Science is based on faith?

[Zeles]

I think that what EC meant when they say 'faith' is that one believes in something. I have faith that my brother won't let me down, that doesn't mean that I worship him, it means that I believe in him. People who believe in scientific method have faith that it gives them the right results. People who believe God exists and do x, y, or z, to worship him/her/other have faith that God exists.

 

[Frission]

How do you define faith? I always defined it as "belief that is not based on proof." Under that definition no, no it's not. But if you define it as "confidence or trust in a person or thing" yeah I guess. In any case I think it was a poor choice of words due mostly to the fact that it has heavy religious connotation to it.

It's like if call "Through the worm hole with Morgan Freeman" propaganda for science. It's not incorrect, but propaganda has such a heavy negative connotation behind it that it doesn't get the point across well. So in the end a poor choice of words, but technically correct.

faith [fayth]
(plural faiths)
n
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
I wouldn't put my faith in him to straighten things out.
2. religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it
3. trust in God: belief in and devotion to God
Her faith is unwavering.
4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles
people of different political faiths
5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something

All it takes is one.
Can you apply any one of these definitions to the pursuit of science, or Atheism?

If the answer is yes, then science and Atheism are based on faith.

So... why are you ignoring what his entire post says? I mean the last sentence in particular.

He isn't. He's pointing out the problems with putting equivalencies between them.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Faith is not an essential component of religion, any more than bread is an essential component of lunch. Just because you often see it there and can't imagine it being otherwise doesn't mean that's the only way it can work.

And if we bow our heads to the man on the sticks and repeat the noises the man in the black dress makes, he won't have the men with metal bowls on their heads use their magic noise makers to put holes in us.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I would direct everybody to a video series by Aronra, called the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, a series which clearly and exaustively explains and backs up exactly what science is, what it does, and why it is NOT a form of faith, as well as the opposite, what faith is, what it does, and why it is NOT science. It also explains why science has always been largely beneficial to the human race and why faith has largely not only been not helpful, but actively harmful to the human race.


This series explains it far better than I could.

 

[gritch]

This was in an episode titled 'Religion in Games'

And the quote was


"Now we at Extra Credits have deep faith in science, we will defend it fiercely and say without hesitation that it is greatest most ennobling properties mankind has. But we understand just that, faith. The only difference between science and religion is that science takes faith as a starting point whereas for religion its the central tenant."


This is a mush-headed pronouncement.

Simple example: Scientifically if I'm testing the idea that water doesn't ignite I don't simply have "faith" that it won't. I sceptically check this proposition by applying flame to it.

Continuing this simple example: I can then write a paper that offers the conclusion that water does not ignite. Other scientists sceptical of my conclusion try to replicate my result. If they can further papers supporting my conclusion are written. Further scientists accepting my result might then test the proposition that water can be used to dowse fires.

I fail to see how this is faith.

Again I don't think you completely understand what they meant by faith. The science progresses through skepticism and experimentation. Using your example: when you test to see if water ignites you have to make the assumption that what you're observing is actually correct. If I apply a flame to water whatever phenomena occurs I have to assume is actually occurring but I can never be absolutely certain that it is.

In essence the "faith" that is the starting point of science is that what I observe is actually occurring. Since all of logic and science is based upon out observations one could say science is therefore based on faith. I will admit it's rather abstract and really holds no practical use - most people make the assumption that what we see or what we think is actually occurring subconsciously and without this assumption no progress could be ever be made. But I still find no error in saying that science is based on faith - it might be a useless conclusion but not incorrect.

I don't think this hostility toward EC is warranted. I doubt their intent was to "covert" people into believing religion. I took it as an attempt to help create more of an understanding between those who are religious and those who are not. Atheists often complain that religious people are closed-minded when they themselves are just as closed minded. EC seemed directed toward those people of science in hopes of helping them understand religious people people better. I consider myself both a scientist and an atheist and I would fully support any attempt to lessen hostilities between those two groups.

 

[TAdamson]

In essence the "faith" that is the starting point of science is that what I observe is actually occurring. Since all of logic and science is based upon out observations one could say science is therefore based on faith. I will admit it's rather abstract and really holds no practical use - most people make the assumption that what we see or what we think is actually occurring subconsciously and without this assumption no progress could be ever be made. But I still find no error in saying that science is based on faith - it might be a useless conclusion but not incorrect.

Yeah I'm still not on board. The rather tenuous idea that we must take what we observe on faith then you are playing semantic games to support a very shaky argument.

In their most recent episode they went further into the wilderness with this point by talking about Descartes "evil demon", a topic that might be interesting to first-year philosophy students but has absolutely zero utility.

I will also point out that we currently have scientist testing whether this universe is a simulation. This is scepticism taken as far as it can go and demonstrate how little "faith" scientists have in anything.

I don't think this hostility toward EC is warranted. I doubt their intent was to "covert" people into believing religion. I took it as an attempt to help create more of an understanding between those who are religious and those who are not. Atheists often complain that religious people are closed-minded when they themselves are just as closed minded. EC seemed directed toward those people of science in hopes of helping them understand religious people people better. I consider myself both a scientist and an atheist and I would fully support any attempt to lessen hostilities between those two groups.

It's not hostility. All it is is calling out some very poor surmisations from James Portnow. I don't give a damn about what they think about religion. What I object to is their fucking awful description of science. ie. Saying "faith is the starting point of science".

It is not. It never has been. It never will be. Science only occurs because people are so faithless, for want of a better word, that they have to check and recheck what they believe to be true. This is the opposite of faith and Portnow has contributed to the misunderstanding of science by his pronouncements. He didn't offer the idea up for discussion, he offered it a statement of truth and he deserves to be called on it.

 

[TheDoctor455]

True, we can never be 100% sure that any particular scientific theory is actually reality, but when it comes down to it that doesn't ultimately matter that much. As long as science can produce useful and testable models which we can use to benefit our lives, science will always give incredible benefits to our species. In the end does it really matter if the theories are true or not if they can make our televisions, space rockets and cancer medicine work?

Agreed.

However, as far as I'm aware, there are only two concepts in science that could be counted as unsubstantiated 'beliefs'...

the first being the underlying assumption that science has to make in order to function at all: that everything in the universe can be studied, and eventually, understood.

the second being that: we know enough that we know nothing. (even if you understand what that actually means, its still hard to actually prove that)


But that's the thing, science functions on ignorance. Or more accurately... scientists have to admit when they are wrong or ignorant of something in order for science to progress.

The two 'beliefs' I mentioned don't quite function as 'beliefs' as much as necessary assumptions... or basic premises from which the rest of science flows.

As for the rest of science... well...

To quote Tim Minchin:

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed;
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved;"

For context, here's a video of the poem those lines are from:

 

[DuelLadyS]

It's not hostility. All it is is calling out some very poor surmisations from James Portnow. I don't give a damn about what they think about religion. What I object to is their fucking awful description of science. ie. Saying "faith is the starting point of science".

It is not. It never has been. It never will be. Science only occurs because people are so faithless, for want of a better word, that they have to check and recheck what they believe to be true. This is the opposite of faith and Portnow has contributed to the misunderstanding of science by his pronouncements. He didn't offer the idea up for discussion, he offered it a statement of truth and he deserves to be called on it.

You state that with a lot of conviction- you've got a lot of faith in that belief, don't ya?

Science starts with an assumption- to use the water/fire analogy, let's say I want to prove fire affects water. I go into this with an assumption- specifically, that fire appiled directly affects objects by catching them on fire. I'd conclude that fire doesn't affect water becuase it puts the flame out- and I'd be wrong, becuase I didn't account for indirect contact making water boil.

We also assumed the world was flat, that too much blood made people sick, and that planets orbit stars. All proven wrong.

Those assumptions are faith- the belief that what we have learned via science in the past is, in fact, true and applicable to what we are trying to learn now. Just becuase science asks, even encourages us, to question our faith in it doesn't mean we call our belief in things like gravity something else. What else would it be but faith?

I think it makes people mad becuase they're used to the word 'faith' being used in a 'this is how it is so don't ask questions' kind of way... but there's more to it that that. I have faith that specific bits of green colored paper have a lot of value becuase the government says so. Everyone shares that faith, so the currency system works. (Don't try to bring up gold value- I'm in the US and it's all fiat currency. There is no value aside from Uncle Sam's thumbs up.)

Faith isn't the blind belief that things are X or Y forever. It's an assumption that things work a certain way, and until proven otherwise, we continue to believe it. Just becuase you seek proof doesn't change what you believe.

 

[gritch]

Yeah I'm still not on board. The rather tenuous idea that we must take what we observe on faith then you are playing semantic games to support a very shaky argument.

In their most recent episode they went further into the wilderness with this point by talking about Descartes "evil demon", a topic that might be interesting to first-year philosophy students but has absolutely zero utility.

I will also point out that we currently have scientist testing whether this universe is a simulation. This is scepticism taken as far as it can go and demonstrate how little "faith" scientists have in anything.

I can see how you might take this as a semantic but that's definitely not my intention. I don't actually know how else to explain it further. I don't think that skepticism and faith are such binary opposites as you would imply. I see skepticism as a method for comparing two different assumptions (or faiths if you will). Skepticism is still dependent on a set of assumption. I would agree that skepticism is very important - it is what allows us to logically choose which assumptions are the most correct but having skepticism doesn't eliminate the necessity of faith.

I'm afraid that was even more semantic than my last response but I suppose I'm having a difficult time properly conveying my thoughts. I will agree with you that the question really has no real utility, save perhaps as a mental exercise.

It's not hostility. All it is is calling out some very poor surmisations from James Portnow. I don't give a damn about what they think about religion. What I object to is their fucking awful description of science. ie. Saying "faith is the starting point of science".

It is not. It never has been. It never will be. Science only occurs because people are so faithless, for want of a better word, that they have to check and recheck what they believe to be true. This is the opposite of faith and Portnow has contributed to the misunderstanding of science by his pronouncements. He didn't offer the idea up for discussion, he offered it a statement of truth and he deserves to be called on it.

I don't really see any issue with the statement that "faith is the starting point of science". It might not be the most useful of conclusions but its intent is far from malicious. I don't think Mr. Portnow has contributed toward any misunderstanding of science. This EC has allowed people to look at science from a different angle. Whether or not you choose to believe is of little consequence. It's helped ask questions and spark debates that can only help to expand our own understanding of science. I consider that a good thing.

As for him offering it up as a statement, I'd have to chop that up to the format of EC. It's rather difficult to really have a discussion with a web show. It was simply EC explaining their opinion on a topic - basically we're only seeing one side of an discussion. It's intent was to spark debates between others on forums. And I must say they have definitely done that much.

 

[TAdamson]

I can see how you might take this as a semantic but that's definitely not my intention. I don't actually know how else to explain it further. I don't think that skepticism and faith are such binary opposites as you would imply. I see skepticism as a method for comparing two different assumptions (or faiths if you will). Skepticism is still dependent on a set of assumption. I would agree that skepticism is very important - it is what allows us to logically choose which assumptions are the most correct but having skepticism doesn't eliminate the necessity of faith.

First "I see skepticism as a method for comparing two different assumptions". You're on shaky ground there already. Scepticism is not about comparisons, instead it is about questioning stated facts or propositions.

If we go with what I think is the best definition of faith:

"Faith is the acceptance of ideas without needing, without asking for, or without having evidence, and, sometimes despite evidence."

Then this IS the opposite of scepticism.

Now the best that you and EC can come up with to support the idea that science requires faith is the notion that scientists have to accept the idea that reality truly exists. This sort of nonsense is fine for first year philosophy students but as I said before it's utility is nil, clearly this is an argument that Portnow has dredged up to shore up what was a very poorly thought out video essay.

And we don't even have to take this on faith. We can make what is called an assumption and make no value judgement about what we believe whatsoever. We can assume this reality exists and let all results flow from that. And if the opposite possibility were true, would it really matter? If we're in the matrix which has rules and laws that we can observe and have no way out why does this matter? As I said, passingly interesting to somebody being introduced to the history of philosphy, but otherwise? Really?

I'll also point out that we have scientists actually running an experiment that they think will show a positive result if we are in the Matrix. A piece of whimsy on the part of physicists at the University of Bonn perhaps but still: THAT'S SCEPTICISM.

 

[kenu12345]

When I, someone who will gladly accept theories of science to be broken over time as new discoveries and explorations prove old theories wrong, have the same faith as someone who believes in something which is never subject to new discoveries and explorations...

...yeah. No fucking shit I'm gonna get defensive.

Whose saying you do?

 

[floppylobster]

If your theory of the universe can't explain science AND faith then your theory is incomplete. You can't discount either as just "wrong" without understanding it completely.

If you believe in religion but discount science then you should re-evaluate your relationship with your religion.

If you believe science is all that matters and totally discount faith then your theory is incomplete and missing something.

Any system of belief that fails to understand another system of belief is incomplete.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

I think the problem here is that the words "belief" and "faith" are treated as the same thing.

Faith is belief without evidence, you can believe in something that has evidence for it but that isn't faith. Let's not forget that a major excuse given for God not revealing him/her/itself to the world is because giving concrete evidence would interfere with the concept of faith.

The only reason the current scientific literature would believe something is if the evidence points towards it. That by definition flies in the face of faith.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

If your theory of the universe can't explain science AND faith then your theory is incomplete. You can't discount either as just "wrong" without understanding it completely.

If you believe in religion but discount science then you should re-evaluate your relationship with your religion.

If you believe science is all that matters and totally discount faith then your theory is incomplete and missing something.

Any system of belief that fails to understand another system of belief is incomplete.

What exactly is missing from a scientific worldview that faith can provide?

What makes you think science can't explain faith? Faith is belief without evidence, and it happens largely because people can't handle the idea of not knowing how something works, and either make up an explanation that suits them or follow someone else's idea.

Yes, the current model is incomplete. There will probably always be knowledge gaps in scientific theory, but that doesn't mean we should start filling it with mythology or you just end up with a "God of the gaps" situation where the divine becomes increasingly hard to justify as the gaps are filled in with pragmatic knowledge that doesn't require it.

 

[theultimateend]

How do you define faith? I always defined it as "belief that is not based on proof." Under that definition no, no it's not. But if you define it as "confidence or trust in a person or thing" yeah I guess. In any case I think it was a poor choice of words due mostly to the fact that it has heavy religious connotation to it.

It's like if call "Through the worm hole with Morgan Freeman" propaganda for science. It's not incorrect, but propaganda has such a heavy negative connotation behind it that it doesn't get the point across well. So in the end a poor choice of words, but technically correct.

Most people do.

Basically EC decided to use an outdated definition of the word the effectively strip it of any meaning in hopes to sound edgy or educated.

That's the only reason they've gotten shit on by people, they ran into a room saying "Hey everyone I feel gay today!" and then wondering why nobody thought they meant happy.

Heck there are 8 pages of comments after yours almost entirely because one (or more) words are being used poorly.

Basically any argument that falls on the side of "Science is faith based also" is nihilistic. Because at a certain point if you won't just accept certain things as true (such as you existing) there is no point. No point to talking or debating, its a boring belief structure and it leads to nothing.

Which I suppose is the point of nihilism.

If I apply a flame to water whatever phenomena occurs I have to assume is actually occurring but I can never be absolutely certain that it is.

Nihilism.

Assuming you mean you can't be certain what is happening is actually happening.

Now if you are assuming the mechanisms behind the reaction might be different from what you assume they are, then cool, I agree.

Otherwise boring nihilism and painfully pointless.

Spoiler: It's like the simulation question, that one bores me to shit.

"what if the entire universe is a simulation."

Great, lets think about this mathematically.

The entire universe and everything in it currently has a relative value to everything else.

1=1.

Now lets say the entire universe is a simulation?

You've just added or subtracted some sort of value from the entire thing.

1+a=1+a

Fantastic, you know where this leaves us?

Exactly where we started.

Everything gets better or worse to the exact same degree, its boring from a philosophical point of view. The only place this might be helpful is if it leads us to better manipulation of the universe around us.

 

[gritch]

First "I see skepticism as a method for comparing two different assumptions". You're on shaky ground there already. Scepticism is not about comparisons, instead it is about questioning stated facts or propositions.

If we go with what I think is the best definition of faith:

"Faith is the acceptance of ideas without needing, without asking for, or without having evidence, and, sometimes despite evidence."

Then this IS the opposite of scepticism.

Now the best that you and EC can come up with to support the idea that science requires faith is the notion that scientists have to accept the idea that reality truly exists. This sort of nonsense is fine for first year philosophy students but as I said before it's utility is nil, clearly this is an argument that Portnow has dredged up to shore up what was a very poorly thought out video essay.

And we don't even have to take this on faith. We can make what is called an assumption and make no value judgement about what we believe whatsoever. We can assume this reality exists and let all results flow from that. And if the opposite possibility were true, would it really matter? If we're in the matrix which has rules and laws that we can observe and have no way out why does this matter? As I said, passingly interesting to somebody being introduced to the history of philosphy, but otherwise? Really?

I'll also point out that we have scientists actually running an experiment that they think will show a positive result if we are in the Matrix. A piece of whimsy on the part of physicists at the University of Bonn perhaps but still: THAT'S SCEPTICISM.

And there lies the crux of our entire debate here. We're working with to entirely different definitions of faith and skepticism. I would definite faith as simply: an assumption one makes without proof. It needn't have such a negative connotation. One has to make the basic assumption that what they observe is actually reality and base subsequent logic from that. That is what is the faith behind which science has been constructed. Science and skepticism are methods with which we interpret our world from a set of observations which we have to assume are true - therefore science is based upon our faith in out observations. It doesn't matter if our original assumption was true or not or even if we acknowledge it, we still had to make it to get to this point. I... I just don't know how to explain this anymore. I feel like all I've done is repeat myself but... I'm unable to think of any other why of putting it here.

I don't really see the argument going anywhere. I think it'd be best to accept that we're just not going to agree on this one.

 

[LordLucan375]

I do believe that Extra Credits are confusing "Faith," with "Hypothesis." Look up the dictionary definitions guys, as they are certainly NOT the same thing. A scientific hypothesis is grounded in reason, namely, as they point out, a certain chain of postulates. Now they say that you must have faith in the validity of these postulates in the first place, so science is an evolution of faith, Q.E.D. However, these postulates are mostly, (I say "mostly" to avoid the inevitable "Oh, so every postulate made by anyone ever has always turned out to be true? *sarcasm*," replies) grounded in Logic. Logic is defined as "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity," so for example, Joe Average-Caveman might have caught a fish and noticed that it soon dies without water, so he then says: "Hmm, well it seems that fish die without water." This is a postulate constructed from a logical basis, in that he observed the fish die after prolonged exposure out of water. Now whether he is correct or not is irrelevant, (He is not, I mean not ALL fish die without water, like the Lungfish , as the point is that he made an assertion grounded in reason. Faith is different. It is the formation of postulates without any empirical evidence to support it. So say Joe's good friend Gullible Average-Caveman came to him and said: "Hey Joe, you know Karl? The one from the other village over? Anyway he totally told me that he walked through fire unscathed! All he said to do was to hold your hands above your head and say 'Doo-Daa-Laa-Laa-Laa' as you walk and you'll be fine!" So Gullible walks into the fire and catches alight. You see the difference between the two examples is that Joe had some empirical evidence to construct his postulate, where as Gullible hadn't even seen Karl walk through fire but believed him anyway, even though he had no good reason to do so. For what ever reason, Gullible had chosen to trust in something something that was not grounded in logic and rationalism and paid the price for it. This is, in my opinion, to be the fundamental differentiation between Faith and a Hypothesis.

P.S, If someone has already said all this, I apologize, but this thread is far too huge to read every post.

 

[theultimateend]

I would definite faith as simply: an assumption one makes without proof.

Which is fine except that means you are going to walk into every single discussion confusing your target audience because this is not how it is popularly used.

The words meaning has changed, there are better words to describe what you are talking about.

Perhaps like one you've already used "assumption", because I don't think you make assumptions when you have proof. When you have proof you make statements >.>.

Or even "hunches".

Faith, like many words, has been taken and now means (in common conversation) something new.

Welcome to Language.

I do believe that Extra Credits are confusing "Faith," with "Hypothesis."

You are correct and it was obnoxious and them doubling down on it just made it worse.

It's like when people on Reddit say that "Fag" means "annoying people" now and is totally cool.

No, just because you really want it to mean something new doesn't mean it will or even if you want it to mean something it used to mean doesn't mean it necessarily will.

Bugs me, Language is fun and beautiful and it would be nice if folks could just move along merrily with its changes.