Does Science require faith?

[Dittohead not!]

Read an interesting article I thought I would share:


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

Thoughts?

Science starts with the facts, formulates hypotheses based on the facts, then tests those hypotheses. When the hypothesis that combines all known facts can not be disproven, but is supported over and over by different people at different times and different places, only then is it accepted as true. Should further facts come to light that cast doubt, then it is no longer accepted, but thrown out like yesterday's garbage.

Faith, on the other hand, starts with a desire to believe something, then discards any and all facts that counter the faith. It is pretty much the diametric opposite of science.

 

[head of joaquin]

and? a steam turbine and a warp drive are both engines. that doesn't make them the same thing

Sure it does. Little changes over a long period of time equal big changes. "Microevolution" is just a snapshot of evolution happening in the long term.

 

[head of joaquin]

it is not observed to exist. it is assumed to exist based on micro-evolution and adaptation. IOW...you have to accept it on "faith"

Ahhhhh, no.

The ToE, like any scientific theory, is intended to explain observable facts and make predictions we care about. The fact is living and extinct organisms appear to be related in various ways. The ToE postulates that the relationship involves common descent. The various mechanisms (predicted by Darwin) such as genes and natural selection, that shape the changes of organisms over time, have been amply supported by the observed facts in the form of experiments and discoveries in numerous fields of science.

What does this have to do with faith? The ToE is an explanation of observable fact limited to natural causes and testable by prediction. Believing in God isn't like that at all.

 

[Mach]

No.

Faith - requires no evidence
Reason - requires evidence
(evidence and observation, axioms of reason and fundamental logic is the more expansive list falling under "evidence")
These are the associated premises. You can test them for consistency.

Science of course, properly requires evidence/observation to make claims of knowledge (science).
The entire foundation of all knowledge is based on reason, by definition. Science means knowledge in Latin, this is not coincidental.

Notice that it's not just religion that uses faith though. Many modern drug store products have no evidence to support their claims, yet people routinely take them for those specific results. It's faith-based too. We often have faith in friends or family despite all evidence to the contrary about some behavior or another. It's not all about religion vs science. Although it's clear that science by definition excludes faith.

 

[Quag]

we use logic to come to the conclusion that it COULD have. there is no proof that it did. you still have to take it on faith

No we use logic to come to a conclusion of what most likely occurred. There is not absolute proof but very strong evidence. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence

 

[Mach]

we use logic to come to the conclusion that it COULD have. there is no proof that it did. you still have to take it on faith

Science is always about what appears to be true. It cannot claim with 100% certainty (ala proof) that something is true, that would not be science. Science is by definition falsifiable. You can dismiss a particular piece of science by evidencing facts to the contrary...this is a feature of science, not a flaw. Faith is the opposite of that. Faith requires no evidence, so one could believe something on faith without evidence, or with evidence (to the contrary), or with evidence that supports it. It doesn't really matter because one has faith, they don't need evidence. Thankfully. I have faith in mankind but the evidence is pretty much to the contrary

 

[mac]

Faith, on the other hand, starts with a desire to believe something, then discards any and all facts that counter the faith. It is pretty much the diametric opposite of science.

Somewhat of an overarching statement, no? Specially when one may have faith in a certain hypothesis or theory then disregard it with the discovery of facts...

 

[Cephus]

Nope, at least not in the same sense that religion does. Far too many theists want to redefine "faith" as something that absolutely everyone has, therefore they don't have to feel bad about holding faith themselves. Science doesn't require faith, it requires acceptance of well-defined, tested and evidenced ideas. To say that science requires faith is to redefine faith to such a degree that it becomes pointless, it's like saying crossing the street requires faith in the non-existence of invisible taxi cabs that prowl the street, waiting to run the unsuspecting over.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Somewhat of an overarching statement, no? Specially when one may have faith in a certain hypothesis or theory then disregard it with the discovery of facts...

If you disregard it with the discovery of facts, then you didn't have faith in the hypothesis, but in the method by which the hypothesis was tested.

Now, you could argue that one must have faith in the scientific method to help us understand how things work, but then, there are some difficult to dismiss discoveries that support that faith, making it perhaps not just faith.

 

[mac]

If you disregard it with the discovery of facts, then you didn't have faith in the hypothesis, but in the method by which the hypothesis was tested.

Now, you could argue that one must have faith in the scientific method to help us understand how things work, but then, there are some difficult to dismiss discoveries that support that faith, making it perhaps not just faith.

Only if you assume that having faith requires an ignorance of fact. I don't agree that that is true.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Only if you assume that having faith requires an ignorance of fact. I don't agree that that is true.

Correct. Faith in the scientific method, as I described above, is not the same as religious faith that does sometimes require one to ignore (that sense of the word "ignorance") facts that counter the desired belief.

Which comes back to my original theme, that science is the diametric opposite of faith, as the former requires proof and facts, while the latter simply starts with a desire to believe, and then filters out anything that counters that belief.

 

[mac]

Correct. Faith in the scientific method, as I described above, is not the same as religious faith that does sometimes require one to ignore (that sense of the word "ignorance") facts that counter the desired belief.

Religious faith does not require anyone to ignore facts. I beleive you are referring to Blind faith. They are not necessarily the same.

Which comes back to my original theme, that science is the diametric opposite of faith, as the former requires proof and facts, while the latter simply starts with a desire to believe, and then filters out anything that counters that belief.

Much science requires the assumption of facts pending proof, again...not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Cephus]

Correct. Faith in the scientific method, as I described above, is not the same as religious faith that does sometimes require one to ignore (that sense of the word "ignorance") facts that counter the desired belief.

The scientific method demonstrably works, in fact, it is the only tool that we have for gaining knowledge about the real world that demonstrably works. No faith required.

Which comes back to my original theme, that science is the diametric opposite of faith, as the former requires proof and facts, while the latter simply starts with a desire to believe, and then filters out anything that counters that belief.

Yup, right on.

 

[obvious Child]

Religious faith does not require anyone to ignore facts. I beleive you are referring to Blind faith. They are not necessarily the same.

They are one and the same at times though. For instance, faith that the Global flood happened despite the testable properties of water showing that water could not have sorted organisms in the way the strata show them if a global flood occurred. To believe in a global flood requires one to ignore what they can test in their kitchen sink.

Much science requires the assumption of facts pending proof, again...not necessarily the same thing.

Life requires the assumption of facts pending proof.

 

[head of joaquin]

Only if you assume that having faith requires an ignorance of fact. I don't agree that that is true.

Religious faith (at least the Christian variety, which seems to occupy the field) is nonfactual by definition. If a belief is based on observed fact, it isn't faith but empiricism. An empirical believe in God is contrary to Christian teachings about the nature of faith and its relationship to the divine.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Somewhat of an overarching statement, no? Specially when one may have faith in a certain hypothesis or theory then disregard it with the discovery of facts...

This right here shows you don't understand the scientific method.

If scientists had faith in their hypothesis, why test it? The entire point of a hypothesis is to try to prove it wrong.

Furthermore, accepting something as the best current explanation, as demonstrated by repeated testing, is not faith. Faith requires no demonstration. And furthermore, faith is closed to new information, whereas what we accept in science is always open to change.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Religious faith does not require anyone to ignore facts. I beleive you are referring to Blind faith. They are not necessarily the same.

Actually, I was referring to the sort of "faith" that leads people to be Biblical literalists and young Earth creationists and such. I suppose that has to be blind faith.

 

[vesper]

Actually, I was referring to the sort of "faith" that leads people to be Biblical literalists and young Earth creationists and such. I suppose that has to be blind faith.

Yes that is a blind faith. But then again there are many who read the account of creation and see that evolutionists prove the account of creation in the order they were listed in Scripture first ( for the most part) many many centuries before Darwin. It all boils down to was it by chance, a happy accident, or was it deliberate by a great architect? Personally I find it more blind faith to believe it happened by chance. Especially when it gets to the juicy fresh DNA from the rib of a man to create woman. :lol:

 

[obvious Child]

Yes that is a blind faith. But then again there are many who read the account of creation and see that evolutionists proving the account of creation in the order they were listed in Scripture first for the most part.

How so? How does the account of creation mirror what science says based on the evidence suggests? You do recall that Genesis says that the world was "watery and formless" which is a direct contradiction to planetary accretion, the raging fireball that was early Earth and were our water came from right? And that's before we get to the light without a source, oceans before land and other such nonsense.

Genesis is a story to tell to primitive people about how the world came to be to satisfy their curiosity. It is not meant to be science. You do not explain microgravity relationships in planetary accretion to nomadic Jews. That would be a sign of a supremely idiotic deity.

It all boils down to was it by chance, a happy accident or was it deliberate by a great architect? Personally I find it more blind faith to believe it happened by chance.

How is matter behaving to physical laws chance? And natural selection is anything but chance.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes that is a blind faith. But then again there are many who read the account of creation and see that evolutionists proving the account of creation in the order they were listed in Scripture first for the most part many many centuries before Darwin. It all boils down to was it by chance, a happy accident or was it deliberate by a great architect? Personally I find it more blind faith to believe it happened by chance.

Science does not address the idea of a creator, and evolution does not say that it had to have happened all on its own.

So, you do have a point: It could have been part of a grand design, with evolution the way in which life as we know it was created. That isn't scientific, of course, and so does require some faith to accept.

But, we have to accept one of two ideas: Either life sprang unbidden from primordial ooze in a process as yet unproven we've labeled "abiogenesis," then evolved all by itself to produce intelligent beings capable of figuring out just where they came from, or there is a creator (or creators) behind it all.

Neither idea is proven. Either one requires faith. Both are somewhat implausible. I also find the second the most plausible.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Ah yes the fallacious theist argument that asserts that science is faith based. Just another apologetic jester to make an excuse as to why science doesnt at all agree with theism.

Its much like covering your ears and screaming because you dont want to hear someone talk.

It doesnt take faith to accept scientific evidence. And one doesnt need to come to a conclusion how life (or the universe) came to be to reject the complete fantasies of the existence of magical gods.

But, we have to accept one of two ideas: Either life sprang unbidden from primordial ooze in a process as yet unproven we've labeled "abiogenesis," then evolved all by itself to produce intelligent beings capable of figuring out just where they came from, or there is a creator (or creators) behind it all.

That is what would be called false dilemma. Why must one be forced to choose between just those two concepts? Is it because you think the latter has merit? I reject that a creator (or creators) has any merit at all intellectually speaking. The problem lies with the fact that assuming abiogenesis has to just mean that life came from non-life is over generalizing.

The argument (by theists mainly) against abiogenesis paints a picture as if the line between life and non-life forms is definite. A 16 year old dead frozen mouse was cloned successfully. And if the mouse wasnt enough theres the Pyrenean Ibex that was extinct that was cloned. Not the same as abiogenesis of course but none the less it is a example of using non living material to create life from it. That concept and evidence along with this: How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time RNA world easier to make - BioEd Online

Again still not overwhelming evidence but its getting closer to that. The difference though is that abiogenesis can be proven or disproven while a creator cannot be proven.

So logically abiogenesis is a question while creation is a faith.

 

[mac]

Religious faith (at least the Christian variety, which seems to occupy the field) is nonfactual by definition. If a belief is based on observed fact, it isn't faith but empiricism. An empirical believe in God is contrary to Christian teachings about the nature of faith and its relationship to the divine.

Not actively looking for fact to substantiate faith is not the same as ignoring fact in favor of faith.

 

[mac]

Actually, I was referring to the sort of "faith" that leads people to be Biblical literalists and young Earth creationists and such. I suppose that has to be blind faith.

and doesn't describe all Christians, much less all those following a religious faith.

 

[mac]

This right here shows you don't understand the scientific method.

This right here shows you don't understand how to have a discussion.

If scientists had faith in their hypothesis, why test it? The entire point of a hypothesis is to try to prove it wrong.

That's a good point, however, there is much talk about faith being tested. It's a common thread in religious Dogma.

Furthermore, accepting something as the best current explanation, as demonstrated by repeated testing, is not faith. Faith requires no demonstration. And furthermore, faith is closed to new information, whereas what we accept in science is always open to change.

I disagree that faith is closed to new information in all people of faith. You are generalizing here.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Ah yes the fallacious theist argument that asserts that science is faith based. Just another apologetic jester to make an excuse as to why science doesnt at all agree with theism.

Its much like covering your ears and screaming because you dont want to hear someone talk.

It doesnt take faith to accept scientific evidence. And one doesnt need to come to a conclusion how life (or the universe) came to be to reject the complete fantasies of the existence of magical gods.

That is what would be called false dilemma. Why must one be forced to choose between just those two concepts? Is it because you think the latter has merit? I reject that a creator (or creators) has any merit at all intellectually speaking. The problem lies with the fact that assuming abiogenesis has to just mean that life came from non-life is over generalizing.

The argument (by theists mainly) against abiogenesis paints a picture as if the line between life and non-life forms is definite. A 16 year old dead frozen mouse was cloned successfully. And if the mouse wasnt enough theres the Pyrenean Ibex that was extinct that was cloned. Not the same as abiogenesis of course but none the less it is a example of using non living material to create life from it. That concept and evidence along with this: How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time RNA world easier to make - BioEd Online

Again still not overwhelming evidence but its getting closer to that. The difference though is that abiogenesis can be proven or disproven while a creator cannot be proven.

So logically abiogenesis is a question while creation is a faith.

Correct, abiogenesis is a question, belief in creation is a faith.

But, then, belief that there is no creator is also a faith.

as for the false dilemma, what is the third option? Do you mean that life began by some other process besides abiogenesis? That still leaves us with only two possibilities: Life came about (somehow) and evolved intelligence all by itself, or there is a creator. If there is a third option, I can't imagine what it might be.