No Faith in Science

[Warren Stupidity]

A common tactic of those who claim that science and religion are compatible is to argue that science, like religion, rests on faith: faith in the accuracy of what we observe, in the laws of nature, or in the value of reason. Daniel Sarewitz, director of a science policy center at Arizona State University and an occasional Slate contributor, wrote this about the Higgs boson in the pages of Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious science journals: “For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.”


Such statements imply that science and religion are not that different because both seek the truth and use faith to find it. Indeed, science is often described as a kind of religion.


But that’s wrong, for the “faith” we have in science is completely different from the faith believers have in God and the dogmas of their creed. To see this, consider the following four statements:


“I have faith that, because I accept Jesus as my personal savior, I will join my friends and family in Heaven.”


“My faith tells me that the Messiah has not yet come, but will someday.”


“I have strep throat, but I have faith that this penicillin will clear it up.”


“I have faith that when I martyr myself for Allah, I will receive 72 virgins in Paradise.”


All of these use the word faith, but one uses it differently. The three religious claims (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, respectively) represent faith as defined by philosopher Walter Kaufmann: “intense, usually confident, belief that is not based on evidence sufficient to command assent from every reasonable person.” Indeed, there is no evidence beyond revelation, authority, and scripture to support the religious claims above, and most of the world’s believers would reject at least one of them. To state it bluntly, such faith involves pretending to know things you don’t. Behind it is wish-thinking, as clearly expressed in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.html

The dishonest equivocation being engaged in by the Defenders of the Faith, the effort to portray the stunning, awe inspiring achievements of modern science in increasing our understanding of the universe as no different than the absurd irrelevant and obsolete conjectures of our failed ancient religions, is despicable but not unexpected. In doing so they align themselves, knowingly or not, with the self serving promoters of ignorance and anti intellectualism on the right.

[deucemagnet]

1. K&R

That's a great rebuttal to a dishonest and common tactic.

[Cartoonist]

2. But

They're just trying to find common ground. They're reaching out to us non-believers by showing that we're not different. They miss the point that we ARE different. Reality and make-believe are not the same thing.

[beam me up scottie]

3. That's a great article.

What about the public and other scientists’ respect for authority? Isn’t that a kind of faith? Not really. When Richard Dawkins talks or writes about evolution, or Lisa Randall about physics, scientists in other fields—and the public—have confidence that they’re right. But that, too, is based on the doubt and criticism inherent in science (but not religion): the understanding that their expertise has been continuously vetted by other biologists or physicists. In contrast, a priest’s claims about God are no more demonstrable than anyone else’s. We know no more now about the divine than we did 1,000 years ago.

People who say science is a religion are either ignorant or dishonest.

Or both.

[AlbertCat]

7. ignorant or dishonest.

Some people just don't get it. Is that ignorance?

But y'know, some people just don't understand that math is real. Some hear about "thought experiments" and think Einstein just sat in a room doing thought experiments.... and so do other scientists.

Of course we sent a probe about the size of a Volkswagen thru the vastness of space and not only hit the target of Jupiter, but correctly figured out the sling-shot effect of gravity and got it to other planets out there in the immense emptiness. How did we do that? Math. It's real.

And of course Einstein looked for empirical evidence for his big theory....which predicted Mercury should have a bizarre wobble in it's orbit. And then he looked to see if it was there. It was.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Here are some people that really don't get it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026461330

It's not as bad as the moon bombing threads but still...

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Einstein didn't have the means to test some of his theoretical assertions.

When the ability to test them was there, they were in fact tested. For example, gravitational lensing:

It was not until 1979 that the first gravitational lens would be discovered. It became known as the "Twin QSO" since it initially looked like two identical quasistellar objects; it is officially named SBS 0957+561. This gravitational lens was discovered by Dennis Walsh, Bob Carswell, and Ray Weymann using the Kitt Peak National Observatory 2.1 meter telescope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

Ignorant or dishonest, but for those making explicit arguments equating religion and science using an equivocation fallacy over the meaning of "faith", dishonesty is the default explanation.

[skepticscott]

4. Not only with the

"self serving promoters of ignorance and anti intellectualism on the right", but the self-serving embracers and celebrators of ignorance and promoters of intellectual nihilism on the left. Those who see their "mystery" regularly retreating before the advance of science, and the last refuges of the "god" they still hope desperately to be able to attest to without being laughed at slowly eroded. Those who battle constantly to discredit and de-legitimize science in any way they can do so without losing all credibility, with vapid memes like "for every door science opens, it finds 10 more closed" or "scientists just make shit up".

So sad.

[uriel1972]

6. If we open a door and find ten closed ones...

It just means there are ten more doors to open. Religion doesn't even open the first door.

[AlbertCat]

8. Religion doesn't even open the first door.

Science even shows some religious ideas that people love to be true.... just not in a warm and fuzzy way.

Alle Menschen werden Brüder!

But we are literally all "brothers"...we are, science shows in the most concrete of ways, related to one another, and every other living thing on the planet.

You do go on after you die.... just not as the individual you are now, but the atoms of your molecules literally go on. You even come back as other things...... lots of other things at once. So these things do happen, just without the human continuity that makes them warm and fuzzy.

[F4lconF16]

5. Kick and recommend.

The proposition that the two are equivalent is exactly the sort of problem I have with liberal believers.

In doing so they align themselves, knowingly or not, with the self serving promoters of ignorance and anti intellectualism on the right.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. That's like having faith a wrench will turn a bolt.

Not only is it not 'faith' per se, but it's often wrong, to the chagrin of the wrench-holder. I can attest to enough snapped, stripped, or rounded bolts on that.

I take penicillin or other antibiotics that are proven to work, BECAUSE THEY ARE PROVEN TO WORK. Not because some self-professed expert in a white lab coat with nice thick respectable looking glasses said so.