Do Scientists Have "Faith" in the Same Sense some Christians do?

[Sunstone]

A common enough criticism of various scientific explanations (especially the theory of evolution) is that it requires "as much or more faith" to accept them as it does to believe in a scriptural-based alternative to them (such as creationism).

This criticism is usually levied by Christians, and while "faith" in Christianity can mean more than one thing, it seems to me that the Christians who employ this particular criticism of the sciences generally tend to mean by "faith" "a staunchly held belief or trust in something in the absence of conclusive evidence for it". Hence, the notion that scientific explanations require as much or more faith to accept as religious explanations seems to boil down to a charge that scientific explanations require a staunchly held belief or trust in something in the absence of conclusive evidence for it.

As I see it, the problem with the criticism is at least three-fold. First, it utterly ignores the fact that most scientists do not "staunchly" believe in a scientific explanation (such as evolution), but rather only tentatively accept it as currently the best available explanation, and would be willing to discard it should a better explanation come about. Contrast this with the ideal of Christian faith as unshakeable. So, to equate the alleged "faith" of scientists with the faith of Christians would seem to be a mistake.

Second, the criticism again utterly ignores the fact that widely accepted scientific explanations tend to have an overwhelming weight of reasoning and evidence in favor of them. Contrast this with the generally underwhelming evidence for Christian scriptural-based explanations. To say that scientists have a Christian like faith in scientific explanations would be like saying that scientists blindly base their acceptance of such explanations on some kind of authoritative scripture -- which they do not, and which would actually contradict the very epistemic foundations of the sciences if they did.

Last, some people like to argue that the sciences are based on scientific axioms which are equivalent to "things taken on faith". Yet, scientists would most likely discard or modify axioms that conflicted with experimental observations, but people who take things on faith tend to value doing so steadfastly, even in the face of conflicting reasoning and evidence. Hence, there seems to be a distinction between how scientific axioms and things taken on faith are treated by their respective communities.

For those, and for other reasons, the criticism of some Christians that scientific explanations require as much or more faith as religious explanations seems to me shallow and simplistic.

Your thoughts?

 

[Sunstone]

I can see the importance and positive influence of science as a tradition.
It has lead directly to technological advancements and the development of knowledge.


I can not see the same for most of Christianity.

Historically, Christianity was instrumental in shaping the intellectual environment from which the sciences sprang.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

Interesting topic. I tend to wonder if I was the only one who noticed.

It seems odd to me that some concepts such as the Big Bang aren't so different from the Christian creation story. "Let there be light!" Then there was an explosion from an "infinitely small point." I don't really buy that. There seems to be no center of the universe because everything is moving away from one another in a seemingly infinitely large space. But then we're on a million-year collision course with Andromeda. Come to think of it, why do we assume that there is infinite stuff in the universe?

I think some things, spiritual or scientific, require "faith" to understand/believe. I tend to be skeptical about the seemingly improbable in both worlds.

 

[Vouthon]

Hello Sunstone,

As per usual, you make excellent points - and what thought-provoking topics that brain of yours produces!

To frame your analysis, you used the theory of evolution as an example. Is belief in this theory an "act of faith"? Absolutely not. Anyone who says that it is clearly doesn't understand what either "faith" or a "scientific theory" amounts to.

What distinguishes science from faith is falsifiability, empiricism and the ability to make testable predictions. This is the fundamental difference between science and other belief systems: that a scientist can predict something in advance (we don't know whether its true or not), then when we make an experiment and its confirmed, that then gives us reason to believe it.

Since you raised it first, let's consider a paradigmatic example - one among many - from the Theory of Evolution to illustrate this. Darwin was fascinated by orchid pollination strategies and actually discovered a special kind of orchid known as Angraecum sesquipedale. It had an uncharacteristically long pipe-like "nectar reservoir".

Now, on the basis of this discovery Darwin *predicted* the existence of an insect with a proboscis that would be able to get "in there" and retrieve the deeply-hidden nectar.

And not long after, biologists found one - exactly as he had predicted. So the theory of the mutual evolution of pollinators and plants successfully made the prediction that if there was a plant that could only be pollinated in this way, there must be some insect that did it. And this is what you call a "testable prediction" in science.

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, likewise, has made innumerable correct predictions - from the gravitational bending of light to the time dilation measured by our GPS phones.

There is no such experiment you can point to that could reasonably test the existence of the Holy Trinity or the Virgin Birth - because they are articles of "faith", contingent upon the premise that they derive not from natural reason (as with science or philosophy) but from divine revelation pertaining to truths beyond the threshold of science or physical laws bounded by spacetime.

Now this is the reason why Catholic doctrine holds there to be a so-called "twofold order of knowledge", if I might show you an extract from the canons of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870):


Pius IX Vatican I

This council was summoned by Pope Pius IX by the bull Aeterni Patris of 29 June 1868. The first session was held in St. Peter's basilica on 8 December 1869 in the presence and under the presidency of the Pope.

Chapter 4
On faith and reason
​

1. The perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.

2. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.

3. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.

Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things [29], comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ [30], he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God [31]. And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones [32]...

For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight [33]...

Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.

12. Nor does the Church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method...
​

Natural reason and divine faith are not at odds (indeed I view them as complementary) but they are very different means of pursuing knowledge based upon distinct "methods".

This is an important point and I'm going to return to it in my second post: where I will explain why certain controversial ideas floating around in modern theoretical physics - such as eternal inflation, the multiverse and superstrings - are potentially violations of the scientific method and lapse into the realm of "faith" because they are incapable of making any testable predictions or being falsified. A number of eminent physicists are deeply worried (even to the point of labelling these ideas as instances of "faith" or "theology" or at least speculative philosophy that lie outside the remit of science) about this situation because science - as seen from the likes of Newton, Darwin and Einstein - has always from time immemorial been an empirically based endeavour.

​

 

[shunyadragon]

Historically, Christianity was instrumental in shaping the intellectual environment from which the sciences sprang.

The real history is a double edged sword concerning the intellectual environment from which science sprung. Yes, Christians have made significant contributions to the advancement of science, but not without problems, Historically the belief in a literal Genesis has brought about considerable opposition to science through history and even in the contemporary world. Actually Lucretius in the 1st century got more science right than Christianity up until the 1400's and later. Religions like Islam contributed significantly to the advancement , and in the history between ~800 AD to say ~1600 AD were leaders in many scientific disciplines. I believe Judaism has been in the forefront the advancement of science throughout history.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yes, they most certainly do have faith. Scientists can't prove most of their theories are correct so it requires faith to believe they are correct.

 

[sun rise]

There are others who don't fit in that generality. Some scientists can develop such strong faith in their ideas that they refuse to give them up in spite of evidence - hence the "joke" that for a new idea to get accepted, the current generation of scientists has to die off. This has been noted for serious paradigm shifts on our understanding such as plate tectonics. But over time the OP is accurate - the goal of science is knowledge and knowledge requires saying "teach me" to the universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hello Sunstone,

As per usual, you make excellent points - and what thought-provoking topics that brain of yours produces!

To frame your analysis, you used the theory of evolution as an example. Is belief in this theory an "act of faith"? Absolutely not. Anyone who says that it is clearly doesn't understand what either "faith" or a "scientific theory" amounts to.

What distinguishes science from faith is falsifiability, empiricism and the ability to make testable predictions. This is the fundamental difference between science and other belief systems: that a scientist can predict something in advance (we don't know whether its true or not), then when we make an experiment and its confirmed, that then gives us reason to believe it.

Since you raised it first, let's consider a paradigmatic example - one among many - from the Theory of Evolution to illustrate this. Darwin was fascinated by orchid pollination strategies and actually discovered a special kind of orchid known as Angraecum sesquipedale. It had an uncharacteristically long pipe-like "nectar reservoir".

Now, on the basis of this discovery Darwin *predicted* the existence of an insect with a proboscis that would be able to get "in there" and retrieve the deeply-hidden nectar.

And not long after, biologists found one - exactly as he had predicted. So the theory of the mutual evolution of pollinators and plants successfully made the prediction that if there was a plant that could only be pollinated in this way, there must be some insect that did it. And this is what you call a "testable prediction" in science.

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, likewise, has made innumerable correct predictions - from the gravitational bending of light to the time dilation measured by our GPS phones.

There is no such experiment you can point to that could reasonably test the existence of the Holy Trinity or the Virgin Birth - because they are articles of "faith", contingent upon the premise that they derive not from natural reason (as with science or philosophy) but from divine revelation pertaining to truths beyond the threshold of science or physical laws bounded by spacetime.

Now this is the reason why Catholic doctrine holds there to be a so-called "twofold order of knowledge", if I might show you an extract from the canons of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870):


Pius IX Vatican I

This council was summoned by Pope Pius IX by the bull Aeterni Patris of 29 June 1868. The first session was held in St. Peter's basilica on 8 December 1869 in the presence and under the presidency of the Pope.

Chapter 4
On faith and reason
​

1. The perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.

2. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.

3. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.

Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things [29], comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ [30], he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God [31]. And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones [32]...

For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight [33]...

Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.

12. Nor does the Church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method...
​

Natural reason and divine faith are not at odds (indeed I view them as complementary) but they are very different means of pursuing knowledge based upon distinct "methods".

This is an important point and I'm going to return to it in my second post: where I will explain why certain controversial ideas floating around in modern theoretical physics - such as eternal inflation, the multiverse and superstrings - are potentially violations of the scientific method and lapse into the realm of "faith" because they are incapable of making any testable predictions or being falsified. A number of eminent physicists are deeply worried (even to the point of labelling these ideas as instances of "faith" or "theology" or at least speculative philosophy that lie outside the remit of science) about this situation because science - as seen from the likes of Newton, Darwin and Einstein - has always from time immemorial been an empirically based enterprise.

Nice and optimistic, but a little out of touch and selective with reality, and no it has not always from time immemorial been an empirically based (enterprise?). First, Charles Darwin experienced considerable opposition from Christians at the time, and experience a crisis of faith. Even today a plurality, if not a majority of Christians oppose evolution. Einstein is Jewish not Christian, and actually was philosophically more a metaphysical Naturalist like many Jewish scientists and intellectuals.

 

[sun rise]

Yes, they most certainly do have faith. Scientists can't prove most of their theories are correct so it requires faith to believe they are correct.

So scientists can't prove if you drop an apple it will fall and that the earth goes around the sun and that children are a combination of genes from the parent and that electricity exists and so forth. Who knows from what you said if you drop an apple it might float in the air and the sun goes around the earth and the earth is flat and children might be totally different than the parents and if you start an electric motor nothing might happen and that people might turn into trees. Of course computers don't exist because they are a product of science and drugs are fake and do nothing and the sky might be green tomorrow. Because what does science know anything - they're just a bunch of liars.

 

[DavidFirth]

So scientists can't prove if you drop an apple it will fall and that the earth goes around the sun and that children are a combination of genes from the parent and that electricity exists and so forth. Who knows from what you said if you drop an apple it might float in the air and the sun goes around the earth and the earth is flat and children might be totally different than the parents and if you start an electric motor nothing might happen and that people might turn into trees. Of course computers don't exist because they are a product of science and drugs are fake and do nothing and the sky might be green tomorrow. Because what does science know anything - they're just a bunch of liars.

Where did that come from? I didn't say or imply any of that nonsense.

 

[shunyadragon]

apples and oranges
unfortunately theres those among the two groups that dont respect one another

I believe in God, and I am a scientist, and consider them in harmony.

 

[shunyadragon]

Where did that come from? I didn't say or imply any of that nonsense.

Your rejection and misrepresentation of science remains notorious.

 

[DavidFirth]

Your rejection and misrepresentation of science remains notorious.

No, but your continual reliance on your assumptions makes you notorious. I do not reject science. I reject much of what scientists assume, that is true.

 

[shunyadragon]

Back to the topic at hand, by definition the faith of religious belief is not the same as the rational basis in objective verifiable evidence for the scientific Methodological Naturalism for understanding the physical existence.

A major difference is science is consistent, and evolved a uniform agreement of the foundation of the basic science. Yes, there remain unknowns and frontiers where the knowledge of science will change over time. Virtually all 99%+ of the scientist support the theory of evolution, and that is not based on 'faith.' The confidence of science is based on the assumption of the predictability and consistency of the nature of our physical existence. With Methodological Naturalism when every theory and hypothesis is confirmed by prior predictions the predictability, consistency, and uniformity of our physical existence is confirmed.

Faith - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

[DavidFirth]

im notorious
lol
i assume nothing as a scientist

My post was in reply to and specifically addressed to him, not you.

See there? You assumed that I was talking about you when I wasn't. Don't get caught reading things into posts that aren't there.

 

[Terese]

Hello Sunstone,

As per usual, you make excellent points - and what thought-provoking topics that brain of yours produces!

To frame your analysis, you used the theory of evolution as an example. Is belief in this theory an "act of faith"? Absolutely not. Anyone who says that it is clearly doesn't understand what either "faith" or a "scientific theory" amounts to.

What distinguishes science from faith is falsifiability, empiricism and the ability to make testable predictions. This is the fundamental difference between science and other belief systems: that a scientist can predict something in advance (we don't know whether its true or not), then when we make an experiment and its confirmed, that then gives us reason to believe it.

Since you raised it first, let's consider a paradigmatic example - one among many - from the Theory of Evolution to illustrate this. Darwin was fascinated by orchid pollination strategies and actually discovered a special kind of orchid known as Angraecum sesquipedale. It had an uncharacteristically long pipe-like "nectar reservoir".

Now, on the basis of this discovery Darwin *predicted* the existence of an insect with a proboscis that would be able to get "in there" and retrieve the deeply-hidden nectar.

And not long after, biologists found one - exactly as he had predicted. So the theory of the mutual evolution of pollinators and plants successfully made the prediction that if there was a plant that could only be pollinated in this way, there must be some insect that did it. And this is what you call a "testable prediction" in science.

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, likewise, has made innumerable correct predictions - from the gravitational bending of light to the time dilation measured by our GPS phones.

There is no such experiment you can point to that could reasonably test the existence of the Holy Trinity or the Virgin Birth - because they are articles of "faith", contingent upon the premise that they derive not from natural reason (as with science or philosophy) but from divine revelation pertaining to truths beyond the threshold of science or physical laws bounded by spacetime.

Now this is the reason why Catholic doctrine holds there to be a so-called "twofold order of knowledge", if I might show you an extract from the canons of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870):


Pius IX Vatican I

This council was summoned by Pope Pius IX by the bull Aeterni Patris of 29 June 1868. The first session was held in St. Peter's basilica on 8 December 1869 in the presence and under the presidency of the Pope.

Chapter 4
On faith and reason
​

1. The perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.

2. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.

3. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.

Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things [29], comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ [30], he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God [31]. And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones [32]...

For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight [33]...

Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.

12. Nor does the Church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method...​

Natural reason and divine faith are not at odds (indeed I view them as complementary) but they are very different means of pursuing knowledge based upon distinct "methods".

This is an important point and I'm going to return to it in my second post: where I will explain why certain controversial ideas floating around in modern theoretical physics - such as eternal inflation, the multiverse and superstrings - are potentially violations of the scientific method and lapse into the realm of "faith" because they are incapable of making any testable predictions or being falsified. A number of eminent physicists are deeply worried (even to the point of labelling these ideas as instances of "faith" or "theology" or at least speculative philosophy that lie outside the remit of science) about this situation because science - as seen from the likes of Newton, Darwin and Einstein - has always from time immemorial been an empirically based endeavour.

​

Spectacular post, Vouthon. I previously did not think of such things as the theory of multiverse lapsing into the realm of faith

 

[DavidFirth]

Hello Sunstone,

As per usual, you make excellent points - and what thought-provoking topics that brain of yours produces!

To frame your analysis, you used the theory of evolution as an example. Is belief in this theory an "act of faith"? Absolutely not. Anyone who says that it is clearly doesn't understand what either "faith" or a "scientific theory" amounts to.

What distinguishes science from faith is falsifiability, empiricism and the ability to make testable predictions. This is the fundamental difference between science and other belief systems: that a scientist can predict something in advance (we don't know whether its true or not), then when we make an experiment and its confirmed, that then gives us reason to believe it.

Since you raised it first, let's consider a paradigmatic example - one among many - from the Theory of Evolution to illustrate this. Darwin was fascinated by orchid pollination strategies and actually discovered a special kind of orchid known as Angraecum sesquipedale. It had an uncharacteristically long pipe-like "nectar reservoir".

Now, on the basis of this discovery Darwin *predicted* the existence of an insect with a proboscis that would be able to get "in there" and retrieve the deeply-hidden nectar.

And not long after, biologists found one - exactly as he had predicted. So the theory of the mutual evolution of pollinators and plants successfully made the prediction that if there was a plant that could only be pollinated in this way, there must be some insect that did it. And this is what you call a "testable prediction" in science.

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, likewise, has made innumerable correct predictions - from the gravitational bending of light to the time dilation measured by our GPS phones.

There is no such experiment you can point to that could reasonably test the existence of the Holy Trinity or the Virgin Birth - because they are articles of "faith", contingent upon the premise that they derive not from natural reason (as with science or philosophy) but from divine revelation pertaining to truths beyond the threshold of science or physical laws bounded by spacetime.

Now this is the reason why Catholic doctrine holds there to be a so-called "twofold order of knowledge", if I might show you an extract from the canons of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870):


Pius IX Vatican I

This council was summoned by Pope Pius IX by the bull Aeterni Patris of 29 June 1868. The first session was held in St. Peter's basilica on 8 December 1869 in the presence and under the presidency of the Pope.

Chapter 4
On faith and reason
​

1. The perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.

2. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.

3. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.

Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things [29], comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ [30], he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God [31]. And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones [32]...

For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight [33]...

Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.

12. Nor does the Church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method...​

Natural reason and divine faith are not at odds (indeed I view them as complementary) but they are very different means of pursuing knowledge based upon distinct "methods".

This is an important point and I'm going to return to it in my second post: where I will explain why certain controversial ideas floating around in modern theoretical physics - such as eternal inflation, the multiverse and superstrings - are potentially violations of the scientific method and lapse into the realm of "faith" because they are incapable of making any testable predictions or being falsified. A number of eminent physicists are deeply worried (even to the point of labelling these ideas as instances of "faith" or "theology" or at least speculative philosophy that lie outside the remit of science) about this situation because science - as seen from the likes of Newton, Darwin and Einstein - has always from time immemorial been an empirically based endeavour.

​

The theory of evolution is entirely based on faith if one assumes it is correct. It has not been proven correct and probably cannot be. One must believe it is truth on faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

im notorious
lol
i assume nothing as a scientist

Yes, his negative post was directed to me. Science makes limited assumptions. The only basic assumption is that our physical existence is predictability, consistent, and uniform.

 

[shunyadragon]

The theory of evolution is entirely based on faith if one assumes it is correct. It has not been proven correct and probably cannot be. One must believe it is truth on faith.

Science does not assume evolution is correct, and science does not prove anything. Science is not based on faith by definition.

 

[DavidFirth]

oops

No biggie. We're cool.