Faith and Science should not be compared because they are not on the same plane. Furthermore, one’s faith should not influence their work, nor other’s perception of their work in the sciences. Yet… we live in a world of superficial, society-influenced, and often judgemental “group-thinkers.”

If you define faith the same way you define “trust” that’s fine, but if you define faith as “belief in the absence of evidence”, then you are very wrong. And how can possibly think that because X many people believe in something that that makes that something true?

So it is demonstrable that belief in scientific theory requires as much faith as most plausible religions. Considering the multiple branchings and variances, or even disputes and violent opposition, among even such well-trammeled paths as particle physics, quantum mechanics, astronomy (!), and climatology, I would suggest that faith is essential to even the most dedicated destructive-tester at DuPont or even the TV weatherman (-person).
But, more to the point, faith exists and is common to the overwhelming majority of us. C.S. Lewis was of the opinion that God does not believe in atheists; I’d not go quite so far, but I do suggest that most of us hold at least a degree of belief in supernatural forces. This being virtually axionatic, it follows that religion and religious topics make up a substantial portion of the consciousness of the populace, and has made a definite mark on the language. As such, reference to faith and/or belief is, I deem, essential for complete communication.
Sound bites, of course, are exempt from this rule.

On the other hand, as Sherlock Holmes once observed, the world is quite complicated enough just with flesh-and-blood villains without bringing the Devil into it. And he was right too; one must approach each experiment, each individual observation, as though one holds no beliefs – or indeed preconceptions. Otherwise, the Scientific Method loses all merit.

On a personal note, however, I ought to just mention one thing: A universe with no governing force, no intrinsic reason, no First Cause…. How lonely. How meaningless. How utterly pointless.
So I choose to believe. The world is nicer that way. But that has nothing whatever to do with the results of my last testing series…

I do like your statement that “‘faith’ includes the concept of holding to a belief, even when evidence challenges the validity of the belief.” The question is always how strong is the evidence and which aspects of the belief are challenged.

I am sure we can all think of examples in science and in history where people stuck to their guns in the face of an initial evidentiary challenge and were eventually vindicated. Wegener and continental drift comes to mind, although I’d have to read the history of it to be certain the challenges were evidentiary. They may have been simply the absence of evidence for a mechanism.

An ongoing example is the case of Meteorite ALH84001 (about which I wrote a children’s book called Martian Fossils on Earth?–note the question mark–described at http://www.fredbortz.com/MFOE.htm ). At this point, the evidence seems to support those who say that there are non-life explanations for the chemical and physical “fossils.” But the authors of the initial paper still believe (to the point of faith by your definition) that the evidence is suggestive of ancient life on Mars.

Future research may ultimately resolve the disagreement. If the life on Mars explanation prevails, the original investigators’ faith will be vindicated. In other words, I think faith has a place in the motivation for many people in their scientific pursuits.

That’s enough for me on this topic. I’m glad my thoughts provoked others, and I hope they will continue.

In my view, “faith” includes the concept of holding to a belief, even when evidence challenges the validity of the belief. If you don’t have this caveat, then “faith” means very little. In contrast, one can have “beliefs” while maintaining the willingness to change any belief if the evidence weighs in against it. I think this is the crux of the difference between empiricism and faith.

And that’s why faith has no place in science, which is an entirely empirical pursuit.

If you were looking for an absolute answer, I have to disappoint you.

I think my friends are pretty typical of the moderate-to-liberal political spectrum, and I would say that their personal values are informed by a world view that appreciates religious practice in the way that Jon described it.

Note that I use the word “informed,” meaning that my friends are not guided by fundamentalist doctrine, but rather struggle with moral questions from many perspectives. The Jewish approach is to “engage” with religious texts and the commentaries that came before us. We find insights, whether or not we bring a belief in God to the table.

As far as picking up Dawkins’ book, I’m just not interested in the premise, which is all I said about it earlier. (I have reviewed his “Ancestor’s Tale” quite favorably at http://www.scienceshelf.com/AncestorsTale.htm .)

On this topic, I find King’s book more to my taste. As noted, even if God is a delusion, the fact that many people believe in God may have survival value for our species. Because of that, I’m not willing to dismiss theists as less worthy than atheists.

Thanks Fred. You removed the context of my comment.You may want to pick up the God Delusion. It isn’t 406 pages of repeated text, Believieving [sic oops!] in a god is delusional.Back to Fred’s commentSome scientists hypothesize that believing in a god is an evolved trait that has contributed to our species’ survival. (Click my name for a review of Barbara King’s Evolving God.) Thus even if God is a delusion, important social traits of our species may depend on its persistence.Everything after the belief in a god has a degree of fundamentalism in my opinion. To what degree is Faith a positive influence in a modern secular society is the question. If it’s conformity of rules the Faithful are after, we have secular laws that are doing a much better job at taking into account the needs of a diverse society. No one religion can do this.

If it’s a problem dealing with the aspects of death, get a grip, hurry up and do what you can in this lifetime and help others to do what they can in this life time. One kick at the can is all we get. That is the reality of what we know.

I acknowledge religions help in the past and say thanks for the means and ways to achieve a cooperative society but society can advance from here with a little less prescriptive interference from denominational view points. Society will take religious concerns under advisement along with the concerns of all others. Faith in a creator leading to Faith based reasoning on the various controversial issues facing our society today is not a valid way to make decisions. Over looking the details of current knowledge is a bad mistake and serves no one.

Sermon ends here