Equating science with faith

Scientific evidence is objective. That means that I see it, you see it, he sees it, she sees it, everybody sees it, everyone agrees about it, that makes it objective.Religious evidence is personal and subjective. That means that you see God, he sees Allah, she sees Jehovah, they see Buddha, those people over there see Zeus, everybody sees something different and there is no agreement. This is the opposite of the objective evidence sought by science. The two types of evidence are not comparable.--Percy

You were talking about evidence, not interpretation of evidence. As I said, scientific evidence is objective, and we know this because everyone can see and agree about the same evidence. Religious evidence is subjective because there is very little agreement.Concerning interpretation of evidence, a theory becomes accepted when a scientific consensus forms, and a consensus forms when the evidence supporting a particular interpretation becomes very strong. When the evidence is not strong enough to support a consensus then one does not form and there is disagreement and more evidence is sought. This is a strength of science, not a weakness.So what we see happening in science is that a theory becomes accepted because it is likely true. We would never say that a theory is true because there's a consensus. It's an important distinction.--Percy

Uh, yes, Tesla, that's the point. Christians see things one way, Jews another, Moslems another, Hindus another, Buddhists another, etc. That's because religion doesn't look at objective reality. It's called faith. If you had evidence for your beliefs they wouldn't call it faith, they'd call it science. And some scientists play golf and some play scrabble. The religious beliefs or lack thereof of scientists has as much to do with science as whether they prefer meatloaf or porridge. Your objection makes as much sense as if I were to say, "Christians are completely divided because they don't agree about what's the best car to drive." Your objection lacks relevance. Data that changes according to the way you look at it is not objective data. If I see a red car and you see a red car and everybody else sees a red car, then we can be pretty sure that it's a red car, and we call that objective evidence. When you see one God and I see another God and somebody else sees Allah and someone else sees Buddha, that's subjective. The age is ending? Really? Is that an objective reality for which you have objective evidence? Can you point to this evidence for the ending of the age and everyone will agree about it? Of course not. This is an excellent example of faith. So people who don't share your religious beliefs aren't being honest? String theory is not currently an accepted theory within science because it hasn't yet passed any tests. I know it's called string theory, but until it passes sufficient tests it won't become accepted by a consensus of scientists, and until then it is actually just a hypothesis, though one viewed as having much potential.It doesn't matter how much evidence you think you have for your Christian God, the definition of objective reality is something with sufficient quality evidence that is apparent to everyone and that everyone can agree about. The mere fact that there are so many religious Gods means there's no consensus, no objective reality to any of them, and they are just a matter of faith, not evidence.--Percy

Hi Bluegenes!About the Davies quote, he's not only speaking of a different kind of faith than the religious faith ICANT is preoccupied with, he's also not quite right. We don't accept an orderly universe on faith but on evidence, because we have huge, enormous amounts of empirical evidence that the universe is an orderly place with respect to consistently following the physical laws of nature. What we have faith in is that the universe will continue to be orderly in the future. It would indeed be a very weird universe where each morning we woke wondering which direction objects would be falling today.--Percy

Davies. Yep, though I wasn't expressing it quite that strongly. I've got to agree with you. While we don't know that tomorrow the laws of the universe will remain unchanged, we have lots of evidence supporting that they will be. After all, yesterday we didn't know the laws would be the same today, but they were. And the day before that we didn't know that the laws would be the same the next day, but they were. And for all the millions of days before that the same was true. Reams of empirical evidence says that the laws of the universe do not change over time. Yeah, I agree with this, too. In the end there's really no faith at all involved, in fact, it's the wrong word. The faith being talked about is really only a very trivial assumption that the evidence of the past that has always been a guide to the future will continue to serve as a reliable guide.I like Davies and his talks and his books, but he often waxes too mystical. But hey, he has a Templeton prize and we don't! I wonder how the guys from the Templeton Foundation felt, having given Davies their 1995 prize, after hearing him speak at the Beyond Belief 2006 conference.--Percy

Drivel? This is just well known stuff from religious history. I hadn't heard of the gravity one before, but I've certainly heard the one about planets moving around the sun guided in their paths by the soft breeze from the wings of angels, and I can't believe you haven't heard about primitive peoples offering sacrifices to things like volcanoes and other gods. Even the Bible is full of stories that include sacrifices to God. It's like we never know which ICANT is going to show up. Sometimes discussion with you is possible, other times you just close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and repeat, "Nope, nope, nope, nope." Here's hoping the other ICANT reappears soon.--Percy

Putting this in context and on-topic, claims such as those found in the Bible that are based upon faith rather than evidence will inevitably clash with reality. This thread addresses the "Oh yeah? Well so are you!" approach of some creationists who while conceding that creationist beliefs are based upon faith charge that scientific theories are, too.Clashes are unavoidable when religion claims God did something in the real world, because science will often uncover evidence pointing to natural processes. That's the risk religion runs when it makes claims absence of real world evidence. This isn't a case of science saying anything about God, but of religion making claims that are demonstrably false. Actually, the evidence of simpler and more primitive life with each preceding epoch back in time tells us that at some point life was so simple that it was just chemistry. This is a scientific position based upon evidence, not faith. Yes, it contradicts the beliefs of many religions, but as their positions are faith-based it should come as no surprise when they don't measure up against real world evidence.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Actually, we don't agree at all. What I said was that faith-based beliefs will inevitably clash with reality because they are not based upon the real world. Don't worry, I won't criticize your stick. Is it a nice one, I hope? I didn't say anything about you in particular, and didn't even comment upon whether I believe its important that people reconcile their faith-based beliefs with reality. It was a simple observation that conclusions reached in the absence of evidence, i.e., faith-based beliefs, are very likely to clash with reality. The topic of this thread isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, but whether scientific beliefs are based upon faith or evidence. While you may disagree with the conclusions that evolution draws from the evidence, they're still based upon evidence, not faith. Actually, except when responding to creationists, an evolutionist wouldn't mention God when explaining evolution. Science means building our understanding upon observations of the real world, and since God hasn't yet been observed as a real-world phenomenon he can't yet be included in those explanations. It wouldn't be accurate to equate acceptance of evolution with any particular religious viewpoint. Evolutionists come from every stripe of religion and no religion. I hope we don't see many more attempts from you to make discussion personal.--Percy

Okay, great, but if we're both drawing conclusions from the evidence, how is either of us doing anything based upon faith? That's this thread's topic, that science is actually faith-based. If you think you have sufficient objective evidence of God then just go ahead and use it to convince others. But I still don't see how this is an argument for the thread's premise, that science is actually faith-based.Shifting temporarily into Admin mode: I'd let it drop. When you're no longer the biggest blaze it'll be easy for me to put out the lesser fires. If you've read my posts as Admin in this thread then you're aware I've already made a start on this.--Percy

Let us concede, solely for the sake of discussion, that biologists are hiding the fact that they have no idea how complex organic molecules might have arisen naturally. How does that make science faith-based?It feels like you're trying to argue that scientists are being dishonest in order to promote their own preconceptions or philosophical preferences, and so I think you may be in the wrong thread for the battle you're fighting. I don't agree with your position, of course, but I don't see how it's related to equating science with faith.--Percy

This is so obviously false and has been rebutted so many times that we really shouldn't waste space in this thread going over it again. First, the mere existence of a theory is independent of the interpretive framework of competing theories. In other words, even if a designer were a valid competing theory, the evolutionary implications of the evidence still exist, they don't go away.Second, evolution posits processes that we can readily observe, such as mutations and selection. You not only have never observed a designer designing (and presumably implementing), you don't even know how he designs because you have no evidence that might tell you. The evolution taught in science class is accepted by scientists in the same way that physics, chemistry and geology are accepted by scientists, and it is the views accepted by scientists that comprise the broad body of science and which are taught in science class. It has nothing to do with God or faith. Whether God exists or not, evolution is still the accepted scientific theory because the evidence has persuaded the community of scientists. I'm still concerned that you're not sincere about arguing the topic of this thread. If you really think science is faith-based then you already believe it includes things for which there is no evidence, like the supernatural. If fossilization were not extremely rare we would be awash in bones from last years rodents alone. Now read the above back to yourself as if I had written it to you, instead of you to me. Fits just as well, doesn't it. It isn't the case that evolutionists have prejudices and creationists do not. It isn't the case that evolutionists have faith in their basic assumptions and creationists do not. These are all human foibles, and we're all human.So criticisms like this are a wash. The only way to settle discussions like this is to stay focused on the evidence and not allow ourselves to give way to believing the worst about our fellow man. You're coming back to this off-topic education issue again. We teach what scientists believe in science class. Creationists have to bring their evidence and arguments to the halls of science, and once scientists are convinced of it then creationism will naturally be taught in school because it is part of the prevailing scientific viewpoint. It would be a significant departure from current practise to teach something that less than 1% of scientists give any credence to.If I could slip briefly into Admin mode, I see you have a history with FliesOnly, and I assume with others, too. Please make my job easier and stay on the topic, which is about whether science is faith based. This thread has nothing to do with science education or the truth or falsity of evolution.--Percy

Hard to tell where you're heading by associating pragmatism and truth with science. Science is usually described as empirical, not as pragmatic or seeking truth.I have no objection to pragmatism, it certainly seems a most useful quality for successful scientific investigation, but it isn't a defining quality of science.I have no objection to truth, either, unless by truth you mean the timeless truths of religion. But it might be more accurate to say that science is seeking what is true about the natural world.In any case, I don't see how any of this is an argument for equating science with faith. Any endeavor whose foundation is the empirical gathering of real-world evidence would seem to be the polar opposite of the faith of religion.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Hi OurCynic,Reading through your posts I noticed that at one point you referred to truth as an ideal, which I would argue is something that really has no place in science. Also, by using the word truth there's the rather obvious confusion with the so-called timeless truths of religion. I think the word truth is best avoided in discussions of science.There's reality on the one hand, and then there's our understanding of reality on the other. Science seeks to consistently improve our understanding of reality through empirical investigation.So when you say this: I'd reply that using the word "truth" is ambiguous. Measuring the expansion rate of the universe over time is a much different effort than deciding whether good triumphs over evil. One is a scientific problem, the other is not, or if you beg to differ, then I'll qualify it by saying it is not a problem of the hard sciences. Where faith has been brought to bear on scientific problems it has been woefully wrong, not less accurate. The modern example is creationist's insistence that the world is 6000 years old and modern geography is the result of a global flood. Revelation and contemplation in the absence of evidence have proven themselves the worst ways imaginable for deciphering reality.This topic is intended to explore the argument that though creationism's tenets are based upon faith, so are those of science. As far as I can tell you disagree with this argument, so other than your of use the word "truth" there's probably little we disagree about.--Percy

The details of the sedimentary layer reveal the rate of sedimentation. Fine-grained layers require relatively still water and long time periods. If the evidence of the sedimentary layers were inconclusive concerning sedimentation rate (it isn't), that wouldn't turn it into a philosophical issue. It would only mean we need to keep working to find more evidence, and until sufficient evidence is available the correct answer would be, "We don't know." You have uniformitarianism defined incorrectly.First, specifically about sedimentation, uniformitarianism means that fine-grained sedimentary layers form in the same way in the past as they do today. Uniformitarianism applies to the nature of the process, not the rate.More generally, uniformitarianism refers to uniformity in the array of processes and forces operating on our planet throughout time. It does not refer to a uniformly slow or gradual rate, but it is widely misinterpreted as having this meaning, which could be why the term uniformitarianism was abandoned nearly a century ago. Whatever the reason, the term is not in play today within scientific circles and is only used by creationists taking advantage of the term's popular misinterpretation. Berthault's experiments were never published in any peer reviewed journal, have never been replicated, never see mention in any legitimate scientific context, and are irrelevant anyway since the specialized conditions of his experiment could by no stretch of even the most devout creationist's imagination have been prevalent everywhere throughout the world during the global flood for the entire period of flood sedimentation. The fate of most deceased organisms is decay and erosion to dust. That's why fossilization is rare, it requires special conditions, for example, rapid burial. As I said, uniformitarianism is not a term that is current within scientific circles, and the definition that you think it has is incorrect, meaning that uniformitarian principles as you understand them are certainly not accepted by science.--Percy

Entire threads could be filled with confusion over the term "truth". To varying degrees it will always be confused with religious truth, and religious truth by no means requires "coherence with fact." Why introduce this confusion?This thread is about whether science invokes faith in the same way as religion. I don't yet see how "truth," whatever it is, is relevant. This is like saying that walking brings you closer to your destination than standing in place. If the goal is to get somewhere then standing in place can't hold a candle to walking, and they're not directed toward the same purpose anyway.Belief based on faith comes from revelation and dogma, not facts. I can't help but repeat that creationism is a prime example of faith ignoring facts.--Percy