Regarding the recent letter, "It's not real faith; it's probable factuality":
First, my understanding of faith is that it is "a process in which a spiritual solution will occur at an unspecified period in time."
The letter writer mentions Webster's six definitions of faith; five are religious. The sixth, which is non-religious, seems out of place. Webster's etymologist should place the sixth under cult, e.g. faith-based science: "unquestioning belief, uncritical grounds for belief," etc.
On faith, scientists believe life evolved by chance, the universe has no meaning and something comes from nothing.
Never miss a local story.
Mathematics, a language only a mathematician understands, puts him at a disadvantage in understanding the universe. Sir Isaac Newton (an enlightened mathematician) wrote (I am paraphrasing) that it would take a philosopher to resolve the problem. I assume he chose the mind of a philosopher because it can accommodate a broad spectrum of knowledge.
The letter writer adds another definition to the cult of faith-based science: "Scientists have more faith in one explanation than another." It's a matter of probable factuality.
I would like to add a fascinating bit of history: During the time of Galileo, when faith-based science was at its zenith, they declared to the faithful that the sun revolved around the Earth.
Later, a man by the name of Copernicus, gathering the observations of enlightened scientists, including his own, and calculating the results, reasoned that the Earth revolved around the sun.
Hilton Head Island