faith in science?

Question

im not that religious but why do all the atheists put the same amount of faith in science that christians put in God. scientists always think they have things figured out, and then they prove themselves wrong later and come out with the next scientific fact. a few hundred years ago science knew the world was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. what will they know for sure 100 years from now that disproves what they know for sure today. it all takes faith, religion or not. not to say science shouldnt look for answers, but if you put your faith in science it has proven throughout time that it will fail

Answer 1

Its not called faith if you can see it.

LadyB: If a scientist had faith in the outcome of an experiment, why do the experiment? And if you define "faith" as "noncommittal expectation based on some previous experience" what does that say about having "faith" in God?

Answer 2

There's a difference between the blind faith that religious people have and faith in science. Faith in Science comes from a trust people develop because they see the effects of science in their everyday lives. People do often(even Atheists) have faith in science but they do not have to necessarily. Science uses facts and evidence. In fact the beauty of science is that it is constantly looking for truth to the best of human ability, therefore it changes as does human ability. Science recognizes how humble humans are before the universe while Religion gives an easy answer without proof("God did it"). And just to note it's only been maybe 100 years that we've really been studying Science in the proper secular sense so I'd wager that the scientific ideas of today have a much higher probability of remaining valid in the future as opposed to those of a few hundred years ago.

Answer 3

As I began to embrace atheism, this wassomething I struggled with... I had never confirmed or could hope to confirm all of the things sciene teaches.... I'd have to be a person of faith of some sort.... but the fact is that I feel science is more trustworthy than the religious sorts. Because it changes when things once thought true are proven false... This gives me comfort. Science is a commitment to truth no matter how uncomfortable that makes people.

Religion on the other hand, will look a bold glaring fact in the face and try to demonize it because it counters what they always believed. From the days of Copernicus, Kepler and Galellio to Stem Cell Research, the pattern continues.

Answer 4

Science has not failed YOU! If it weren't for science the chances of you having died at birth, or as an infant, would have been a great deal higher. Look at how old prayer is, and what has it accomplished? Religion is about believing you already know. Science is about learning. The first step to learning anything is admitting that you DON'T KNOW. And religion is not capable of that. A scientist, trying to find an answer, has more faith than a preacher claiming to know it.

Answer 5

The question is about a shared rationality. Currently, the sciences --rightly understood-- share an understanding of 1) what some of the unanswered questions of science are, 2) what counts as a good argument for supplying answers to the problems, and 3) what a solution to any given problem must look like given the present state of some science.

Unknowledgeable atheists like their theist counter parts do not grasp well what is at stake in a community that values a rational understanding of what it means to be human. Not everything we can assert about being human finds its place in a "science", but this in no way denies the role of reason to illumine those areas of human being. The tapestry of human life is a much wider weave than physics, say, or mathematics; but those threads of the sciences cannot be ignored.

For example, there is more --much more-- to a good argument than mere "evidence." Deciding on forms of living together, community structure and the like are bettered with better reasons, but to ask "Is the community life of the Amish" (say) "better than that of Summertown, Tennessee?" is not decided soley on the basis of evidence.

HTH

Charles

Answer 6

The reason you gave about not putting faith in science is the same reason to trust science over god and religion. For example, science changes as things are discovered, proved and disproved. Science doesn't state anything as fact, things are only hypothesized and tested. The same cannot be said for religion; it is rigid and doesn't change even when proven wrong.

Answer 7

Science didn't say the world was flat. The lack of science as we know it today led people to conclude that it was flat.

The same lack of science led people for a long time to believe that the sun moved around the earth. Even when science proved that it was the other way around, the church tried to suppress that knowledge.

True science that involves experimentation, predictability of results and replication of results doesn't require faith.

Answer 8

Any true scientist will admit that the more we find out, the more we realize we don't know.

Science is good at what it does. It has it's limitations, but within it's own realm, it is king. The problem comes when people try to argue philosophy scientifically. Science is not philosophy and will never be any good at what philosophy does. I prefer to keep the two separate as much as possible.

Answer 9

Actually science proved the world was round in ancient Greek times, and that the earth moved around the sun in the middle ages. In both cases that information was suppressed--often violently--by the CHURCH, for reasons of religion.

Answer 10

At least science is dynamic, always taking steps to better itself. That's a different kind of faith than taking literally the words of a 2000 year old book.