as no one has responded to my "challenge"to define "faith" can I assume that none of your contributors (including geoffry rowell) ,who used the word ,didn't know what they were talking about ?

ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset

Andrew - I too am all for showing respect, and I try to couch my criticism in polite terms - but I fear Mr Rowell is showing little respect for intellectual honesty. If, out of ignorance or disingenuousness, he is trying to hoodwink his readers by twisting the meaning of the word "faith", then I feel justified in pointing this out.

alan, cologne,

It was Will Rogers who said "faith is believing what you know ain't so" in other words "believing the unbelievable"

ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset

I would be amazed if anyone in the world could write a brief and understandable,simple definition of the word "faith"

ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset

Straw men (and women?) abound on both sides of this debate. However, it's no argument at all to say that religion produces bad results or, in fact, the opposite. The same claims can be made, either way, about any ideology or belief system. What ultimately matters is truth (or Truth) but that's harder to define than many people assume.

One thing I'd really like to see in these debates is a little more respect from both sides. Surely it's as much a humanist principle as a religious one to treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself? And it's not really a good excuse to get nasty just because someone on the other side of the argument get's nasty (and again both sides are often guilty of this!).

So why show some real maturity and rise above it? See the good in the others even when you disagree with them and treat them and their opinions with a degree of respect - which is not the same as having to agree. People can disagree quite fundamentally without being rude.

Andrew Holden, Oxford, UK

"We have to live by faith, for we can live in no other way"

This statement is either so trivial as to be meaningless or so arrogant as to be breathtaking.

We build models of the world around us and make predictions of what's going to happen next. Those who make more accurate predictions live longer.

You could say that I have faith, founded on inductive reasoning, that the sun will rise tomorrow, or you could say my forebears evolved to realise that worrying about whether it would or not is simply a waste of energy. Calling that "faith" tells you nothing. The fact that the same word also describes the mindset of someone who believes that the sun might not rise tomorrow unless he kills an outsider is merely an accident of language.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Religion is the power politics of old men who run around in dresses and who make their livings telling others what to think, say, and do. Nothing more.

Thank god for the Enlightenment. And it was Voltaire who hit the nail on the head.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

I think Rowell is right in a metaphorirical rather than a scientific sense. There are parallels between a scientific openess to test belief in an hypothesis to the way in which, shall we say, at least some religiouos people are open to have their faith modified by experience or argument.

As I've already said 'God' is a hypothesis on which religious people base thir lives. Like a scientific hypothesis it is open to change, or even refutation when the 'facts' of life don't add up.

Perhaps 'God paradigm' might be a better phrase. Religious people use this paradigm to interpret the world and so long as it makes sense they continue to believe it. Non-religious people prefer the equally undemonstrable 'non-God paradigm'. Both, at least the good ones who are being intellectually honest, are prepared to change or even abandon their paradigm when it doesn't work. Like it or not there are similarities between this philosophical enterprise and a scientific one.

Andrew Holden, Oxford, UK

Ever since Galileo, the Church has resorted to word games to conceal its rising panic. One of its most common tactics,used here by Dr Roberts, is to claim that people with faith lead more fulfulled, productive lives, and societies with faith function better. Even if you concede this to be true, it is irrelevant. Atheism may be a depressing, evil belief that causes all kinds of social problems but - that doesn't mean it's mistaken.

Baxter Lindsay, Preverenges, Switzerland

I find some of the comments posted so far rather naieve and questionable.

Colin says that "If the scientist's faith turns out to be mistaken,he moves on. The faith of the religious person remains firm regardless of lack of evidence or any plausability at all." I assume that he doesn't realise that scientists are human and are often notivated by rather less noble causes than seeking the truth such as making a name for themselves, getting a funding grant or obtaining the result their employer or benefactor requires etc! Enough scientific research has been shown to be fraudulent to hit Colin's notion on the head.

Stewart says that "To the religious, one must have faith in spite of lack of evidence, or even in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Nonsense! I am a Christian because I believe that the historical evidence points to Jesus Christ being who He claimed to be! If you want to examine faith despite the evidence, look no further than Darwinism.

Andrew Brown, Derby, UK

If the scientist's faith turns out to be mistaken,he moves on.
The faith of the religious person remains firm regardless of lack of evidence or any plausability at all

colin nicholas, Vernon BC, Canada

Could we agree to use language clearly? Not like Mr Rowell who uses it to confuse the ignorant and gullible. - Faith is a religious belief in a supernatural deity. A scientist does not need faith - in this religious sense. A scientist may presume or expect something based on his past experience and logical reasoning. Similarly the ordinary person doesn't have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning or that his car's brakes will work - no, he simply presumes, expects or, if you like, believes this will happen based on past experience. This kind of presumption, expectation or belief has nothing to do with religious faith. Anyone (are you listening Mr Rowell?) who equates it with faith in a supernatural deity is simply trying to deceive us by devious means. In short, he is being dishonest - so typical of religous argument.

alan, cologne,

What's the difference between the Higgs boson and God? The Higgs boson might actually exist!

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

The problem here is that the 'God hypothesis' is difficult to test in any scientific way. It's not open to positive proof by definition, and only capable of modification in a negative sense, ie 'a God like that is non-sensical'. Religion has, therefore, the dubious privilege that it can move the goalposts as quickly as its opponents take aim and shoot.

This does not, of course, prove that God is non-existent. A proof that the Higgs boson did not exist would not lead me to hang on in Faith but until such a proof is found it is perfectly possible for scientists to believe in its existence on the basis that they fit into an existing theoretical and practical framework.

Believers seem perfectly happy to continue to believe in God on the same basis. Rowell is using a metaphor not proposing a definitive test. Many religious 'truths' are equally metaphorical - and anyway truth and proof operate at so many different levels in so many different disciplines....

Andrew Holden, Oxford, UK

Rowell's God does not 'exist' in any sense which is open to proof or disproof - well at least in this sophisticated hypothesis anyway. Such a god is not a creature inhabiting or physically involved in the universe so how can science have anything to say about it?

Belivers may have all sorts of reasons why they believe in such a god but he/she/it is impossible to prove, or disprove.

Ultimately, of course, little is open to fully definitive proof - even the firmest and most secure science can be undermined by a thoroughly sceptical philosophy. So perhaps belivers are best left to themselves - there's a quid pro pro in that, of course. Given that believers are still, even in the West, quite common (and largely benign or even beneficial) I think they should be tolerated - and give tolerance in return, of course.

Andrew Holden, Oxford, UK

I have to agree with the comments here. Scientific belief that a hypothesis is likely to be true and worth testing is not the same as religous belief. If science shows the Higgs Boson does not exist then the theories change. The belief or faith is based on evidence and changes when the evidence changes. Religous belief is the opposite, based on no evidence other than tradition and when evidence disagrees with it then the evidence is discarded rather than the belief. One has only to look at the Catholic churches reaction to the evidence that the earth went round the sun (persecute Galileo, take hundreds of years to admit he was right) to see the giant gulf between science and religion.

Tony Gosling, London, UK

How many times?

Religious faith (based on nothing but works of fiction) is not the same as a belief based on the available evidence which could well change when further evidence comes to light.

Martin, York,

And, in support of Stewart Ware, Martin Hughes and Andrew Milner, I would add that, as in this article by Rowell, the religionists will use any subterfuge at hand (e.g., by playing with language) to manipulate people who have difficultly in formulating their thoughts and arguments, so as to keep these people under control.
Just listen to BBC's Thought for the Day to get a taste of similar examples of the sad level of argument of religionists. How about
one such offering, which, paraphrased, was "One cannot be fulfilled without fear of God". Like Carl Sagan, I am fulfilled just by
doing research and evaluating my findings honestly.

An honest, non-manipulative particle physicist , Hamburg, Germany

Geoffrey Rowell hits it on the head: scientists, to the extent they have faith, require evidence. To the religious, one must have faith in spite of lack of evidence, or even in the presence of evidence to the contrary. When such contradicting evidence is presented, the religious will just reject it or ignore it. To scientists, however painful, when such evidence arises, they will abandon a much-loved theory. If the Higgs boson is not detected, then the scientists will hope to pursue other avenues of research to find the evidence. If evidence arises that proves the particle does not exist, then however upsetting, the scientists will begin working on new and revised theories. They will not throw up their hands and declare that the Higgs boson is "real" because they have "faith".

Stewart Ware, London,

This is a classic religious fudge, the word "faith" liberally applied then gathered all together to demonstrate "Faith". They are not the same. Every driver has faith that the brakes will work the next time they are applied. It does not demonstrate Faith.

To try to blend the scientific process with the Faith process is ludicrous. Sure, some scientists have Faith just as some enjoy sport or whatever but I don't suppose that FIFA's rules are put forward for incorporation into string theory. Looking into an incredibly complex physical world all individuals involved may be differently motivated but will agree that the best and most useful "truth" comes out of the scientific process.

Martin Hughes, Oxford, UK

Haven't you figured it out yet? Religion is power politics writ large.

Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Kanagawa