, both empirical and logical, for having that trust. The difference is enormous.
REP: Faith was reached only after going through the logical and empirical acceptance of the known(or standard) experience as understood under the logical framework of a religion.Few mastered it and others followed the masters on their path to relgious salvation.In science few become Einstein rest all believe what he says.
The framework of religion is different from that of science and therefore it appears as faith to the science.
=====================================
Therefore, I refuse to associate science with the word faith, because I think "faith" is misleading in that context.
REP: Fine. But I am afraid ,going by the definition,using faith for anything will be unacceptable.
======================================
It is much more accurate and useful to actually describe why scientists hold beliefs: empirical evidence and logical conclusions lead us to tentative beliefs. I urge everyone to be very clear when discussing this topic.
REP: Everyone is clear.I hope.
======================================
If you tell a non-scientist that science operates on faith, they will most likely think you are saying that scientists hold beliefs in absence of evidence or logic.
REP: They argue using their own accepted principles.
I consider my self a sceintist(without degree) and a religous man(without bible).
