Unlike scientific 'faith', religious faith requires hoop jumping to maintain it in the face of evidence proving it false/unlikely. Or reducing ones faith to unfalsifiable things.
I took the latter path until I realized there was nothing left but hot air and wasted time.
That's fair; I guess the difference between what I'm defining as "faith" is that I am more than happy to be wrong.
If it turned out that a paper was using fudged data, or the results were measured poorly, or that the math being used to crunch something was incorrect, I would like to think that I would be willing to readjust my position on it and go where the latest research points. Einstein proved that Newton's "laws" of physics were really just really good approximations, and I think the vast majority of physicists were willing to adjust accordingly.
If it turned out tomorrow that Type Theory was shown to be unsound or something, I'm pretty sure I'd just concede that I was wrong to believe it, and then move onto whatever revised framework came along to replace it. I wouldn't just tune out all contrary perspectives and vehemently insist that "no type theory is always right and I have faith!!!"
So you're right; it's not equivalent to religious faith, because religious faith typically involves readjusting your perception of the world to fit with it, while "faith" in science involves changing the data to fit better with the world.
I don't think that's quite an equivalent loss of "faith".
More equivalent would be where you see enough evidence of faked/false papers being published that you start believing that most papers are faked/false. More equivalent would be you concluding that (e.g) the FDA does not possess either the authority or expertise (or both) to ever correctly make any judgements about the safety of food or drugs. More equivalent would be your deciding that CDC doesn't actually understand how disease spreads and thus should be ignored.
(I'm aware that the latter two examples here sound suspiciously related to specific recent events/trends in the USA, but that's accidental and not intentional on my part)
Assuredly there are some things you believe which aren’t scientifically provable? In particular questions about how one should order their life? Not questions about ‘is’ but questions about ‘should’.
Is a love of peace over violence, freedom over slavery, ignorance over wisdom simply a matter of taste?
Yeah but I wouldn't really consider that "faith", more "opinions".
Like, I think the best moral code tends to be "try and maximize empathy" as at least for me that seems to usually leads to the best results.
Do I have some kind of objective proof that that's best? No, not really, it's a "feels" based judgement, but I don't think that's a "faith" based thing either, any more than me saying that "Donkey Kong Country 2 is the best game ever" would be.
We can objectively measure how close something is to some moral framework, but the weighting of that moral framework will eventually get subjective. I don't think subjectivity implies "faith".
This isn't true though. You're mixing up divine and human interpretations.
Divinity just "is". Existence is defensible. Human interpretation is necessarily always incomplete because you can't condense divinity into something measurable. It just doesn't make sense in human terms.
What we can do, and what faith entails, is that we can measure existence piecemeal and trust that it still fits together.
I took the latter path until I realized there was nothing left but hot air and wasted time.