• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does Science require faith?

faith  
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith

If you wish to use definition #1 then yes science requires faith.

If you wish to use definition #2 then no it does not, unless you take this definition to a literal extreme. In this case everything requires faith. Grass is green? you have faith your senses are not deceiving you to assert this.

If you wish to use definition #3,4, or 5 absolutely not.

If you wish to conflate these definitions to try to draw a parallel to science and religion then it is equivocation. It is trying to force incompatible usages and definitions into the same box when they are completely incompatible - and in the strictest sense diametrically opposed to one another (religious faith priding itself in being belief without evidence).
 
Everything requires faith. :shrug:

Je pense donc je suis (I think therefore I am).

That is the one exception (and I have even seen this one argued as not being an absolute either)
 
Last edited:
No, there is no faith involved. Science does not need faith. We don't need to believe that science works. It does work. Planes fly. Televisions pick up signals bouncing off of satellites in outer space. Medicine cures people. Computers compute and allow us to post on these forums. No amount of faith in any direction will change that. Science does not require belief. It works regardless of how we feel. Stars fused heavier elements and oceans were churned by hurricanes long before we were here to notice, and will continue to do so long after we are gone. No amount of our thoughts or feelings on the subject will ever affect that.

False equivalence between science and religious fables is just nonsense. It is a pathetic attempt to discredit science by dragging it down to the level of fairy tales. Science is better than that. Science works. No amount of praying or mushroom circles or talismans or dream catchers will change that.

Science and Faith, contrary to what many people think, are not mutually exclusive. Many great scientists, such as Newton, Leibniz, Galileo Galilei, and Pascal, were devout Christians. Other more modern scientists, such as Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, also had strong religious leanings. So from where does the notion of a dichotomy between Science and Faith come? IMHO, it comes from choice. Some believe there is nothing greater than their own understanding and reasoning and others look in awe at the complexity of a simple cell and to them, this didn't happen by chance. For me it is simple. I see G-d as the greatest scientist of all, the architect of all. I believe science is his gift to man.

For me science does not disprove my religion nor does my religion disprove science. I see them complementing eachother quite nicely.

Probably the field of medical science is where you will find fewer non-believes than any other. They see phenomena's everyday that just blows them away.
 
Genetic and social factors, what percentage of each? I guess 80/20, to begin estimations. What percentage do you figure?

We have no evidence of orientation being a choice. Everyone I ask says they didn't choose. Have you met someone who chose? I find it difficult to believe that some people would choose to be a discriminated against minority.

But where is the evidence? Not trying to delve into the issue, but most assume it is genetic when there is no evidence that it is. So, people take it on faith (mostly) because it must be.
 
But where is the evidence? Not trying to delve into the issue, but most assume it is genetic when there is no evidence that it is. So, people take it on faith (mostly) because it must be.

Most evidence is social, not physical. Science has not discovered genetic evidence, that's rather specific and probably involves a combination of genes/traits.

Prenatal hormones may be seen as the primary determinant of adult sexual orientation, or a co-factor with genes, biological factors and/or environmental and social conditions.
Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Science and Faith, contrary to what many people think, are not mutually exclusive. Many great scientists, such as Newton, Leibniz, Galileo Galilei, and Pascal, were devout Christians. Other more modern scientists, such as Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, also had strong religious leanings. So from where does the notion of a dichotomy between Science and Faith come? IMHO, it comes from choice. Some believe there is nothing greater than their own understanding and reasoning and others look in awe at the complexity of a simple cell and to them, this didn't happen by chance. For me it is simple. I see G-d as the greatest scientist of all, the architect of all. I believe science is his gift to man.

For me science does not disprove my religion nor does my religion disprove science. I see them complementing eachother quite nicely.

Probably the field of medical science is where you will find fewer non-believes than any other. They see phenomena's everyday that just blows them away.

The practise of medicine is more of an art than a science than some would have you believe. Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it a simple appeal to authority?
 
Science and Faith, contrary to what many people think, are not mutually exclusive. Many great scientists, such as Newton, Leibniz, Galileo Galilei, and Pascal, were devout Christians. Other more modern scientists, such as Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, also had strong religious leanings. So from where does the notion of a dichotomy between Science and Faith come? IMHO, it comes from choice. Some believe there is nothing greater than their own understanding and reasoning and others look in awe at the complexity of a simple cell and to them, this didn't happen by chance. For me it is simple. I see G-d as the greatest scientist of all, the architect of all. I believe science is his gift to man.

For me science does not disprove my religion nor does my religion disprove science. I see them complementing eachother quite nicely.

Probably the field of medical science is where you will find fewer non-believes than any other. They see phenomena's everyday that just blows them away.

But the question this thread is predicated upon is not "Do some scientists have religious faith" it is "Does science require faith". For the latter question we need to know which definition of faith we are using to base our answer on. For the former, it is irrelevant and an answer to a question that was not asked.
 
The practise of medicine is more of an art than a science than some would have you believe. Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it a simple appeal to authority?

I don't agree with your thought that the science of medicine is more of an art than a science.
 
But the question this thread is predicated upon is not "Do some scientists have religious faith" it is "Does science require faith". For the latter question we need to know which definition of faith we are using to base our answer on. For the former, it is irrelevant and an answer to a question that was not asked.

No, scientists need not have religious faith but I like Einstein's famous quote on that point." Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941. You can have science, but by rejecting religion, is it lame science?
 
I didn't say that. I said that medicine, as an art and a science, is not all science, and has more art than many realise.
 
Of course science requires faith. No one knows everything, which means, we KNOW nothing. The basic laws of physics are based on observations of consistent phenomina. But no one KNOWS that said phenomina are constant.


We don't even KNOW if the sun will come up tomorrow.
 
I didn't say that. I said that medicine, as an art and a science, is not all science, and has more art than many realise.

Your words exactly were

The practice of medicine is more of an art than a science than some would have you believe. Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it a simple appeal to authority?

And I still disagree with you
 
Faith requires that the knowledge/theory/hypothesis/etc not be tested. Science is based on testing, so no, I don't believe it's based on faith. There are basic assumptions that must be made, but they are tested every time the sciences built upon them are utilized. If science works, and it does, then the axioms that it relies on are factual. No faith is necessary, by the definition of "faith". Assumptions=/=faith at the moment that they are tested.
 
I have faith that this is all not just a dream.

Is that the same thing as religious faith? I don't think so.

I have no faith that if I drop a glass of hydrochloric acid it will eat through this table. I know it will. I've seen it happen before. This discussion is pointless because the foundation of it, ie, what is faith, was never dealt with by the OP.
 
I don't have the time to read it, but yes. All science depends on causation and human reason. If you don't trust those then you have no reason to believe science.

Sure, we have to rely on certain basic axioms: Reality is real. Our minds are minimally adequate as tools of exploring that reality. Neither statement can be truly verified, so one could say, we are making "leaps of faith" here.

But there's a huge difference between the axiomatic assertion of the possibility of actual (if limited) knowledge. and the notion that knowledge obtained by hard work and rigorous thinking is no more valid than hallucinations of some shaman on a steady mushroom diet, miraculous insights of Marxist "dialecticians" or rants of your friendly neighborhood paranoid schizophrenic.

Yes, we do have to "believe" that our minds are worth something. But does such "belief" imply that switching our minds off makes no difference? Obviously, no. Quite the opposite.
 
Most people have a very incorrect set of ideas about what science is. For instance, very many people confuse it with technology. Technology certainly has made use of scientific discoveries, but it makes good use of folklore too. Technology made use of concrete long before there were theories about crystallization.



Many people treat it like a person thus, "science tells us," and "science asserts."

Science is a set of practices and tools for ascertaining certain kinds of probabilities, often mistakenly or inaccurately called "facts."

As an example, actual science can't really inform a "scientific opinion" about whether there is a God, because there is no way to test any such hypothesis. This is especially true since an actual transcendent Divinity need not cooperate.

And science is often a poor set of methods for determining truth. For instance, we can use a number of forms of scientific inquiry into whether or not eating chocolate is a pleasant experience for mot children. We can set up a period of observation and double blind experiments and then collate and assess the data and subject it to mathematical and statistical review. And after that effort and expense, we'd have learned quite scientifically what the average person who failed to graduate junior high school knew all along for free.

And finally, most people are not in any manner using scientific thinking when they talk about what they think of as scientific fact. They are reciting what they've been told, and taking it on faith that scientific methods were used to arrive at the conclusions. Some will talk about experiments being "repeatable," which they take on faith too, since they never try to repeat the experiments themselves.
 
No.

A personal faith in a scientific hypothesis can be destroyed by someone else presenting evidence and that person must change their opinion if abiding by scientific methodology.

Actually, they have no requirement to change their opinions at all. To proceed under scientific discipline, they need merely change their working assumptions.

We all do that sort of thing all the time. Put a $100 bill in your hand and you proceed from the idea that you are holding money. That's your working assumption. The reality is though that you're holding a probably bacteria-laden piece of nasty rag paper.
 
Should data and reality testing point to certain conclusions to a significant degree then it is worthy of my trust in them. Otherwise it is not worthy of my beliefs on the conclusions or premises that it may sit on. If you call this "faith" then so be it.
 
Actually, they have no requirement to change their opinions at all. To proceed under scientific discipline, they need merely change their working assumptions.

We all do that sort of thing all the time. Put a $100 bill in your hand and you proceed from the idea that you are holding money. That's your working assumption. The reality is though that you're holding a probably bacteria-laden piece of nasty rag paper.

If they've changed their assumptions they've changed their opinion.
 
If they've changed their assumptions they've changed their opinion.

Not at all. For example, a junior researcher working for a group that proceeds from evidence that suggests that AGW is hokum can still have an opinion to the contrary. But if he wants to continue his employment, his working assumption needs to reflect that of his seniors.

I run into this sort of dichotomy frequently as an EMT. My opinion of a patient might be that they're just drunk. My working assumption though, has to be that they're sick or injured.
 
Read an interesting article I thought I would share:


Does Science Require Faith? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Thoughts?

No.

Here's the thing about science. Part of science is recognizing that your tools, and your mind, could very well be imperfect, and thus it is entirely possible your conclusion could be as well.

You don't have to "believe" in any part of it. Not the tools, not the method, not the results. In fact, if you do "believe" in it, you're doing it wrong.

But you try to do better than whatever came before. Every time you to do something scientifically, you try to edge a little bit closer to a perfect conclusion. You might not ever reach it, but through repeated trial and error, you may find yourself close enough that you can apply what you've learned to reality, and it will probably render something like the expected results.

And if that happens, you accept (not "believe") the conclusion as the best current explanation for X, because it is demonstrating expected results in reality.

You may, at some point later, learn that some part of it is imperfect, refine it further, and then accept that as the best current explanation.

There's absolutely no failure in refining your understanding of science, or learning that what you thought was the best explanation, no longer is. That is a triumph; it's learning.
 
Most evidence is social, not physical. Science has not discovered genetic evidence, that's rather specific and probably involves a combination of genes/traits.

The point is everyone insists one is born guy, despite lack of proof. What would you call that?
 
Faith in Science is like trust in fish stories from fisherman.
There is an old fishing saying,
" I think all the fishermen in the world are lairs except for you and me, and I have my doubts about You."
Science should treat unverified statements the same way.
Skeptical challenge is part of the equation, and why real peer review can be fairly continuous.
 
Not at all. For example, a junior researcher working for a group that proceeds from evidence that suggests that AGW is hokum can still have an opinion to the contrary. But if he wants to continue his employment, his working assumption needs to reflect that of his seniors.

I run into this sort of dichotomy frequently as an EMT. My opinion of a patient might be that they're just drunk. My working assumption though, has to be that they're sick or injured.

I'm a doctor and I have no idea what you're implying by your example. Your working assumption is that there's something interfering with the patients quality of life. Thats not even reallt am assumption, theres reason why a patient presents to you. Intoxication may be one of the differentials and evidence is gathered to form a working diagnosis.this can change at any time with new evidence.

As for global warming, I'm not really interested in going down that politicised path. But what you describe is not the scientific method at work, it's corruption.
 
Does science require faith? Sure, in the sense that it requires me to have faith that its accurate and that scientists know what they are talking about because I don't have the knowledge myself to tell otherwise. For example I've received a lot of medical treatment that I don't fully understand the mechanisms of but I have "faith" that it works and that the people who developed it and are giving it to me know what they are doing.

I also have "faith" that my auto dealership could fix my A/C system when it broke in my car, I had to have faith they could because I had no way of verifying with my own knowledge that what they were doing was the right thing.

That doesn't mean either of these two types of faith is equal or the same as religious faith.
 
Back
Top Bottom