Is science faith-based?

[idav]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...e-faith-based/

This has been the topic of many conversations and I've found insight in the thoughts of many. In my mind science is a tool of humanity. A tool to harvest the best information possible from our reality so that we can proceed through our lives in the best possible way. Science is not a matter of faith, but the two are not without relation. (I quantify this later) Hypotheses are not formed on whimsical speculation of a fantastic mind but upon educated guess of the issue's preceding information (sometimes the works of others, sometimes your previous works).

I am an atheist. And as a true Atheist I feel it important to qualify exactly what I am. I don't believe that there is no such thing as God, deity, divine interventions, Jesus in Cheetos or any other fanciful things. To Identify myself as, "Hello I'm an Atheist, there is no such thing in God." is to accept that the default position of our reality is that there is a God and I am against the status quo. Of course, and unfortunately this is true, but it is of little importance. A true Atheist is someone that applies Occam's Razor to the notions of dogmatic lore. I see no evidence for God therefor I don't focus my time and energy on him. I have no utility for him. I source morality from causality. I source spirituality from the incalculable wonder that is the unseen and unknown cosmos and the humility it brings me. I don't need God for anything. As Atheists we will never gain the status quo until we stop trying to fight it. We don't need to fight it, common sense will prevail or the forces that will squelch our mote of existence will destroy us. That is causality, the true nature of the world.

Faith: The word faith was something of particular interest in a debate I recently had. There was a person making the assertion that the Universe has a true nature. In conversation we agreed that "true nature" mean that the universe obeys a set of rules just as BA says. We debated on whether this was taken on faith or not. The ultimate truth/nature assumption is an absolute. How do you test an absolute? The very distinction of it's existence is that it's truth is infinite. It will produce a correct answer 100% of the time. The result of multiplying 0 and infinity is undefined. Human beings are not machines, we don't operate on truths, ones and zeros, ons and offs. We operate on the best information available that we choose to include. Simply, faith is a mechanism of our organism. Science is but a tool to discover what makes the most sense to have faith in. This ultimate presupposition of the Universe obeying a set of rules is truly an untestable assumption. It's an idea that supersedes all others which in my mind makes it logically. The greatest problem with this discussion is that the word faith can be suited to anyone's agenda. It's one of the most perverted words in human language and it rarely means the same thing for two people. My thoughts on this issue conflict even as I right this because this problem. Language is not 100% efficient, even if one were to discover the Ultimate Truth of the Universe he could not use language to give it to someone else.

The biggest difference between religion and science is that science embraces religions forbidden phrase, "I don't know". "I don't know" emboldens science and corrupts religion. Questions are the ultimate truth!

I'm young, and one of the greatest joys in life is that I have so much time to learn. My language is probably inferior to that of many on this board so I'll quote one of the most profound minds. Extra points if you can tell me who it is without googling it!

"I have some discomfort with both believers and with nonbelievers when their opinions are not based on facts ... If we don't know the answer, why are we under so much pressure to make up our minds, to declare our allegiance to one hypothesis or the other?" - My Hero

[parallaxicality]

This thread will probably be deleted because it deals with religion, but anyway...

Phil is right. Science makes only one assumption; that the universe obeys rules. But this is a big assumption when placed up against religion or the hand of a conscious deity. In order to pursue scientific inquiry, it is necessary to adopt a kind of "methodological atheism", an underlying assumption that God does not exist or, if it does, will not arbitrarily withhold or alter the laws of physics to interfere with experimental results. For some religious persons who believe in the hand of God in all things, and in the efficacy of miracles, such an assumption is difficult to take. It would lead fundamentalists to conclude that science, as a philosophy, precludes God.

[Disinfo Agent]

One can say that science assumes that reality can be known through physical evidence combined with reason. An assumption which I would say most people make implicitly in their day-to-day.

But technically you can do good science even if you don't actually believe this. On the other hand, I can't think of anyone who has.

[idav]

I agree that Phil is right. However, he fails to make the distinction between the utility of science and the utility of religion and he fails to define what faith is. Also, the tone of his article implies a motive of rallying the troops rather than educating the ignorant, which I thought what he was about.

Personally I don't think it's appropriate to ostracize the word faith in order to maintain the causality of science. If he wants to educate his readers then he should have explained that the one assumption we rationalists do make is not made based on the authority of others but the observation and knowledge we've accumulated through out history. That is the distinction. The assumption we've made is as much a process of science as our methods themselves. We hypothesize the universe to obey a set of rules because all observations to date either support the idea or drive further inquiry. One might say, "Well how do you explain the study of black holes? They seem to break plenty of rules but we didn't rewrite our main hypothesis! (The universe obeys a set of rules)" To which the response would be that just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it it disproves our main assumption. Certain elements of science specifically disprove certain elements of religion. That is the distinction.

[Chuck]

I have no faith is science. It might stop working tomorrow for all I know. When I see that it's not doing anything for me then I'll dump it, just like I dumped religion 40 years ago.

Science is not faith based. We evolved in a universe in which patterns persist and the genes that survived and reproduced were the ones that took advantage of this. Everyone does science at some level, even those who declare it to be evil. When you reach for an apple on a table you expect it to be there because that's the way things turned out when you experimented early in life. That's using science. You can believe that a supernatural being causes the apple to be there when your hand arrives but that doesn't alter the fact the scientific research was done. We do science before we even know the meaning of the word and we can hardly have faith in something before we even know about it.

[shasocastris]

This is such an awesome article explaining atheism, science, and faith. I have to show this to some people I know to explain the distinction between science and faith (though they can't understand the difference between theory and hypothesis, so...)

Cheers!

[Noclevername]

Science often presents scientists with answers they dislike, disagree with personally or weren't expecting. It just makes them use more science on those answers, to analyze the data even more closely and in even more detail. Faith, as far as I remember, works rather the opposite way; the more you start to disagree with it, the harder it is to maintain.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Well obviously not, you can not combine the two, faith by virtue is a an unreal belief while science is exploration of our World ..... God and Chemistry don't mix...

[Jerry]

The biggest difference between religion and science is that science embraces religions forbidden phrase, "I don't know". "I don't know" emboldens science and corrupts religion. Questions are the ultimate truth!

Excellent.

[Michael Noonan]

The biggest difference between religion and science is that science embraces religions forbidden phrase, "I don't know". "I don't know" emboldens science and corrupts religion. Questions are the ultimate truth!

Excellent.

I try to see what works for the 'normal mind' but for those with pareidola it twists from that view quite significantly. When one 'feels' links in the songs heard, written material, conversations then reflections on links mean questions come very freely. It is the answers that you have that you don't trust. It is a condition (in my case at least) conducive to faith ... there has to be truth somewhere and what am I not seeing in what I am looking at.

Just a counterpoint with the same aim to seek truth and revel in beauty. I don't know is a statement ... what am I not seeing is a question. So for one it is skepticism and "I don't know". For the other it is belief and searching for deeper meaning and having to discard that which is inconsistent. From that point of view there is still great beauty but lots of confusion in so many definitions all claiming to be "The One".

It is like fishing, not quoting here but it is the difference between uncertainty and probability. The fish knows it has the hook in its mouth and makes it choice on how to get loose. The person fishing follows the run of the fish and thinks they are in control. Either way the fish could get off, the line break and the hook cast again so the fish still gets caught. Same result but each from a different point of view.

[Maksutov]

Re

"Is science faith-based?"

No, no, and most emphatically, no.

[Jerry]

I am reminded of a little girl who prayed and prayed for a sister; and when she did not get one, she concluded that her sister must be evil.

***

Many in the religous right foster the utterly foolish notion scientific theories are evil and therefore wrong. They may be wrong, but they are not evil. Many involved in science see the religious right as enemies. While it is true that when woodenheaded fools get hold of the purse strings science programs may suffer, skepticism drives the discovery process. Admitting a flaw may exist in the knowledge base is the first step in weeding out errors.

[Thumping]

I don't normally post anything to any thread, but I felt the need to ask a couple of questions.

If all science starts with the same evidence, same world, same universe, same laws of physics, then the only difference is the bias that one starts with.

If your bias is that there is a God that created everything with a specific order for life to even exist, then you are studying that order that's inherent in the universe.

If your bias is that there is no creator and that all existence is a mere chance event, or random collisions of matter, and that the order in the universe is just a chance event, you’re still studying the order that's inherent in the universe.

If you want to believe that there is a Creator God that created the universe and created life on this planet and created order in the universe, rather than believe that your a chance event and the order in the universe is just an accident, then, what is the problem with faith?
Either way, you have to start with an assumption (or bias). Your results will be the same. 2+2 will always equal 4 no matter which bias you start with.

[Gillianren]

Welcome aboard, Thumping. Read the rules and stay awhile.

In answer to your question . . . the issue is the interventionary nature many people assign to God. When the only answer is "God did it," that doesn't actually provide any information. Many of those people are not getting four when adding two and two; many of them aren't even getting five or twenty-two. They're getting potato.

[Thumping]

Welcome aboard, Thumping. Read the rules and stay awhile.

In answer to your question . . . the issue is the interventionary nature many people assign to God. When the only answer is "God did it," that doesn't actually provide any information. Many of those people are not getting four when adding two and two; many of them aren't even getting five or twenty-two. They're getting potato.

I agree that that maybe the phrase "God did it," may be over used. I also agree that it takes faith to believe that either:
1. The universe exploded from nothing (big bang) into something and that over time, random collisions of matter sprang forth life from non life, or

2. The universe was spoke into existence by a creator God and that life was created by that same God.

Either way, your bias has to start somewhere.
Is science faith based? Well, I guess it depends on how you judge your bias.

[Noclevername]

I agree that that maybe the phrase "God did it," may be over used. I also agree that it takes faith to believe that either:
1. The universe exploded from nothing (big bang) into something and that over time, random collisions of matter sprang forth life from non life, or

Since what you just said isn't what science actually says, it may require belief.

But that the Universe has expanded from a high-temperature state of compaction, and that life formed from the chemical interaction of organic molecules, are what science has found, and require no faith at all, just observation and analysis of facts.

[Thumping]

Since what you just said isn't what science actually says, it may require belief.

But that the Universe has expanded from a high-temperature state of compaction, and that life formed from the chemical interaction of organic molecules, are what science has found, and require no faith at all, just observation and analysis of facts.

Ok. That sounds great and believeable. It's still a "big bang" that no one was there to observe, and I'll grant that science has been using the "big bang" theory for a while, but they still have never observed it. If science is based on testable theories that what is the "big bang"?

About the "interaction of organic molecules", this has not been observed either. Science hasn't even been able to reproduce it. Even if scientists could reproduce the "interaction of organic molecules" to create life, then they were the intelligent design behind it. It's still life from non life. Sounds like it still takes faith.

[Noclevername]

Ok. That sounds great and believeable. It's still a "big bang" that no one was there to observe, and I'll grant that science has been using the "big bang" theory for a while, but they still have never observed it. If science is based on testable theories that what is the "big bang"?

About the "interaction of organic molecules", this has not been observed either. Science hasn't even been able to reproduce it. Even if scientists could reproduce the "interaction of organic molecules" to create life, then they were the intelligent design behind it. It's still life from non life. Sounds like it still takes faith.

You seem to have some misperception of just how science actually works, and what the actual scientific theories about the Big Bang and the origin of life really say. Here's some starting information to help you better understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[Gillianren]

I agree that that maybe the phrase "God did it," may be over used.

"Over used"? If you're giving it as an example of why an observed process works the way it does--like how the red shift evidence all supports a Big Bang--it's simply not applicable, much less overused.

[Fadingstar]

Having faith doesn't require questions. Science is very fond of asking questions.
Just because scientists don't know the answer to something doesn't mean they must have faith in the result. The Big Bang is still under scrutiny. Scientists are still asking amongst themselves how did it happen in loud voices while waving their arms wildly. The same with the origin of life.
Faith just requires acceptance with no loud voices or arm waving. No true scientist would accept that.

You can have faith in the fact that 2+2=4, and just believe in the 4, but science would want to know where you got the 2s from, are you sure it should be a cross in the middle, and are those parallel lines really going somewhere. That is the difference between faith and science.
I can have faith in the fact that my alarm clock will wake me up in the morning, but science would expect the alarm clock to prove it.

[Thumping]

Having faith doesn't require questions. Science is very fond of asking questions.
Just because scientists don't know the answer to something doesn't mean they must have faith in the result. The Big Bang is still under scrutiny. Scientists are still asking amongst themselves how did it happen in loud voices while waving their arms wildly. The same with the origin of life.
Faith just requires acceptance with no loud voices or arm waving. No true scientist would accept that.

You can have faith in the fact that 2+2=4, and just believe in the 4, but science would want to know where you got the 2s from, are you sure it should be a cross in the middle, and are those parallel lines really going somewhere. That is the difference between faith and science.
I can have faith in the fact that my alarm clock will wake me up in the morning, but science would expect the alarm clock to prove it.

Ok. I can see what your trying to say. If your science is entirely based on faith then you dont ask questions, science and discovery stops. If that's true, are you saying that the scientist that is studying the same universe using the same techniques as any other scientist, can they not believe in a creator God and still do good science? Your still studying the same thing. The difference is that the scientist that believes in God is attempting to discover how the Creator did it, the evolutionist is trying to figure out how nature did it.

[Thumping]

"Over used"? If you're giving it as an example of why an observed process works the way it does--like how the red shift evidence all supports a Big Bang--it's simply not applicable, much less overused.

I not sure how the red shift proves the Big Bang. Most creationist / evolutionist theories have solutions to the red shift of the universe expanding. Nobody argues that the universe is expanding.

[Thumping]

You seem to have some misperception of just how science actually works, and what the actual scientific theories about the Big Bang and the origin of life really say. Here's some starting information to help you better understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

I checked the article on abiogenesis. It still talks about life from nothing.
The first sentence " is the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life." Doesn't it still take faith to believe something that you have never observed or reproduced in the lab? Abiogenesis may be a interesting theory, but it's still a untestable and unobersvable theory only. So is the big bang. If you can see it or test it, does it take faith to believe it.

[Noclevername]

Ok. I can see what your trying to say. If your science is entirely based on faith then you dont ask questions, science and discovery stops. If that's true, are you saying that the scientist that is studying the same universe using the same techniques as any other scientist, can they not believe in a creator God and still do good science? Your still studying the same thing. The difference is that the scientist that believes in God is attempting to discover how the Creator did it, the evolutionist is trying to figure out how nature did it.

You've got it, except for using the term "evolutionist" to mean "atheist". A God-fearing scientist who studies evolution can still be an evolutionist.

[Thumping]

You've got it, except for using the term "evolutionist" to mean "atheist". A God-fearing scientist who studies evolution can still be an evolutionist.

I agree that a God fearing scientist who studies evolution can still be an evolutionist, but (you knew that was coming) you can be a atheist, evolutionst, or God fearing scientist and still do good science.

[Fadingstar]

In addition to Noclevername's response, when Stephen Hawking met the Pope, he said that we did not know what was before the Big Bang, and thus left room for God, and the Pope was happy.

[Noclevername]

I agree that a God fearing scientist who studies evolution can still be an evolutionist, but (you knew that was coming) you can be a atheist, evolutionst, or God fearing scientist and still do good science.

Exactly. Faith is irrelevant to good science. Only testable, provable data matters.

[Fadingstar]

I agree that a God fearing scientist who studies evolution can still be an evolutionist, but (you knew that was coming) you can be a atheist, evolutionst, or God fearing scientist and still do good science.

True. But science doesn't care what you believe in, only in the proof of the pudding. You might believe in, say, pink elephants, but science will prove you wrong. Having faith in pink elephants will not make the science go away, as creationists would want it to do.
The point here is that you can believe in God who set the whole thing in motion to follow rules set within the moment of Big Bang, or you can say that the Big Bang was the result of some hidden mechanism that we may never find or see. But! Once the Big Bang was in motion, God did not get involved.

[Noclevername]

=Once the Big Bang was in motion, God did not get involved.

Scientifically, all we can say is that there's no evidence God got involved.

[Fadingstar]

Scientifically, all we can say is that there's no evidence God got involved.

I stand corrected and eat humble pie