Response To https://twitter.com/godsven3loquist/status/738426433568149504

To me, closer examination of the terms "faith", "trust", or "confidence", the preceding post's presented definitions thereof, and other Google result definitions seem to suggest that the terms seem potentially used interchangeably, but that examination of the definitions seems to yield two material distinctions: (a) perception of reliability (perhaps typically "confidence"), and (b) assumption of reliability solely based upon previous perception of reliability ("faith", "trust", or "confidence"). Thus far, to me, all usage of the terms "faith", "trust", and "confidence" seems to resolve to one or the other of those distinctions. To me, the object of those distinctions (whether "religion" or the sun rising) seems potentially irrelevant. This seems an important fundamental concept to the issue's analysis; perhaps we might attempt to determine if we can agree with regard to it.

Re: "Faith in a religious context has nothing to do with reasoned interpretation of scientific data", perhaps terminology might warrant clarification here, as well. To me, the term "religion" seems definable as the perceived relationship between humans and a higher-than-human authority, apparently including, but not necessarily limited to deity, and patterns that seem to govern the human experience. The claim of such existing higher-than-human authority might not currently be verifiable using the scientific process, but if science's apparent observations are proposed to reasonably reflect the proposed attributes of said higher-than-human authority, what reasoning might render such proposal categorically invalid?

Re: "... faith begins where evidence ends. It doesn't have to though; we must resist the urge to fill in the blanks", while that goal might sound scientifically noble, it also seems even more so unachievable, apparently based upon the apparent general consensuses that a large part of the human experience is reasoned behavior, that reasoned behavior requires a data-collection phase that attempts to identify issue-relevant data via human perception, and that human perception is limited and fallible.

Apparently based upon the above, at any point of the data-collection phase, due to limited and fallible human perception, the relevant state of issue-relevant data might exist in mutually-exclusive scopes of human perception. Apparently, as a result, in order for human experience to progress beyond data collection, assumption of the state of such data seems required. Apparently, in other words, humans seem reasonably suggested to have no alternative but to "fill in the blanks", or, in other words, exercise faith in an assumed state of issue-relevant data outside a current scope of human perception. To resist doing so seems to confine said human experience to data-collection.

Re: "...Saying faith is intrinsic...", per your examples and the above, perhaps "faith seems a necessary component of practical human experience" might help clarify my apparent point, since a relevant distinction between faith, rape and consensual reproduction seems to be that one can conduct an effective human experience without raping and without consensual reproduction, whereas, avoiding implementation of faith seems to preclude reasoned achievement of any kind beyond data collection, due to apparently limited and fallible human perception. I welcome your thoughts thereregarding.

Re: "The Bible has a provision of evidence?", to clarify, the suggestion was made with regard to apparently Biblical depiction of God/human relationship, in which God seems to me to be described as providing individuals with basis/evidence upon which to develop faith in God prior to the need to exercise it, and was offered in response to the comment that faith reinforces belief without evidence. The intended point seems to have been that, although faith seems comprise of belief without evidence, and seems mandatory to effective human experience, faith also seems optimally based upon sufficient evidence.

Re: "... how do you account for ..." apparently-suggested conflicts between the Bible and science's findings, (a) I seem of have found basis upon which to suggest the apparent scientific viability of many Biblical suggestions apparently proposed to be scientifically impossible. As a result, I seem somewhat satisfied with concluding that other such proposed conflicts might well be explained or reasonably considered metaphorical, and that even more urgent issues seem to warrant more immediate addressing, namely optimal strategy for achieving optimal human experience. Perhaps to demonstrate the relevance of the apparently aforementioned pattern to this decision, apparently perceived reliability of ("confidence in") a perceived reasonable sample of apparently challenged Biblical suggestion seems to me to warrant assumed reliability of ("faith in") other such Biblical suggestion.

(b) To me, the Bible's anecdotes seem reasonably suggested to propose insight in an apparently currently unverifiable combination of forms, including historical fact, fiction representing factual phenomena, and/or symbolic fiction presenting non-factual phenomena. To me, to put that premise into perspective, the Noah's flood account's primary message doesn't seem to be that of a greatly atypical deluge, but that, (a) as a result of the type of decision made in Genesis 3, the human experience had deteriorated to the point at which "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually", (b) that God seems described as having addressed it by eliminating that apparent demographic and "starting over", (c) that such human disposition seems to have continued to reemerge and recede since then, and that, (d) as a result, the appropriate principle to be learned from those presented developments is the value of accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

To me, if the principle is valid, regardless of whether the anecdote is historic, representative fiction based upon historic events, or symbolic fiction, the optimal response seems to be to learn and implement the principle. To me, as the SIDP presentation seems to demonstrate, science's findings seem to substantiate the principle as valid.