I agree, it does. And that is exactly the same reason why I stick by words like “gods”, “spirit”, and “religion.”

It’s a partly arbitrary decision on my part to not include “faith” as well. I do have reasons for that decision (namely, I think “faith in religion” and “faith in science” gives too much of an impression of a level playing field, like the evidence for the one is as good as for the other, and it’s just a matter of which you choose to have “faith” in), but there are good reasons to try to reclaim “faith” as well.

A person’s got to choose their battles, and I’ve decided I can do without “faith”, but I see your point.

People like Kierkegaard were reacting to the Enlightenment and the rise of science which weakened the old justifications for faith in God. I certainly have not studied Kierkegaard, but what I think he and others of his ilk are saying is that cultivating faith, a hopeful trusting relationship with God, is important even if it cannot be justified by reason or evidence. It is of value in and of itself.

Faith is a “hot button” word, and because of this I think you are right, we are better off using trust. But in some ways faith has a deeper tone.

I totally acknowledge the secular uses of “faith” and can understand a desire to reclaim it. Personally, though, I’d rather go with trust.

P.S. It’s certainly not just secularists who have defined faith the way I just did. Look up Fideism, Kierkegaard, and possibly even Tertullian’s famous phrase “I believe because it is absurd” depending on how you understand the context of what he said.

When someone says, “I have faith in my spouse/friend”, they mean they have trust in that person. This trust/faith may be justified based on past experience or not. When a Christian says they have faith in Jesus or the Bible, they do not mean they believe in Jesus or the Bible despite the fact that there is no evidence. If you ask a Christian why they have faith they will almost always provide reasons (evidence) such as personal experience and in addition many will site what I would characterize as Christian propaganda (a string of misconstrued “facts” about the Bible). That we naturalistic types don’t accept their evidence as valid does not mean they don’t believe they have evidence. I certainly don’t think when pre-Enlightenment folks talked about faith in God they meant they believed without evidence. In the Middle Ages no doubt many felt the evidence of the providence of God was all around them, undeniably true. When a Christian says they have faith in Jesus or the Bible, they mean they trust in Jesus, that they trust in the guidance of the Bible.

Yes faith and trust are largely synonymies and no doubt they have different origins. The English language is full of words like that. I think the word faith needs to be reclaimed.