> I get the sense you are overloading the term to make a false equivalence to bolster religious faith
I think this is a poor argument. It's swinging the "no true scotsman" because it's convenient to what you want to define. Faith in science and faith in another religion is not a false equivalence. Religion is the poorly defined term. Science fits well within it.
I think this is a poor argument. It's swinging the "no true scotsman" because it's convenient to what you want to define. Faith in science and faith in another religion is not a false equivalence. Religion is the poorly defined term. Science fits well within it.
Ironically, this is a common holy war on HN.