Hacker News Reader

So belief without evidence. Do you see how it is non-sensical to then say "misplaced faith in evidence"?

That's not the definition of faith, really. Faith can mean belief and it can mean trust (often the former is an expression of the latter). What you mean is blind faith, which is pejorative. When it comes to religion (Chistianity specifically), the recorded accounts of Jesus' miracles and his resurrection function as historical evidence of his divinity.

What you describe is more like fideism.

Faith doesn't mean 'belief without evidence'. That's a Richard Dawkins talking point, not anything you'll find in a dictionary. John could have excellent evidence for his own abilities, and yet his faith in those abilities could turn out to be misplaced.

"Not anything you will find in a dictionary" is a terrible bar to base something off of: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith Definition 2b. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith definition 2.

Using faith and belief interchangeably seems disingenuous and ignores the religious context that is part of faith. Faith implies a lack of compromise, a concreteness, and unwillingness to change. Using that term to describe evidence based science, and the belief that evidence ought to be presented before a belief is held is an attempt to reduce science to dogma.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com