[LogicaLunatic]

I don't agree with very many of you on this one. That is likely because my definition of faith is very specific.

5010 thinks faith includes everything from observation to blind belief. He has a very broad definition of faith.

My definition is simply this: Belief without verifiable evidence or belief in spite of verifiable evidence.

Does faith allow a manager to delegate work to employees? No. A project manager won't delegate work to an employee that can't demonstrate that he/she can actually do the work. This is delegation based upon conclusions derived from observation, not based upon hopes, desires, etc. That is not faith. It is more akin to science.

IF MANAGERS USED FAITH INSTEAD OF OBSERVATION: There would be no need for interviews, resumes, training, employee reviews, etc. Bad Business.

Now on to science. Science is the antithesis if faith. It is based upon evidence that has been independantly verified by several different people. In addition, science has a track record. A very good track record that no other method of knowing/understanding can boast. People's trust of science is based upon conclusions derived from observation. Not belief.

IF SCIENCE WAS BASED UPON FAITH: No need for experimentation. Hypotheses would become theories automatically. People could just come to the conclusions they want and then search for evidence to support it and disregard evidence to the contrary or simply make up evidence and it would be considered good science. Take Kent Hovind for example. His 'science' is completely based on faith. No wonder the entire scientific community thinks he is a quack.

Do people wait for busses at bus stops because of faith? No.
Do people throw balls up in the air and then expect them to come down again because of faith? No.

LL