That is true as far as you are concerned, and due to the fact that there is a concensus usage of the word in this context.
The fact of the matter is that due to said concensus, the word is vague, and has historical and religious meaning and weight to it alongside modern scientific dialogue.
That means that believing in science can also be interpreted by a religious person as you, accepting on faith, the words of Forrest Valkai, because that’s how he understands faith. He accepts the words of Saint Paul, or Muhammed, or Shakiamuni.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying the linguistic tradition here is wrong. I challenge the concensus here.
That word shouldn’t be used in context of the scientific theory. It confuses the hell out of religious people.
That is true as far as you are concerned, and due to the fact that there is a concensus usage of the word in this context.
The fact of the matter is that due to said concensus, the word is vague, and has historical and religious meaning and weight to it alongside modern scientific dialogue.
That means that believing in science can also be interpreted by a religious person as you, accepting on faith, the words of Forrest Valkai, because that’s how he understands faith. He accepts the words of Saint Paul, or Muhammed, or Shakiamuni.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying the linguistic tradition here is wrong. I challenge the concensus here. That word shouldn’t be used in context of the scientific theory. It confuses the hell out of religious people.