What about science implies a need for faith to comprehend?

Question

I had a conversation with a Baptist friend of mine, and he stated that some of the ideas and theories of science require faith to "believe." As an agnostic, I explained to him that faith is a religious concept and it does not apply to the scientific method. Clearly, he held a misunderstanding of how science works. I explained that scientists test and retest theories to improve and perfect them, while religions suggest we maintain faith in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

Having read many of the questions posted here, I have noticed that some people tend to try to make a similar argument. My question is this: What do those who hold this view think implies that science requires faith?

As always, I ask this question for purely academic and philosophical reflection, and with respect to people no matter their beliefs. Thank you. =)

Answer 1

Faith is believing something that you cannot see, touch, feel, smell, hear for yourself is true. Anything that cannot be seen, touched, felt, smelled, or heard must be accepted by faith because there is not 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt proof otherwise.

Can you see atoms? How do you know they exist? You can't take pictures of them, only their splats on special film. Even then, how do you know all those parts came from that one atom? You can't take a picture of an electron cloud, either, although countless have tried. And yet the scientific community accepts atoms and electron clouds as fact. Why? In their minds, they have enough evidence to conclude that those things do indeed exist. If, however, a concrete thinker comes along, those same scientists can talk until they're blue in the face and never prove that atoms and electron clouds are anything other than "imaginary" substances made up by "stupid" scientists to explain how they "think" things work.

Even though a lot of science can be proven over and over by empirical data and actual objects, even with today's technology a rather large chunk of it still cannot be 100% proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Thus, because these things cannot be proven, they must be accepted by faith.

Answer 2

I think your friend might be referring to the Intelligent Design Theory. It tries to acknowledge certain scientific findings (and you have to be ignorant not to!), but says that the way everything works in nature is so miraculous that a higher power must be at work. It also contends that life could not have started without divine intervention.
That said, it is still a religious theory and, in my opinion, has no place in science. By definition, science is knowledge attained through study. Science is purely logical with no room for faith. The great thing is that scientists acknowledge errors in their theories, while religious people maintain ignorance in the face of new findings!

Answer 3

Faith by biblical definition:
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

I can't speak for your friend, but I will tell you that I have more evidence of God, then I do of the stability of the chair I am sitting on.

It would take more faith for me to believe in a Big Bang Theory or Evolution, because there is more evidence of the Bible's truth than the scientific evidence.

The Bible is 90 percent prophecy, and the only one like it. It has fullfilled more than 70% of that prophecy already.

We have evidence of Jesus' walk on the Earth. The Bible has more authenticity of its authors than even Shakespears plays.

We have things like the Number 52 Manuscript, which is the Gospel of John, dated 66AD. That is 33 years after Jesus' death.

We have writings from Josephus that was a Jewish Greek Philosopher. So we have outside writings that talk about Jesus, that weren't just Christians.

He was seen by over 500 people, after his resurrection. We have writings from first christian Churches.

He prophesied about the temple destruction in 70AD.

Read about Nero Ceasar.

The things unseen are literally him, other than that you would be mad not to believe in Jesus of Nazereth. What are you going to do with him Pontias Pilate?

You can't wash your hands and think he will go away, he wants you, and you need to make your choice.

Answer 4

Charles Darwin believed that changes in species over vast spans of time evolved due to some sort of heritability and environmental pressures which select survivors and breeders over nonsurvivors and nonbreeders.

Today we know this is all COMPLETELY wrong. Now we know that small changes in the structure of a molecule called DNA over huge spans of time lead to a selection process that is not only dependent on natural selection but also sexual selection where members of a species breed more with those who have specific sexual traits they find attractive (like peacock feathers).

So this is just another instance where science has changed and was all wrong, displaying it's utter uselessness at giving us information about the world. Who knows, in 100 years maybe there will be some more detailed explanation of evolution which once again proves modern scientists all wrong.

;-)

Answer 5

I guess that they feel that we believe scientists without having our own objective view of science.

It is not the case.

As someone who as studied science I can honestly say that I think that it is all just theory to explain observations and nothing more. It could all turn out to be wrong and I wouldn't be surprised.

Back to the drawing board.

Answer 6

the man in the street who doesnt do science as a job needs trust in the scientists, this man can not verify the theories of the scientists. faith in the sense of trust is needed for this man.

Answer 7

Nothing. If new evidence comes along we move on. He was just trying to drag science down to their level.

Next time point out that he is implying that "faith" is a bad thing.

Added: Can anyone even make out what the guy below me is saying?

Answer 8

The inertial mass equals the gravitational mass. There may be slight difference, in which case, general relativity may need to be revised. Scientists are testing this so they do not need to take it on faith.

Answer 9

To belive that man came from an ape , wouldnt that take faith , or that the big bang caused it all . Where did the stuff to cause the big bang come from .

Answer 10

science is not more than a empirism projected into the future. it can answer no single fundamental question. its mainly based on self-evident mathematical tautologies.
if you indeed are agnostic, I'd expect a little more skepticism