Here's why: those committed to a naturalistic worldview have defined "faith" as "believing things you know aren't true", or some similar strawman definition like Kazim uses (something like "believing things blindly with no evidence").

I don't believe anyone is claiming the first definition, only the second. But I'll bite...how do you define "faith"?

For me it is the belief in something you can't prove. Simple as that. As I have stated before (over on AF, I think) that means I have "faith" in the scientific method. I can't PROVE it will always work, I have faith it does. Someone once tried to play semantics with me and said that I had "confidence", not "faith". In this context it is the same thing, IMO. However, I believe this faith (or confidence) is well-founded because it produces testable, tangible, repeatable results. It's not based solely on the writings of superstitious primitives who knew little of the world around them (other than it was scary as he|| to them).

1poorguy