Science vs. Faith

[DrYouth]

Chase anything down far enough and one will find a requirement to make a leap of faith.

+1

We can only doubt one premise at a time.
The rest is all faith.
Faith in what we were taught - culturally, by our family and teachers.
We have to accept these teachings, to have any hope of managing the world.
Later we can question them and make direct observations and potentially refute one or two of them...
But refuting the whole shooting match is a dangerous business... the void is dark.

[Paulo]

Chase anything down far enough and one will find a requirement to make a leap of faith.

+1

We can only doubt one premise at a time.
The rest is all faith.
Faith in what we were taught - culturally, by our family and teachers.
We have to accept these teachings, to have any hope of managing the world.
Later we can question them and make direct observations and potentially refute one or two of them...
But refuting the whole shooting match is a dangerous business... the void is dark.

I prefer to think that the void is dark till you light a match! Faith is a very powerful thing that cannot be associated only with religion. I still think that religion was created to subdue people, because I have lived through the experience in my youth. Once I started to questioning and finding my own answers, I saw the role of religion. I have seen all kinds of people with all kinds of religions, and if they are good with themselves, I am good with them. Just don't expect me to join.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I think if you view science not as 'what we know about shit,' but as the process of vetting what we think we know about shit, then it is incompatible with faith if you define it:

faith

noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Not to say you can't do top tier science, and have faith in something or other... but faith is anathema to the process that makes scientific evidence reliable.

[boethius]

The process of doing science requires at least five acts of faith (that I can think of off the top of my head) that cannot be proven by the process of scientific empiricism:

1. Faith that there is an objective reality outside our senses/perceptions. (brain in a vat thought experiment)
2. Faith that cause and effect exist. (see, e.g. Hume's problem of induction).
3. Faith that objective reality operates according to logical laws of operation.
4. Faith that objective reality's laws of operation are consistent throughout time and space.
5. Faith that our brains are capable of understanding the fundamental laws of the universe despite our brains being formed by blind forces of evolution selecting for survival on the plains of the Serengeti.

[Two Man]

All of those things can be proven scientifically to a reasonable degree of certainty that (in my mind) precludes faith. It is more about probabilities than certainties. If something is verifiable and repoducable 99.99% of the time, that should be good enough to accept without faith as an objective reality.

[Speaker to Animals]

All of those things can be proven scientifically to a reasonable degree of certainty that (in my mind) precludes faith. It is more about probabilities than certainties. If something is verifiable and repoducable 99.99% of the time, that should be good enough to accept without faith as an objective reality.

Proven, how?

[Two Man]

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

[Fife]

X

[Martin Hash]

I have seen all kinds of people with all kinds of religions, and if they are good with themselves, I am good with them. Just don't expect me to join.

Ditto

[Two Man]

I suppose that is a trick question for an as yet unsolved math problem. But to say there is no objective reality is to say that my popcorn fart smells like rose petals.