Comments on: Is science faith-based?

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 04:11:17 +0000

what if—as frontier quantum physics is showing—all the rules to which we base science (method, theory, measurement, etc.) are all shown to be false? As we look deeper into the smallest areas of life, we’re noticing that the rules of science don’t apply there. Things like opposing newtonian laws and influence of outside intention are starting to shatter how we once thought the world acted. Obviously much more work needs to be done to extrapolate this into our physical existence, but it goes to show that even our “laws” of science are not concrete. Just as we can shape our thoughts, the world can be welded. It does not help to choose a stance, for it limits the possibilities of reaching a balance. In all of life, it is never black or white, but always gray. I challenge you to open your mind. Read some of these books: Biology of Belief, Intention Experiment, and there are many others. This is in no way an attack on you, it is only an offering of a different view point that I think could strengthen your understandings of what you already know. Thanks for the article =) and much love.

By: Nommer

Nommer — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:39:03 +0000

But how does science know their findings will stay true not only today, but also tomorrow or until the world ends? How does science explain the consistency that exists in, for example, the boiling point of water? Or the degree in which the earth rotates around the sun? Doesn’t THAT require some form of faith then, believing that the values science finds today will hold true tomorrow? Please, stop confining yourselves to believing that faith is only for religion.

By: Max

Max — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 09:34:01 +0000

I’m not very familiar with the theory, but in quantum mechanics scientists derived that faith has a direct influence on the physical world.
This might be an interesting reference – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSk51Lp-vHU
and as i said – my world really started to change

By: DJ King KEV LOL

DJ King KEV LOL — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:26:16 +0000

@Max
Why isn’t faith, and human’s knowledge that arrives from faith a work of art too?
Aren’t both knowledge from faith and scientific knowledge are masterpieces of art that stretch over MILLENNIA? Faith is a force? What force does faith have in our physical world? The only force it has is inside your consciousness. Faith is YOUR force. Plus, analogies are used to show a similarity between two things. Claiming science is “an object” is stretching the painting analogy too far and concluding irrationally. Being ignorant doesn’t get mankind anywhere. Although some knowledge are not applicable in our physical world, we should still pursue them.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:22:36 +0000

I’m a son of two scientists. Raised in a Soviet family of rationalists and atheists. I was like them for the most part of my life. I went to study architecture and now i have faith. I would like to share my view, as my path gave me a chance to see the world from both sides of this argument.
In my oppinion science has not done much but bring up a set of visual interpretations of what is already there. In a way it can be compaired with the work of an artist who’s life force is driven from continuous creation and analysis. I feel that science is an art piece stretched over millenia. Worked by the hands of generations. So careful and systematic, maybe even too careful. Due to it’s grand scale it is so well understood in detail and yet never makes sense as a whole. What is the final shape of this vast collection of kowlege? We are so close to finally placing the final sroke. Why is it not there yet? What makes an artist know that the work is finished? Nothing – he never knows, he just bleives in it. Im afraid that when we do finish this epic masterpiece of rationality, we will walk a distance from it, and find that it’s only a picture. Reality is outside the canvas. How could we not see it before we would say.
When i was an art student, teachers would always tell me that i was working too close to the paper. With all the pedantism I was trying to make the details come out fine and accurate and yet it never looked good at the end. Then I finally listened to my tutors. I sat straight, pulled my eyes from the work and still fearing to make a mistake began to observe how my hand naurally followed the reality i saw in front of me. As i let go of my rationality, a new feeling of movement and rythm and colour has started to grow in me. It kept me up nights, let me go without food or drink only to feel the magic of transformation. And the more i’ve done it – the more sense it made. The images started to sprout in my head. My world was being enriched wrom inside of me. I still cannot put this in words. Only fragments. And it’s been my life force ever since. The well out of which I derive my aesthetical and moral values. And I even notice the world change around me to a better one since I became a faithful man.
And having said all this I see no point in compairing faith and science. One is a force and the other one is an object.

By: DJ King KEV LOL

DJ King KEV LOL — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:58:53 +0000

Correction to image:

Faith Spectrum
Trusting not based on—–+————————————————-trusting completely based on

By: DJ King KEV LOL

DJ King KEV LOL — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:06:15 +0000

Is there no middle ground in this? If all scientific knowledge lies within a spectrum of uncertainty (Humans are controlled by unicorns) and certainty (there will be a gravitational force between two things with mass)-notice even the two extreme ends are not 100% uncertain or certain-, then doesn’t there exist an interrelated spectrum of faith and no faith? Put into mathematical terms, if a theory has 87.34% certainty (certainty of theories can’t be quantified but this is solely for the purpose of the argument), then doesn’t that mean remaining 12.64% belongs to faith? After all, to say you believe in a theory is to say you trust it 100%. Let’s be honest here, if humans didn’t trust some theories absolutely, our society would not advance scientifically. Plus, it’s a little arrogant to say you believe in a theory but do not actually trust it 100%. So that 12.64% leftover is your taking the theory in faith. Visually, it would look something like this:

where + is your theory

Evidence and Reason Spectrum
perfectly uncertain ———————————————-+———- perfectly certain

Faith Spectrum
trusting absolutely not based———————————————+———-trusting completely
on faith____________________________________________based on faith

string theory, for example would lie somewhere to the right of the spectrum. A string theorist, would believe the theory based on maybe ~95% faith and 5% Evidence and Reason (most of which is reason)

The evolution theory, perhaps would be ~70% and 30%? (The numbers aren’t important for the point I’m making. You probably will come up with more appropriate numbers.)

I am 100% pro science but I think a lot of scientific thinkers tend to be presumptuous. Science is a very proud profession. I know that marvelous rushing feeling of success when you make a scientific discovery. Perhaps it is that very feeling that pushes some scientist to think so provincially and defend their positions so emotionally.

It is no surprise man would believe himself logical,for he can only reason his logic in a logical state.Once emotion dominates,he loses all ability to realize his own uncontrolled passions.

By: Is science faith-based? « Geoff's Blog

Is science faith-based? « Geoff's Blog — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:08:32 +0000

[...] Is science faith-based?: I’m pretty sure it was Feynman who said that science does not require the initial assumption that the universe follows predictable, observable, and “knowable” laws. I believe it was part of the same interview where he talked about how an experiment does not have to give the same results here as in Australia, as is often claimed in highschool science classes (i.e. look up at the stars, they’re different). [...]

By: Rational Theism (Irony Alert) « Inside the Atheists Studio

Rational Theism (Irony Alert) « Inside the Atheists Studio — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 01:21:31 +0000

[...] is. Faith would require us to persist in our erroneous beliefs, even in the face of such evidence. This is not science. Show us a better theory supported by evidence to explain the complexity of life on this planet, [...]

By: Wally

Wally — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:19:57 +0000

Scientific method makes one assumption, and that assumption is based upon faith. You must have faith that that universe operate on set rules, and faith to assume that understanding can be derived from observation. I do not find it beyond the realm of possibility that there are aspects of the universe at are unobservable. It helps explain the inability to develop a unified field theory, and why standard theories break down in the presence of black holes.

By: Vanda Fiddler

Vanda Fiddler — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:15:56 +0000

Definitely, science is a process of replication
And it seems that spirituality can be oriented into science because unity most always is better than seperation.
There’s this book by Ken Wilber called The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes: Exploring the Leading Edge of Science (1982)

In it he says,
“Modern science is no longer denying spirit. And that, that is epochal. As Hans Kung remarked, the standard answer to “Do you believe in Spirit?” used to be, “Of course not, I’m a scientist,” but it might very soon become, “Of course I believe in Spirit. I’m a scientist.”

By: Ray Merkler

Ray Merkler — Thu, 13 May 2010 15:22:30 +0000

So glad you linked to this on your post from yesterday. This was magnificent.

By: goff

goff — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:12:50 +0000

To begin with I will unequivocally state that the scientific method is a very helpful tool for humans in their attempt inquire about the physical world.
There is a lot of ignorance here stemming from the author to a significant number of users especially in regards to this false and propagandist dichotomy between science and religion. The true dichotomy is between naturalism and whatever non-materialist philosophy on the other hand. Any person that utters such misinformed statement (religion vs science) is only insulting his own intelligence. Case in point many people here who have spouted such nonsense along with none other than the biggest atheist tool of all, dawkins.

The fact of the matter is the scientific method is ridden with faith. From start to finish. It is a practical impossibility to do science without any a priori assumptions that either are unproven or simply cannot be proven. Someone stated earlier that science is impartial to philosophy, which is rather laughable given that the main premise of the scientific method is the philosophy of empiricism.

Having said that, not only is empiricism a faith-based philosophy it is also ridden with two central dogmas, that of reductionism and the problem with analyticity. But then again, one would not expect the followers of scientism to accept that but rather continue with the blind faith.
If that’s not enough then we can also have a look at Godel’s incompleteness theorems, which practically nullify the false premise (or downright lie) that science is not based on faith. The issue becomes even more severe for those espousing the opinion of the author when one actually realizes the very internal limitations the scientific method faces… Let alone go toe-to-toe with Mr. Godel.

A big lol @ Gelsamel who said that math is empirical (i.e. has been validated by the scientific method). Trying to prove math via the scientific method, when math is one of the assumptions of the scientific method is the epitome of circular logic. Petitio principii!

On and one last thing… People need to stop treating science as an agent in the nature of ‘science explains this and that’. Science explains nothing! It’s human agents engaged with the scientific method that explain things. Fallible, subjective agents with their limitations and personal agenda.

I am appalled every time I see this type of garbage thrown around as its only purpose is to dogmatize science… an action that serves as the very negation of the discipline itself. In other words, STOP TRYING TO TARNISH SCIENCE IN ORDER TO SATISFY YOUR METAPHYSICAL BELIEFS YOU DISENGENIOUS IGNORAMUS !

By: Dustin

Dustin — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:11:23 +0000

“Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths.”

“The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules.”

As I understand it,the key word here is “unprovable.” This author is stating that his axiom, and only axiom, is provable, and thus not faith-based. If I am wrong on this, please correct me.

For AIG, is an axiom’s unprovability the only criterion worthy of defining it? I understand that the “a priori” characteristic of an axiom implies self-evident. If self-evident, then unprovable need not apply. Am I wrong? All bachelors are unmarried. We don’t need to prove that, it is self evident. Also, a priori and a posteriori are types of KNOWLEDGE, not “belief” as stated. It’s knowledge because it is true inherently.

So where does faith come in? It seems that a person acts on a belief, having expectations that the consequence of their actions will lead to a confirmation that their initial belief is true. If this is an adequate representation of faith, then are scientists actively trying to confirm their “one and only” axiom? The author is stating it is already proven, correct? They don’t need to confirm expectations, because time and time again those expectations have been confirmed. And yet, if anyone is familiar with Thomas Kuhn, they will recall the paradigmatic cycle that he claims is a scientific phenomenon. In other words, scientists’ expectations are occasionally being violated by anomalies.

In quantum physics, there are probabilities and randomness factors that scientists can’t predict. Newtonian physics implied that the universe obeyed a set of rules, but those rules changed when quantum physics came on the scene, leading bright minds such as Einstein to refer to it as “spooky action at a distance”. Supposedly, physics itself breaks down at the center of a black hole. It is very possible rules have no existence in a black hole, but how would you convince me otherwise? Unprovable axiom, anybody?

Also, the author’s claim that there is one assumption only is a matter of opinion. Every single scientist I’ve spoken with, every single book I’ve read, suggests at least more than one. The traditions of Plato and Aristotle form the root of at least three assumptions: man can understand the universe, the physical and mathematical universe are the same, and simpler laws are better. The first seems to hold the most weight. In my opinion, it easily transcends the author’s “one and only” axiom.

By: lamp

lamp — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:21:47 +0000

I am. a firm believer an science. Yet I am also a believer in religion.
Simply cannot see how adhering to one precludes adherence to another. They are not mutually exclusive. I recall that some of the outstanding scientists are recorded to have been very religious people.

In my case, science brings me closer to God. The article rightly points out that the main assumption behind science is that there are rules which are universal. I am of the firm opinion that rules (and very rigid ones) are only a product of intelligence. It is most astonishing that we should live in a universe where very rigid rules render it comprehensible. Hence I understand why Einstein is reported to have one remarked that “the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible”.

By: friedegg

friedegg — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:28:25 +0000

To Phil:

Your arrogance is so admiring!
Do you hear it coming?…

Wait for it…wait for it…

Oops there it is…Dogma.

Isn’t that what they say about religious zealots?
And did you not actually reference your own article to counter my comment in another thread?…Hmmm I wonder how the NIH would feel about your source?

Have you had a bowel movement today, Phil?…Thank God!

By: Help please - how to deal with moon hoax conspirators - Page 2 - PPRuNe Forums

Help please - how to deal with moon hoax conspirators - Page 2 - PPRuNe Forums — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:21:00 +0000

[...] Your assumption that science is faith based it the first logical error in the slow descent into the mental chaos and delusion that is Creationism. I am not trying to rob life of beauty and meaning, it is so palpably awesome but do yourself a favour and do a little real scientific reading and thinking on this stuff. By all means stick to your religion if it gives your life something extra but please don’t corrupt science with logical fallacies. I point to Bad Astronomy as an interesting start in debating yourself on these vexed issues. Is science faith-based? | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine [...]

By: Hmmmm

Hmmmm — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:15:18 +0000

It seems to me that declaring science above faith goes too far. Human beings are imperfect, you said so yourself. So we can observe changes, we can make measurements, we can tabulate information: all these acts require inherent faith-based beliefs in the human condition. Our eyes work, the world is as we perceive it, our minds are capable of comprehending the universe… the list goes on. This article toes the line between your usually excellent standard of scientific writing and philosophy. That’s a line you shouldn’t cross.

By: Florida: jumping off the cliff of reality with Texas | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:30:12 +0000

[...] (no, it’s a theory and a fact), and "Science is faith-based too!" (no, it’s not), and "You hate Christians" (no, I don’t, and I don’t even hate creationists, [...]

By: Mary A.

Mary A. — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:24:58 +0000

I agree with this blog because faith itself is beleiving without seeing and trusting in it. Science needs proof and tangible explanations. But for the questions that do not have any answers for example “what was here before the universe was born about 14 billion years ago?” I beleive that the answer IS God.

By: Chris from NYC

Chris from NYC — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:15:20 +0000

What nonsense. The author trots out the same tired horse (or ass) atheists usually produce in these discussions: we only believe what can be proved by the scientific method. And THAT is where many atheists’ faith beliefs stem from. They believe nothing of the sort. Science would have to trash many of its most cherished beliefs (and I use the word with intent) if they only assented to what has been proven by the scientific method. The Big Bang for starters, followed closely by Darwinism. I know that will cause the usual spittle-flecked rants, and smug, condescending charges that I’ve obviously never heard of the COBE findings or looked at researches done in baleen whale skeletons. None of those prove the theories by the scientific method. They are certainly scientific evidence, but they remain theories, unlikely to be ever proven– and yet so many of you operate as if they are fundamental truths. They may be true (I am not a Creationsist, at least not in the sense that so many of you would deride), but they are not proven by the scientific method.

By: timur

timur — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:13:11 +0000

- Is science faith-based?

- No, because there are many religious but great scientists, as religious people claim.

By: Is Canada’s Science Minister a creationist? | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:17:08 +0000

[...] me get this clear: science is not faith-based. Evolution is science, and science is not religion. Therefore, being asked about evolution is not [...]

By: Gareth

Gareth — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:45:38 +0000

I recommend this book

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-As-Metaphor-Roger-Jones/dp/0816619166

I read it at university and it blew me away.

I am quoting from the reviews but

“Physics As Metaphor demonstrates in precise, readable, logical terms why the four cardinal metaphors of physics, number, space, time, and measure, are only human, self-referential devices.”

and

“scientists themselves, have forgotten the essential truth that the tools science uses are only metaphors of reality, man-made systems designed to bring order and understanding to the world”

By: Best Of The Web - Sceince & Technology Posts and Articles Of Year 2008

Best Of The Web - Sceince & Technology Posts and Articles Of Year 2008 — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:04:48 +0000

[...] Is science faith-based? on DiscoverMagazine. Posted by Phil Plait, this post is anti-science and Phil is telling that “Why science in not faith based??” [...]