First off, sorry for not updating for so long. I've been busy, I guess, or just lazy. Anyway, today we're going to talk about something I noticed when debating theists, and that is a strange penchant they seem to have for misinterpreting—either deliberately or accidentily—the meanings of words, and especially for failing to realize that words can have multiple meanings. Oh, and beware of unrestrained expressions of disdain for theists in this post, as usual.

There are two words in particular that I want to tackle today, and each is as oft-abused as the other: theory and faith. Each has its own little section below. In both cases, a word that has multiple meanings in the English language is used in order to confuse or even to make a point, and in each case it's nefarious and misleading. I don't know why theists have such a strong tendency for doing this—perhaps because they have so much to gain from doing it, or maybe they just don't know better (remember [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor|Hanlon's razor]: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.)

==Theory

I'm sure you've all heard this one being used in a debate. It usually takes one of these forms:

Evolution is just a theory, not fact!Rev. St. Paul of Cardigan-on-the-basket, Ph.Q.

All you have is theories, but no real answers!Pope Jimothy Insidius XIV of Lower East Side

The basic misunderstanding here evidently stems from the fact that in colloquial speech, "theory" means an early idea brought forth, or a guess that has yet to be substantiated. The theist, at this point, believes that this is the only meaning the word could possibly have in any context, and decides that "the theory of evolution" means "we're just guessing".

Of course, this is utterly idiotic. Let's have a look at what the dictionary has to say about the word "theory":

theory n 1: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913

My. That's quite far from "guess", isn't it? This is what scientists say when they call something a "theory". I really wish I didn't have to make such a strong point about it, but it seems like so many of these fumbling theists can't seem to grasp that words may actually have multiple meanings, and that just because the de facto meaning of a word in one context is one thing, it isn't necessarily the same in another context. For the record, the scientific word roughly meaning "guess" or "conjecture" is hypothesis:

hypothesis n 1: a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations 2: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices" Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913

And indeed, this is the same meaning that appears as meaning number 2 for "theory" in Webster's. But it's very, very important to realize that the theory of evolution, for instance, is a theory of the first meaning—far from a guess—and that indeed that is the common use of the word in scientific contexts. Other famous theories include things such as gravitation, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and special relativity. Those things are certainly not guesses, and I doubt anyone not motivated by zealous anti-rationalism would call them that.

==Faith

Here's another one you keep hearing a lot, but unlike the previous case, the obvious response to it isn't as often proffered as it ought to be, possibly because it's not heard quite as often. On occasion, you see the word "belief" used instead of "faith", but the essence is practically the same in those cases. Here are some examples:

You have faith in scientists, too!Lama Pterodactylus Lapsang the Elder

You can't prove God doesn't exist; it's a matter of faith to believe that, too!Megachaplain Omicron-Z349X of the Reformed Hypergalactic Church of Ulgotha

Again, they're confusing two meanings of the same word; on one hand, the meaning used in religious contexts, and the more general meaning of the word. Ironically, here they've chosen to insist that the more specialized meaning is the appropriate one, as opposed to doing the same for the more general one, as in the case of the word "theory". Sadly, atheist debaters often fail to rebut this properly, even though it's actually rather easy, as we shall see.

In religious contexts, "faith" roughly means "believing without having proof". Some would debate this, but ultimately, they'd have to admit that issues such as the existence of a supreme deity ultimately comes down to faith in this precise faith: despite having no proof of the matter, they choose to believe anyway. In fact, most theists will offer this as a point of pride, as if the ability to believe things for no good reason was a virtue (one ostensibly lacking in the hearts of rational atheists). This is the meaning intended when someone says they "have faith that God exists" or that believing is "a matter of faith". On this we agree; though I, as any natural person would, naturally marvel at how unfounded belief can be interpreted as something positive.

Now, this is very different from the meaning of the word "faith" when used in a daily context, such as constructs like "I have faith in him" or "I have faith in her ability to do this". While seemingly similar on the surface, this latter meaning doesn't imply a lack of reason to believe anything. In fact, it usually means rather the opposite; you have faith in someone's ability because you have seen them perform well in the past, for instance. This is very different from the religious idea of faith, and should perhaps have a different word of its own ("trust", perhaps?).

Atheists and other rationalists do have this kind of faith in science, but that is not the same kind of faith that theists have for the existence of God, say, and comparing them is highly misleading. We have "faith" in science because science has been right so many times about so many things, has always explained things nicely and always backs itself up with mountains of evidence, and changes when it's wrong. Meanwhile the kind of "faith" taken up by theists is explicitly about believing something to be true despite a lack of any real reason to believe. If anything, it's the exact opposite of the kind of faith we have in science.

==Conclusion

I don't really know why so many theists indulge in this kind of punnery instead of debating rationally. Perhaps they're deliberately trying to divert attention from the real issues through misleading wordplay, which is all this is, really. But then again, Hanlon's razor still probably holds true; it's more likely due to stupidity than malice. Strange, still, that theists are attracted to strange wordplay in both cases, though. Perhaps it's a more deeply running trend than that, being present in other forms of debate as well?

At any rate, don't fall into their punnish traps. That's all it is—simple wordplay, but potentially very misleading to an unattentive audience, so do correct anyone who indulges in such shenanigans.