>Faith:
>Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
>
>Assumption:
>A statement accepted or supposed true without proof or demonstration.
>
>To me, anyway, they appear identical.
I've given this some more thought and I see your point. They do appear
to be identical, but appearances can be deceiving. The difference lies
in the why. Why is there no recourse to evidence? Is it because the
evidence has already been examined? (assumption) Is it because the
evidence doesn't support the belief? (faith) Is it because the belief
comes from someone we have good reason to trust? (assumption) Is it
because the belief comes from someone we don't have good reason to
trust? (faith) Because we are too lazy to check the evidence? (faith)
Is the belief non-falsifiable, but somehow useful if true? (faith?
assumption? I don't know.) Is the negation of the belief unthinkable
for some other reason? (faith) Because it is logically implied by
other beliefs? (assumption) Because it is in a special category that
doesn't need evidence? (faith) Because we never questioned it? (faith)
Because the truth of the belief is irrelevant? (faith)
I hope enumerating a few examples helps communicate the differences I see.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/