Does science have a relationship with faith?

Question

Does faith lead to evidence? Does it drive us to seek out answers?

Science is derived from observations but what drives us to experiment to prove our observations correct? Do we have faith in our observations and theories?

Sure we may be wrong about some things but that doesn't change our faith in science does it?

- I'm talking about faith in generic terms, not religious terms... Seems like when you use faith everyone gets their panties in a bunch in here...

Keep your answers on topic. Again, I'm not talking about religion.

I never faith was evidence. I said from faith we move to evidence...

Answer 1

Of course it does.

Do you think any scientist goes into a billion dollar program with the attitude "eh, the results doesn't matter, all that matters is I got my grant money. It gives me something to do for 5 years...."

You enter into it with FAITH. FAITH that you are going to show people the WAY and the TRUTH with what you have thought up with your mind!

FAITH is what makes someone give you that billion dollar grant!

You have to be so EVANGELICAL about what you propose that you make them reach into thier pockets and finance it!

Answer 2

Faith is admitting that things cannot be taken for their own merits. There is no faith in observations, there are theories that agree with observations, and until observations say otherwise it is known as a theory.

On the other side, religion does not agree with observation since no god has been observed. From my vantage point, religion has done nothing but cause death and destruction.

Answer 3

Faith (in religion or anything else) is believing something without proof. It's incompatible with science.

For example, our ancestors thought the earth was flat. Scientists wondered if this was true or not. One Greek scientist devised experiments and noted how shadows fell at different times of the year. From the results, he concluded the earth was round. More scientists over the years devised more experiments that confirmed what he said.

It's not a matter of trying to prove what you already believe. It's a tool to get to the truth, whether the facts support your belief or not.

Answer 4

Actually, all the original founders of modern science were God-fearing creationists. They were looking for patterns of order in nature, and they found it.
You are right that any scientist has some kind of faith to test their observations; even scientists who are looking for cures for diseases wouldn't be doing so if they didn't have faith that a cure could be found.
Even evolutionists have great faith - it takes a great amount of faith to believe that the Earth/Universe is "millions of years old" without any direct observation, and it takes great faith to believe that a dog and a cat had a common ancestor, despite evidence to the contrary. It takes great faith to believe that man and apes had a common ancestor, despite a major lack of evidence. This is why we believe that evolution is just as much a religion as creation.

Answer 5

You may be up to something here. But intelectually honest people are open to challenge their own beliefs and change course mid way if facts or experience contradict their beliefs.

However a state of permanent doubt is not normal either. The pendulum is most of the time tilting one way or other...equilibrium lasts only a milisecond....

Answer 6

By definition, faith is any belief not contingent on evidence. An examination of faith can lead to doubt due to the perception of inconsistencies in the details of a belief concept. This can lead to inquiry and experiment, usually motivated by a desire to restore faith with the support of evidence. Since one is testing faith, any results are usually ambiguous, leading to interpretation that could go either way.

In Christian history, the Scholastic Period of the Middle Ages typically interpreted evidence (usually philosophical argument) in the light of the faith it was intended to prove. It was purely intended to justify the initial assumptions rather than create new knowledge but it was good mental exercise. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" is composed entirely of organized arguments on both sides of every issue he could think of.

One of the distinguishing marks of the Enlightenment and the early Renaissance was the attempt to build a discipline that could honestly test assumptions for validity, the "Scientific Method". Of necessity, it required a skeptical starting point. Rene Descartes is the iconic example, reasoning to his own existence by dint of there needing to be something that was doubting its own existence.

Many sincere scientists struggled to explain unexpected evidence in light of their religious faith. The discovery of dinosaur bones in the 19th Century was first explained as evidence of the death of the monsters Behemoth and Leviathan in the Great Deluge (consequently moving the composition of the book of Job to before Noah's time). In this case, faith cushioned the shock of new knowledge, but also blocked accurate understanding of the evidence.

The scientific method has demonstrated its ability to reveal and confirm accurate knowledge. But it requires discipline, a willingness to allow results that contradict previous assumption, and a consistent refusal to accept results at face value without verification. Believers may use the tools of the scientific method to "prove" their beliefs, but when the results are negative or ambiguous, they tend to abandon the rigorous path.

Faith bridges the gaps in our understanding of the world, and inspires science insofar as it makes the gaps obvious, but it often interferes with attemps to fill those gaps and make the "bridge" unnecessary. Every scientific hypothesis is a "belief" based on evidence obtained this far, but an honest scientist is always ready to demolish his most precious belief in favor of a better explanation coming to light. Faith has its time and place, but it's like an extension cord, for temporary use only. We should check our extension cords regularly for signs of wear.

Answer 7

Science has changed since the advent of modern statstics. It is no longer concerned with proving things correct but is more generally concerned with trying to prove them incorrect.

This isn't possible in all cases. But it is the most desired way of doing business.

Answer 8

I wouldn't have to perform the experiment if I went into it with the supposition/faith that my hypothesis was correct.

Answer 9

Because the correct term is a Hypothesis.

Answer 10

Faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.