How is science NOT based on faith?

Question

Science is based on the tautology 1=1, yet science is incapable of proving 1.

Science is a human endeavor and incapable of absolute perception (there are no absolute measurements in science)...therefore all scientific belief is, in fact, on the basis of faith (trust that the belief is true).

Science is conditional truth, not truth. Every scientific "truth" or "fact" (i.e. f = ma) is based on the assumption of conditions that can never be fully known, understood, or delineated.

Therefore, faith and science are not antonyms; science is merely faith applied.

Neither are truth and faith antonyms, as all truth (or "facts") must be accepted by faith (trust that the belief is true).

I know this recognition is unacceptable to people desiring a quick dismissal of "all things religious," but exactly how is science not based on faith?

Prove that science is truth.

(And the pure sophistry that "science is about fact, not truth" can only be uttered by blithering idiots.)

Answer 1

To make this argument is to deny it. If we are denying science, logic, reason, and observations I can't be sure we're having a conversation at all. To deny basic truths is to throw the world into chaotic nonsense. It's not faith, it's acceptance.

Answer 2

There are several ways to look at it. One thing is that you are confusing belief and faith, two closely related and overlapping terms. You can believe something is true or not based on the evidence presented. (That is how the American judicial system works.) Having faith that something is true has nothing to do with evidence.

A religion is a faith. Science is not a faith. Because some scientists are atheists does not mean science is their religion.

If you are interested in the nature of science, I suggest a few years of philosophy classes. Western philosophy starts with the Presocratics (5th century BCE) so there is a lot of ground to cover. There is more than enough discussion of the nature of reality (i.e. science) and faith to keep you busy for some time. (BTW, an older term for "science" in English was "natural philosophy".)

The scientific method is based on developing a hypothesis, testing it, and using it to predict future observations. It has nothing to do with faith or Truth-with-a-capital-T. It is not "faith applied".

If you were piloting an airplane, and suddenly decided that aerodynamics was "applied faith" and you didn't believe it anymore, what would happen?

Answer 3

Science, on the flip side, has no qualms about acknowledging that it is founded on unprovable axioms. There's a difference though, between a belief and an axiom. A belief is held as true no matter what -- an axiom is entirely take it or leave it. Start with the Euclidean axioms. Hrrrrm... don't like the parallel line axiom? Fine, throw it out... you're now playing the hyperbolic geometry game instead of Euclidean geometry game. Neither set of axioms is more or less complete. Science rests on three axioms -- and while they cannot be proven (hence, axioms), it can be demonstrated that if these axioms were not true, then no knowledge could be attained at all.

Answer 4

Yet again, a fine display of ignorance with regard to logic and reason.

Assumption is not belief or faith. When we assume something is true, we are not claiming it to be true, or believing it to be true. We don't say that 1 has to equal 1. We assume 1 = 1, or we define 1 = 1, then go on from there. Even the word "true" can defined any number of ways. We just say of you define the word "true" to mean something, then we will use that definition throughout whatever argument or discussion we are having for the purposes of that argument or discussion.

Answer 5

This all depends on one thing: do you admit that logic as a self-contained system exists?

If you do, then you are on the side of reason. If you do not, then you need God to explain why there are any natural laws at all. But there's a small problem with that latter: if God is required for everything to have come into existence and to continue existing (as implied by there being no natural laws), then everything is predetermined. And if everything is predetermined, there is no need for sentient observers to have ideas, because it will all happen regardless of what we think.

And for the person that said "a code demands a coder," analogies require that a person have knowledge of all parts of the analogy in order for them to be fully understood.

Answer 6

i understand what you are trying to say. But this is just semantics trying to get faith off the hook.
there is a big difference between faith in gravity and faith that God will get mad at America for allowing embryonic stem-cell research. Some people call it reasonable faith vs unreasonable. Do you see the difference? If so, can you explain it to your more religious friends?

and finally, i can say that the laws we call science wouldn't go away if humans went extinct, faith would.

Answer 7

Science must be confirmed in reality (not matters of faith).

Science will change it's assumptions in light of new evidence (faith will not).

Science SEEKS truth (faith claims to already have it).


Faith is belief IN SPITE OF evidence, or beliefs that contradict experience (the opposite of science).


Think about it.... why does science not except claims about UFOs, Big Foot, or Astrology?

And if you claim that all beliefs are equally good, do you say your God's reality is just as likely at Big Foot's?

Answer 8

Blithering idiots? OK...let's see about that.

You have early-stage cancer. Doctors (science) tell you you will have a 90% chance of survival with treatment. (They know this from experience and real evidence that this treatment works.)
Your church group tells you that you have a 100% chance of being healed through faith, because Jesus said, "Whatsoever you ask for in my name, you shall receive." They show you Bible verses, and pages of testimony from other believers who claim that faith healed their illnesses.

You have a choice between being treated by science (Medicine, chemotherapy, etc.)

or by faith. (Prayer to Jesus)

What would you choose?

I thought so.

Those "Blithering idiots" just saved your life.

Answer 9

The world revolves around the sun, this is a proven fact not speculation, therefore your claim that science is based of faith is false. Consider this.....if excessive amounts of carbon dioxide enter your body, you will die. Thus we excersice caution that we not inhale it. This is the wonder that medicine has brought us. Science saves lifes.....prayer does not.

Answer 10

Science cannot create something from nothing it can only use whatever elements are present around us,not only that but Science can only really discover that which is already put in place by the Creator Himself,when the very last fish has been taken from the oceans of the world will science be able to put them back without the use of cloning which is not pure creation.