Thanks for your dialogue on this. And I agree about your notion of an ethic of justice — but we need to dialogue more on the meaning of justice. Rawls and his constructive critic Amartya Sen are probably great starting points for justice as both idea and practice. Let’s think more about that.

As far as belief vs faith is concerned I am trying to make the distinction that I read into my mentor Merleau-Ponty, i.e. parole parlante and parole parlée, the speaking act and the spoken expression, the process of coming to terms with the world (secular faith) and the products uttered through the process: words, formulas, teachings, models, etc. Both science and religion are “speaking acts” and both have expressions to the world that are uncertain and continually need revision. The fallacy is holding once workable expressions as infallible and certain. But maybe my “faith vs belief” expression distracts from that and that too needs to be revised.