P.S. The primary "difference" between faith and religion is evidence. You might argue that science is based on evidence and is thus superior but how can you make such an argument when over and over again the evidence is shown to be bogus?
As example comes to mind regarding the faith people had that new brain cells aren't created. The majority of scientists supported this viewpoint based on the evidence obtained using the scientific method in a lab. It turns out though that by putting monkeys in a lab they removed the dynamic environment necessary to produce new brain cells. It was only later with the study of birds in their natural environment that we saw that new brain cells were being created.
The history of science if full of these situations where the researchers are so bias they distort their own results to support their viewpoints. If it's not that then the observation itself changes the results. Maybe our tools were just lying to us the whole time. On and on.
Meanwhile the results that science is producing from these ultimately flawed experiments are being spread from the scientific community as "the truth" and "the way it is". Is it not a leap of faith to believe that's the truth? Don't you have to have faith that the experiment was done right? The researchers stayed true to non-bias? That somewhere on a quantum level shit just got wild because you peeked and have no idea what you're REALLY even doing in the first place?
Of course you do. In the exact same way the religion requires faith in spiritual leaders to tell them what is holy or good. Until new evidence arises in either case all we have is faith in an ideal that is produced by imperfect beings.
The problem arises when people are unable to let go when evidence points out the flaws in their faith. A further problem arises when people are unwilling to admit that new evidence might itself be flawed and not actually disprove anything.
|