These conscious constructs, while touted as "beliefs" or perhaps "philosophies", sometimes cover closeted presuppositions that prevent the scientist, writer or speaker from recognizing the underlying driver[s] of their scientific pursuit. In other words, they are unacknowledging of the underlying reasons they have come to the conclusions they have, and may be quite insistent that their claims are based strictly on the evidence.
So webolife's prognosis is this, that the scientists, writers or speakers:
1. are prevented from recognizing the underlying drivers of their own scientific pursuit
2. are aware of, but do not acknowledge, the underlying reasons they favor the conclusions they have reached
3. may be quite insistent that their
every claim is based strictly on evidence
Agreed! Done! (:
What I would like to put forward is this. That since
some empirical scientists -- and
all scientific materialists -- strongly believe and assert to others that they have reached logical conclusions about every subject in life based solely on available physically tangible evidence, that their underlying respective philosophies
cannot be termed a faith base. The reason for this is that a person who says that they know something by faith is not claiming to have all available evidence and extensive physical proof. When we say, "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen are not made of things which are visible," we are not announcing to the world that we have a telescope that has detected the extraordinary generative power of which we speak. Or, when we understand -- by faith -- that "God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows, that he shall also reap," we do not claim to be able to show that in every instance in history this has been demonstrably true; on the contrary, any one looking at history can come to the opposite conclusion, that a man rarely or even never reaps what he sows, depending on how rich or clever he is. But faith is a decision to believe, despite the appearances and rationalizations and emotions that would militate otherwise. Faith is the title deed of things
hoped for. It will come later. Finally, when we ask
in faith to be forgiven, we also must receive it
by faith, joyfully, knowing the promise and character of the one we have asked.
So there is the problem with using the term faith base to describe the philosophies of scientists. Terms that would be better adapted to the prognosis would be ideologies, philosophies, frameworks, beliefs, and other phrases you already applied. (If it's an extra large and extremely well-organized gaggle of practitioners, it is their Scientific Paradigm!) To test this, I think the main obstacle to using "faith base" for the intellectual framework of scientists would be found in a simple test of self-reporting. "Do you consider yourself to be a deeply religious person since you hold "an organized system of belief that attracts many adherents"? Do you consider yourself to have exercised faith in constructing your scientific world view?"
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer