Is science faith-based?

[John Jones]

^This

 

[inflector]

In the case where the layman defers to the expert, why can't we just call that deference instead of faith?

In the case where we don't bother to add up the receipt at the grocery check-out for ourselves, should we conclude that math is faith-based?

I keep saying that science is antithetical to faith, and all I see in contradiction to this fact is sloppy terminology.

In order to make any progress discussing and debating the relationship between faith and science one must first define the terms. There are far too many conflicting usages in this thread which one can see quite easily through the implied context of the conflicts.

 

[debunker of debunker]

All Science is theoretical... But ACCEPTED until proven false as it is the best working theory based upon observation.

 

[Dragoonster]

Uh, science is basically what you see out of your eyes and hear out of your ears and thus succesfully transition from your bed to your door. Even if you cant even calculate 1+1, you are being science, by living. Physicsally, anthropologically, mathematicsally, statistically.

I guess if there's any "faith" involved; it's to not jump off your local balcony or ten-story building.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For my mind, people concede too much in this kind of discussion.
They'll say that the only axioms that science relies on are that the universe is the product of simple mathematical laws, that complex phenomena can be described in terms of these simple laws, uniformitarianism etc.

But none of these things are strictly necessary for science to be useful. Arguably they are "nice to have" -- we can form useful models and conclusions more easily in our universe than otherwise would be the case, because so far our universe has conformed to all these statements. But you can take any one of them away and still do science.

So what does science actually rely on? I think the same thing as all other reasoning; deductive and inductive logic.

Take science.
Take away "god".
Nothing changes.

 

[Peter May]

Yes, science is faith based, faith in the numbers.


It is very important to understand the nature of what we see, and not what we want to see.

Peter May.

 

[Vinegar Tom]

Science is in no way faith-based because it does not deal in absolutes. Both relativity and quantum physics are enormously accurate descriptions of large parts of reality, but they cannot be totally correct because they each prove that the other has to be wrong in certain respects when this plainly isn't true. But that doesn't make Einstein "wrong" any more than he proved Newton "wrong" - they both came up with superbly accurate approximations based on all the data they could possibly know.

Claiming that you can prove Einstein was wrong tends to mean you're a loony, but it isn't heresy, and nobody's going to burn you for it. A recent experiment suggested that neutrinos were capable of moving slightly faster than light. It was assumed from the start that, because neutrinos are incredibly hard to work with, this was probably an experimental error, but there was never any suggestion that it was anything other than a totally honest mistake made by thoroughly competent scientists trying to do something ridiculously difficult. Furthermore, on the off-chance that this result was right, attempts were made to replicate it, because if it was true, the implications were staggering! Of course it turned out to be an excusable error in a massively complex experiment. But the important thing is that they checked it out.

The religious equivalent of this would be a bishop having a revelation that Satan wasn't that bad after all, and the Vatican launching a totally open-minded inquiry into whether they needed to rewrite pretty much everything. I think you all see what I mean.

 

[Whatduh]

I reject your reality and substitute my own

I don't have many tools in my tool box but each one works and that's all that matters.

Faith is the first force of five. Four will get ya by. But I take it by faith their is five - while those that worship the mighty four forces the fifth escapes them only in symantics for the do have a word for the thing they seek and that is the "unknown" and plug away at it in faith the do. Yes we believe it's just a matter of work and time, they have faith in their project.

Science is so much method like knowning the principals of resonance or designing all the instruments. But without the hearts behind the instruments or the hearts of the listener there is no purpose.

All existance has principals, has science not ever concidered the argument, what would existance be with the yin without yang, the mind without the sould, the body with the dust? Knowledge without faith is like the law without the spirit of the law. Even our planet is at the mercy of the sun where would anyone be without mercy.

Forever learning and never coming to a knowledge. Everything omnipotent sings if your open to it.

 

[eerok]

I don't have many tools in my tool box but each one works and that's all that matters.

Faith is the first force of five. Four will get ya by. But I take it by faith their is five - while those that worship the mighty four forces the fifth escapes them only in symantics for the do have a word for the thing they seek and that is the "unknown" and plug away at it in faith the do. Yes we believe it's just a matter of work and time, they have faith in their project.

Science is so much method like knowning the principals of resonance or designing all the instruments. But without the hearts behind the instruments or the hearts of the listener there is no purpose.

All existance has principals, has science not ever concidered the argument, what would existance be with the yin without yang, the mind without the sould, the body with the dust? Knowledge without faith is like the law without the spirit of the law. Even our planet is at the mercy of the sun where would anyone be without mercy.

Forever learning and never coming to a knowledge. Everything omnipotent sings if your open to it.

Um, not really.

Science is not faith-based. It's evidence-based. It's the only reliable way to separate codswallop from useful attempts to understand objective reality.

 

[Whatduh]

Um, not really.

Science is not faith-based. It's evidence-based. It's the only reliable way to separate codswallop from useful attempts to understand objective reality.

Anti-True Anti-false. What is science without a conscience to explore it and what is a exploration without deleaving into the unknown and would you take fear as a companion or faith. The expression of faith in my allegory is the state of nuture and nature within the person as opposed to the craft of science. What is a love, without an embrace.

 

[eerok]

Anti-True Anti-false. What is science without a conscience to explore it and what is a exploration without deleaving into the unknown and would you take fear as a companion or faith. The expression of faith in my allegory is the state of nuture and nature within the person as opposed to the craft of science. What is a love, without an embrace.

Science was invented to provide methods for testing objective reality. Its enormous success follows from the simple fact that it works. Those other things you seem to want from it are irrelevant. Ordinarily you'd turn to philosophy or religion to immanentize the eschaton or whatever it is you're trying to accomplish with your word salad.

No particular belief is required to use the tools of science--one need only provisionally assume a consistent, objective reality that can be examined--so clearly science is not faith-based.

 

[barefootgoddess]

Is science faith based?

Before reading your article and picking up any impression or ideas of your thought I want to answer the question.

Originally when the concept of science first evolved-yes because the organized religion had it's finger in everything. Subjects that were initially left to women became the sole subject of males who in their religious dogma and prejudiced decided that such things were to complex for the female mind to understand better they concern themselves with breeding and housewife skills. As example the people went to midwifes for cures and sickness before it became a study/science of doctors profession.

For the longest time in our history it was religious faith that had a big influence on science. So much so that new concepts that didn't fit the religious perception were discounted or considered heretical.

Now-a-days there are some who consider science a form or religion in and of itself. Scientists attempt to not taint their findings with their personal religious belief which is part of why theory, testing, documentation validation or refuting an idea is in my opinion a way to separate the two.

But overall yes I think it is faith based, maybe not so much in religion as most assume such a question implies but the faith of the scientists in the subject either in proving it true or false.

 

[barefootgoddess]

In reading the article

Science is based on evidence not faith. I disagree with as much as can agree with it if that makes sense.

For example take the foundation itself it sets out looking for evidence to validate the feasibility of psychic or paranatural abilities using common sense and science. Something that has been discredited through generations but prevalent in society is that belief be it the singular deity/god and the prophets who spoke with angels ect or magic in general and it's numerous variations of practice.

Science says these things are impossible and has yet to validate or quantify it. You could say the foundation has faith that they can discredit claims and not pay the million dollars more than they would have to pay it out. But the evidence of generations, centuries implies that there is something or like the disproved 'scientific' belief that the world was not only flat but that the sun/planets revolved around the earth would have been discredited long ago in my opinion. Those two concepts were changed as our understanding evolved about the planet and placement in it with science.

Yet the concept of paranatural abilities hasn't changed it remains a constant even without concrete proof; even with organizations such as this which make a point of discrediting frauds who claim to have these abilities.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I am guessing the people are referring to this quote?

"Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Einstein

But I tend to like this one slightly better.

"Science and religion are two essential components in the search for truth. Denying either is a barren approach." Martin Nowak

You must admit though. Einstein really was a brilliant thoughtful mind, even when wrong he was wrong in a thoughtful way. His music of the spheres comments are absolutely so brilliant they are art!

"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres."

 

[eerok]

The personal opinions of scientists may be interesting, but they're not important. Science is based on evidence, not opinions, and religion is not relevant to the practice of science.

For that matter, science does not strive to deliver truth or any other problematic absolute. It's just a methodology for investigating the world around us, and at any given moment, its conclusions are provisional.

 

[StevenLeonCooper]

Well, I would like to state that Faith is merely complete trust in something without question. It's extremely annoying that theistic people have essentially "hijacked" the word and pretend it only applies to theistic views. I have complete trust that my mom doesn't secretly hate me, namely because I have empirical evidence over the past 26 years to the contrary. It may be remiss of me as a scientist to make assumptions but, alas, I'm confident enough to assume it to be true.

Complete trust is tied to the human thought process; it is not, however, exclusive to religiosity. Many people exercise faith by way of taking things for granted. You have faith that the jar of peanut butter you bought today will taste more-or-less the exact same as the jar you consumed 9 months ago because the brand and ingredients are the same. Perhaps this is a less strict definition; most people wouldn't specifically say they have "Complete, unquestioning trust" in their brand of peanut butter but they certainly would be surprised if they opened up a jar and it suddenly tasted like mayonnaise or smelled like bacon.

But I digress, despite the fact that "Faith" is not exclusive to ideology or religion, it still isn't a part of science. A good scientist has absolute faith in nothing. There are parameters which we assume to be true in order to make predictions but those parameters are not universally infallible. A scientific or mathematical law is only true for as long as it can't be proven false. So even when using constants, laws, theories and models in order to interpret data, we don't have "complete trust" in those concepts and assume they are true and will always be true no matter what. Our understanding of the universe has changed immensely in the past few thousand years and it continues to progress because we don't allow faith to prevent us from challenging what we think we know about the universe.

 

[debunker of debunker]

Science is not faith based. The argument that certain precepts are accepted on faith is a silly argument proffered by religious folk hoping to bamboozle.

When doing advanced math do we revisit one plus one each and every time. In law when providing evidence there is a concept of judicial notice. If one was accused of parking on a street on a specific day there is no need to prove the roads existence nor the city nor the day of the week. Those are accepted standards.

More importantly the false premise here has been over looked. Science seeks to explain real and tangible results/effects. Or to work toward a tangible result that can be measured.

Religious faith seeks to prove the unprovable. No tangible or observable results. It would be funny if it were not for the numbers of deluded individuals who buy these silly arguments.

Religion has some minded principals that are commendable but unfortunately it's followers focus on the afterlife and otherworldly gods rather than the principals. The ridiculousness of the religious thought when it comes to super beings in heaven etc is self evident as the "religious" fell the need to have others believe as they do.

And they even make nutty arguments that faith and science are the same thing.

 

[Galois]

It is overwhelmingly probable that nature behaves uniformly: isn't that probability enough to underwrite confidence in the claim?

 

[JRT]

Faith is not the opposite of doubt. Faith is the opposite of certainty.

 

[stevea]

It is overwhelmingly probable that nature behaves uniformly:

No - it is overwhelmingly clear that SOME OBSERVATIONS of nature are regular (uniform) while others are quite random and unpredictable.

isn't that probability enough to underwrite confidence in the claim?

Limited, tentative confidence only. Just b/c something happens a million times in the past does not create any logical requirement that it happen again. You fail to see that this extrapolation from past events to future event is dependent on the unprovable claim that the future will continue to be just like the past; than is an act of faith. Black swan.

Science is not faith based. The argument that certain precepts are accepted on faith is a silly argument proffered by religious folk hoping to bamboozle.

Your argument ignores all of modern empiricism. What we can actually know from observation and the potential foibles of human senses is limited. Further, modern science is foundationally based on an unsupported (tho' effective) heuristic "the scientific method" which includes the 'mostly undefinable' concepts such as Occam's razor (minimal pre-suppositions).

It's wonderful that the scientific method produces such a successful model of observations, BUT there is no evidence in any form, that it is optimal or that it doesn't also lead to some wrong or un-correctable errors.

Science is obviously based on faith in this unprovable heuristic - the "scientific method".

When doing advanced math do we revisit one plus one each and every time. In law when providing evidence there is a concept of judicial notice. If one was accused of parking on a street on a specific day there is no need to prove the roads existence nor the city nor the day of the week. Those are accepted standards.

Completely unrelated. In math one has stated precondition, and all conclusions are based on these by deductive or inductive proof. *IF* you accept Peano's postulates THEN 1+1=2. That is entirely different and unrelated to any empirical observation which has no concept of proof. If lawyers accept the existence of roads or cities or dates w/o evidence, then they are acting on faith; and all trails of physical evidence are merely a trail of relationships (unlike math where the claims end crisply at the preconditions, and are connected by rigid rules of logic).

More importantly the false premise here has been over looked. Science seeks to explain real and tangible results/effects. Or to work toward a tangible result that can be measured.

Sort of. Science creates a model that attempts to encompass all observation with a simple but sufficient description. New elements are accepted into this model system when they are able to make "predictions". That is the new addition allows *some* successful extrapolation.

Scince can only address the observable - so your reliance on the word "tangible" wrt science is redundant.

Science never explains anything except relationships between observations - "the model of reality" we construct by the scientific method is not reality itself. We know the model is incomplete, unprovable, only includes observable features, and is excruciatingly likely to be modified in the future (iow is likely incorrect).

Religious faith seeks to prove the unprovable. No tangible or observable results. It would be funny if it were not for the numbers of deluded individuals who buy these silly arguments.

As an atheist I have no opinion on the motives you suggest represent religion, except that attribution of motives to others is a logical fallacy. My OPINION is that much religion is about "faith" - belief in an idea or precept despite lack of evidence. Not unlike the way science is based on the unprovable heuristic called the "scientific method".

Yes, these are categorically different core beliefs, but the form is the same. Followers of science or religion accept some unproven tenets, and attempt to use these beliefs and their derivative conclusions to make predictions.