With due respect, I take issue with the idea that religion and science are fundamentally the same. The contradictions generated to maintain such thoughts are almost as numerous as those that have them. If someone is religious, own it! Stop trying to smuggle it into concepts that reject the premise of faith. The beliefs of religion are not the same as the principles of science.

It's remarkable (and familiar) how many of those in the Gulch with religious views tend to hold them 'piecemeal' or 'a la carte' --- sifting out the 'not so pleasant' parts and cobbling together bits of common sense into a belief system that is less punishing to man's nature.

We all find ourselves at different levels of understanding of what we think. If we don't occasionally check our premises, then we'll stop learning or forget how we got where we are.

I was addressing your original statement "Faith-based belief structure is very different from reason-based beliefs or scientific beliefs." That seems to be very much in line with the thread.

What I take issue with is people that attempt to say that religion is not scientific in its basis, and therefore the use of "faith" in a religious context automatically runs afoul of logic and reason. That is simply not the case. Are there some religions that operate on false principles or precepts? Absolutely, just as there are scientists that do the same - just look at global warming. But we do not simply deride all scientists because some choose to abandon the scientific method. Neither so should we deride those who associate with religion. Instead, we should examine the tenets of each: the hypotheses as they were (whether they be advocating a global heat wave or the second coming of the Messiah) as correct or incorrect principles and make our conclusions from there.

Religion is no different than science: it proposes a hypothesis and then asks you to try it for yourself to confirm the hypothesis. In both science AND religion, those seeking to test the hypothesis take a leap of faith (wording intentional) in order to test the validity of the hypothesis. The main difference insofar as I can see is that "science" primarily deals with external principles (gravity, light, heat, materials, etc.) while "religion" primarily deals with internal principles (love, responsibility, right, wrong, etc.).

To me, religion is more relevant to politics than science because what we are actually dealing with in both religion and politics is human behavior - internal principles as exercised by autonomous, self-aware beings. Both politics and religion study and debate over which internal principles are the most conducive to societal formation and perpetuation and their effects on said beings. For me, the notion of "separation of church and state" is one of the most profoundly ignorant statements ever to be issued because it assumes a bi-polar or potentially conflicting internal state of principles within the individual. It is the same flawed logic used by some to argue that corporations and individuals should be treated differently with respect to freedom or speech. It is as blatant an inherent contradiction as I can find to assume a consistency of the doubly-minded.

The different usages of the same word is quite common in English.
The specific description I gave yesterday is the one I was using in my original comment about faith-based beliefs. Trying to use the same word in the relaxed way (eg: I have faith in the reliability of my car) I think does not help, and should be avoided. In my humble opinion, your comment that any belief has some degree of faith is an example of the relaxed usage.

But anyway, trying to define a single word is moving us a long way from the core topic which was the correlation between politics and religion.

To paraphrase John Adams, the Constitution was created to guide men who in general wanted to rule themselves (are moral). It is wholly inadequate for anything else.

I have a real problem with using varying definitions of "faith" (or any word for that matter). It prohibits meaningful dialogue by permitting manipulation of rationale and is antithetical to rational debate. Either faith means one thing and is applicable the same way in all avenues, or we are not really debating the same thing at all and the conversation is moot.

Faith either applies to ALL hypothetical endeavors or it applies to none. I can not accept the conditionality you seem to want to impose.

"I can't devise an experiment to test a hypothesis regarding it. It's a non-falsifiable claim."

And if I were to tell you that such a test does exist and is laid out for any and all to try, what would you say?

Agreed. Actually, I have often thought of a provision in my Constitution 2.0 that would mandate that every bureaucracy created would have to be individually re-authorized every House term (ie every two years). There is nothing like a little sunshine and accountability to work wonders.

Faith-based belief structure is very different from reason-based beliefs or scientific beliefs.
Faith results in zero levels of doubt about the belief. Reasoning always results in some degree of doubt, because a new observation might contradict the belief (eg. if a science experiment breaks a theory).

But we use the word "faith" in other ways, just meaning we are "very certain" about some reasoning. Thats just the relaxed English language. The difference would be when we find a contradiction we apply more reasoning to adjust the reasoned belief. For an actual faith-based belief, we instead would apply rationalizations to fit the contradiction with the original belief.

I do not believe God exists. I can't devise an experiment to test a hypothesis regarding it. It's a non-falsifiable claim.

As the saying goes, I don't have faith in there being no god any more than I have faith in their being no FSM.

I don't think even the religious would accept that definition of faith. In fact, I would say that faith is in fact the objective belief that the performance of an action DOES lead to certain consequences as you have said.

I think the primary difference is the length and extent of those consequences: those who believe in God and life after this life see consequences that extend into the next life. For those who deny such, their view of consequences is limited to this life. Those are two radically different value sets no matter how you look at things.

I would question that statement quite heavily. You "believe" that there is no God, yet have no evidence contradicting such. That is as much "faith" as believing that God does exist.

I would question what belief system is NOT based on faith to some degree - even Objectivism!

I don't think it is a good idea to attempt to lump ALL of the provisions of the Patriot Act together and declare everything either "good" or "bad". There was something in there for just about every constituency to laud, so the bill passed. But there are WAY too many provisions and policies (with their underlying principles) to try to give it a pass/fail grade.

That is too broad a definition of faith.

Confidence based on performance when you are judging your own performance is not objective proof at all.

But we will never agree on this, obviously.

No. First, "faith" is belief without proof. That is not the same thing as _confidence_ based on _performance_. Second, Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is capitalized to place it within the wider context of small-o objectivism, which is the scientific method of rational-empiricim. The same rule separates the Republican agenda from the republican theory of government.

Depends on what you mean by faith don't you think?

The whole underpinning of objectivism is faith in yourself and your own rationality.

BTW constantly capitalizing it like a religion is a pretty good indicator of the status you grant it.

I disagree strongly with the statement that political systems exist to realize theories of ethics and morality.

Political Systems are about power and control, they only give ethics and morals lip service, and that only rarely.

don't scare me like that...

having natural rights protected for ALL people is not a collectivist construct. It is borne from the concept-you own yourself. It allows people the right to secure their property. what are we arguing about? I think you are purposely trying to goad me...