What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.1007 Comments
- cosmicastaway, on 02/19/2008, -14/+312The best part: "it’s difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into."
- skepticality, on 02/19/2008, -32/+143EXACTLY! Can we make this a damn election main issue for once? :)
- Sornos, on 02/19/2008, -27/+136Though I agree wholeheartedly with the article, I can see where people see the whole "faith in science" thing. People who believe that science requires faith often do not understand the subject at hand. For example, I am a biologist. I study biology. I do not understand how electronics work other than that they use circuits and the turning off and on of said circuits to exchange data. If you explained how it worked exactly, I must take your word on faith because I can not study it myself (I could, but that's not the point). Conversely, I can explain cellular functions to you. If you did understand the subject, you must take my word on it. When someone says science takes faith it only means faith in each other, not in the process.
- inactive, on 02/19/2008, -19/+109I do actually believe that at a certain level, science does require "faith" of a sort. I say this a "devout" atheist and a scientist/mathematician, so hear me out...
"Science" as a methodology and body of knowledge, has little to do with faith. For the most part the "theories" of science *are* precisely that, and in the strictest sense, any "fact" merely has an extremely high (as in *extremely*...) probability of being true. Anything framed in terms of probabilities *cannot* be an issue of faith, as faith is an issue of absolute truth or falsehood, which, truly, have no place in the scientific method.
That being said, i think it does require a certain amount of "faith" as an individual in order to be a good scientist. I have "faith" that math works, and i have "faith" that these extremely high probabilities of occurance will not be "violated". Logic (which is the heart of science) relies on axioms; and axioms, by definition, are unprovable assertions. For example: "If A implies B and B implies C, Then A implies C" I have faith that this is true; but any "proof" would necessarily be a circular argument, for how would one link together the steps of the proof without using the result itself? Furthermore, I think that for many scientists, their driving force to continue their work is a "faith" that there *is* some sort of elegant grand unifying rational explanation; there is no way to know if science can ultimately provide such a beautiful, all-encompasing "god equation" (please excuse my metaphor...). Without the last bit of "faith" to fill in the gap between science as a methodology, and belief in it's results; scientists would have little motivation to extend the field.
I don't see this as a bad thing; in fact I feel that this may be an oft-overlooked aspect of the "atheistic scientist" crowd that would help to "convert" others to the cause of science. Often times, my atheism is criticized for taking the beauty and mystery out of the world, or "unweaving the rainbow" so to speak; and leaving no room for mystery, meaning, or motivation. On the contrary, I feel like this "scientific faith" is much deeper and richer than any faith in a higher being; and provides it's own sense of spirituality that is at the same time both outside the realm of rationality, but yet grounded in observation and consistent with scientific knowledge.
As usually happens, somebody else summed it up better: "It's gotta be beautiful all the way down"
and *that* i think is the mark of a truly motivated scientific mind; and is a statement of faith. - BadAstronomer, on 02/19/2008, -7/+95No, you are confusing "trust" with "faith". I can trust something based on evidence, or I can trust something based on faith. Faith is belief without evidence, which is how most religious people would interpret the word, and why i used it the way I did in the article.
- Daz3, on 02/19/2008, -2/+84"who is anyone to call another mans logic inferior?"
I am someone who will. Logic is not subjective, logic is the art of forming an argument and then validating it based on self evident principles.
If your use of logic forms an argument that is not valid due to the constraints of said self evident principles I will gladly inform you that your logic is inferior. - gordonj, on 02/19/2008, -5/+65Faith is not logic.
- pimpzilla, on 02/19/2008, -2/+58"I must take your word on faith because I can not study it myself (I could, but that's not the point)." You could, that IS the point. Science is based on others being able to replicate your findings. Faith, in the sense discussed here, involves believing in things no one can replicate. That is the difference. The fact that a qualified individual can study, and verify or falsify, anything in science is precisely the reason it cannot be considered faith-based.
- BadAstronomer, on 02/19/2008, -8/+57The article is not meant to be a long essay on the true nature of science, but a comparison of the basics of the scientific method compared to the blind faith of religion. Going in depth in epistemology in a blog post of this nature would muddy the waters worse than they already have been by creationists.
- Daz3, on 02/19/2008, -1/+49"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche - Daz3, on 02/19/2008, -0/+48That is the way in which Science works. Empirical evidence is gathered and theories are created that explain the evidence. These theories then provide a framework within which scientists can make predictions about how the world will work in certain situations; these situations are then created in a controlled test situation to determine whether the theory is consistent with the workings of the universe.
If the test does not falsify the theory more predictions and tests are created. If the test does falsify the theory , the theory will need to be reworked or, if the damage is too critical, the theory can be thrown away.
The one thing that can make Science do a complete 180 degree turn is the emergence of new empirical evidence, especially if it can not be explained by any of the current theories. - Daz3, on 02/19/2008, -3/+48"world being 4 billion years old, there is no way today to make that assumption based on facts. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
There is a taster.
"Science was given to us to understand the world."
Huh? We created the scientific method which is used to gain empirical evidence which then our most creative minds use to form theories which make predictions which, in turn, can be tested.
"Science is constantly refined over time, making it imperfect."
Some of our theories, especially the cutting edge theories that are being formed on evidence gained from the fringe of what we can observe may not be a accurate representation of the way the world works but they do give us a functional framework that can make accurate predictions about the way in which things act.
"To blindly assume science made itself and all the complexity of it"
Science made itself? You seem to be confused about what science actually is. Science is an attempt to explain the workings of the universe by using empirical evidence and logic.
"t comes down to this, either: Science made itself (ie. laws, elements, space) "
I think you meant to say that the universe made itself, science doesn't make anything, it is a methodology.
"or it was actually designed...something incomprehensible to man, but since we're all so egotistical, it only makes sense naturally to say its impossible (design) and nothing made everything."
You are making a false dichotomy here, there are other options than 'God made everything' and 'Nothing made everything'. If we assume God made everything then what made God? Why only one God? Which God?
I do not claim to understand how the universe came about but at least I do not make baseless claims about a designer. - inactive, on 02/19/2008, -4/+48THE PROBLEM WITH DEBATING CREATIONISTS: You CANNOT reason a person OUT of position that they did not REASON themselves into.
Creationists are pushing religious dogma masquerading as junk science, and they have NO interest whatsoever in scientific debate. All they care about is re-affirming their religious beliefs of disturbing stories of hell and damnation and devils and eternal suffering and ramming them down the throats of unsuspecting children. - JoeRandom, on 02/19/2008, -6/+50*reads your comment*
*facepalm* - BadAstronomer, on 02/19/2008, -1/+43The assumption scientists make -- that the Universe obeys its rules -- is testable, which is *the entire point* of the blog post. To claim that this assumption is faith-based is wrong, as I point out very clearly and carefully.
- chaosium, on 02/19/2008, -2/+44So the universe revolves around the earth, does it?
- ncairns, on 02/19/2008, -1/+42Oh, I don't doubt that religious people have personal, experiential reasons to believe the things they do, and that they are sincerely convinced they're right in their convictions. But that doesn't *mean* anything. I could find you a homeless man who really, truly believes he was abducted by aliens, but that doesn't mean he was, or that his belief is reasonable.
- eir574, on 02/19/2008, -0/+39I've never understood how admitting a mistake and correcting it, as science often does, is somehow worse than purporting to never make mistakes at all. I don't lose any respect for labs that publicly admit mistakes. I also have no problem with a politician changing his mind, but that gets deemed flip flopping. Sure, I'd be concerned if it happened too often or if it seemed too politically convenient, but admitting one's mistakes as a person or a scientist is not in and of itself a flaw.
- XNihil0Zer0, on 02/19/2008, -2/+40"To blindly assume science made itself and all the complexity of it, is a depressing thought."
I'm not depressed by this thought. - Enasni1212, on 02/19/2008, -2/+39Inductive reasoning is the use of a specific instance to make generalization. To use my post as an example, "This rock is hard. Therefore, all rocks are hard." While I agree that using inductive reasoning can and often is NOT a good idea, it is the best we can do. To expand the rock example: This rock, and all of the other billions of rocks that have been observed by humans are hard. To use inductive reasoning, I would then say, "therefore, all rocks are hard." OR, I could saying, therefore it is highly likely that all rocks are hard, which I do not think is literal inductive reasoning. It is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that there are exceptions to every "law" of science, and provisions are made for such exceptions. EVERY SINGLE law and theory comes with the unspoken provision, "until demonstrated otherwise."
Our civilizations are built on this so-called "inductive reasoning." No one decided not to use electricity to power our homes because it might not work in a home as it worked hundreds of times in a lab. If we let ourselves get paralyzed by that question, where would we be? But I understand that this isn't your point. Your point is that science is faith based, to which I say you must be using a different definition of faith. Science and scientific knowledge is based on evidence, and is assumed to be true until proven otherwise. When you find the soft rock, then the statement needs to be revised, and this revision in no way harms science. Science is a way of explaining the world: it makes no claims to providing absolute answers, so calling it logically flawed is... flawed. - Enasni1212, on 02/19/2008, -5/+42That post seemed... self-contradictory, to me. If not, then just confusing. First of all, I will say that your very first sentence is wrong. Science is not, as the article so aptly pointed out, faith based. Science is a method, a way of doing things. And this method is not based on faith, it is based on logic and reason. All the knowledge gained through good (emphasis on "good") science is invariably based on evidence. This knowledge is NOT always right, but none of it is based on faith, and that is a very important distinction.
We do not have "faith" in the principles of science any more than we have faith that a rock is hard. We KNOW that the rock is hard, because it is demonstrably so. - chaosium, on 02/19/2008, -1/+37"that reason was given to them by their life experiences"
Objective reason is not always "given by life experiences" and cultural inertia can certainly and often take AWAY reason. - MJG2007, on 02/19/2008, -10/+46The far-right wing fundamentalists are notorious for projecting their own traits onto those they disagree with.
They accuse science of being faith-based when in fact, faith is religion's stock in trade.
They accuse atheists of trying to push atheism in schools, but it is religious groups that are trying to make prayer and bible classes part of the school day and teach creationism.
They accuse gays of trying to recruit people, but I have NEVER had representatives from the gay community show up at my door asking me if I wanted to convert or come to their gay bar. I wish I could say the same about religious groups.
They accuse nearly everyone persecuting them, but look at where the majority of movement is coming from to make certain groups of people second-class citizens and curtail the rights of others.
It would be amusing if it wasn't so pathological and frightening. - ThinkFr33ly, on 02/19/2008, -2/+35But this comment WAS void of a valid point. It was a straw man built on an obviously false definition in the context of the discussion.
- ncairns, on 02/19/2008, -1/+33That your sole recourse when confronted with a reasonable argument against your preconditions is further semantic equivocation should be telling of the weakness of your stance. I don't think anyone here would claim that these extreme positions are representative of the average Christian - but then that's irrelevant to the point. The reality is that the loudest, angriest voices are the easiest to hear, and usually get the most done. That's the threat. In the 21st century the fact that school boards in various parts of the country are seriously entertaining the idea of teaching baseless conjecture as an equally plausible explanation of the development of our species alongside the only scientific theory we have ever had on that question is simply unacceptable. Christians are free to believe whatever they want, up to the point that those beliefs demand intrusion upon my science.
- BigManOnCampus, on 02/19/2008, -2/+34Which leads directly to my post below, and the post directly after that. The point you are somewhat making, and I try to make clear, is that people are not seeing science through scientists, they are hearing "experts" and think "science". That is the source of confusion. Thank you.
- Enasni1212, on 02/19/2008, -1/+32Science is a method used to gain knowledge. The APPLICATION of some of that knowledge, namely medicine, is the result of an instinctual fear of death. Your comment really has very little to do with the essence of the argument in the article. We rail against religion and faith because of the harm it causes. Of course, it causes plenty of good, too, but that's another can of worms entirely...
- chaosium, on 02/19/2008, -1/+32"no matter how bad people may want to change the definition of the word faith, it simply means "loyalty" "
It is the belief in the absence of evidence. You wouldn't have to believe in God if he had a tangible worldly presence. - pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -4/+35not when you've got candidates who are so buried in their fundamentalist beliefs that they deny evolution *cough* *huckabee* *cough* *ron paul* *cough.
- gordonj, on 02/19/2008, -3/+34Yeah, I find it beautiful. All of the complexities and marvels of the universe produced from a cosmic singularity and shaped by sets of universal laws which gave rise to you and me and all the beautiful things in the cosmos is absolutely amazing to me. The idea that even when I die, my component atoms will not be destroyed, but will make up parts of other living things, planets and possibly stars for billions of years to come is quite comforting. It's far less depressing than the idea that we are all born into sin and that if we don't adhere to a regime set by a magic man in the sky thousands of years ago that our undying souls will spend an eternity in the worst place you can imagine. ***** it, even an eternity of heaven would be torture. Eternal existence at all would be hell.
- Dysarthria, on 02/19/2008, -24/+54Science= Nothing to do with belief, a method for obtaining truth in the physical world.
Religion= Relies on belief, a way to describe why you exist in the world at all.
Religion and science are utterly different, and cross applying does nothing but point out their inadequacies. Religion has no place in telling us about the physical world (evolution, the age of the earth), and science has no place in telling us about anything that cant be tested experimentally (existence of God). - ncairns, on 02/19/2008, -3/+33I see your point, but consider that the very nature of modern science obviates the ability to test many theories and hypotheses for yourself. My field is theoretical physics and CS, so I don't have a vast body of personal empirical experience to support my belief in evolution. I read much of the relevant literature and papers, but I can't independently recreate the experiments which inform those writings because I lack the training and resources to do so. So while it is fair to say that I *trust* the scientists who do, since I don't simply hear their proclamation and accept it unthinkingly it would be disingenuous to claim I have *faith* in them.
- Daz3, on 02/19/2008, -5/+35They teach us to make sense, more than I can say for you and your post.
- thebellmaster1x, on 02/19/2008, -0/+29HA, no. I don't bury things that are pro-religion; I bury things that are anti-science. If you can't reconcile your religion with the evidence of the natural world, sorry, that's your own problem. Don't try to poison my mind with your contradictory wishes.
- ncairns, on 02/19/2008, -0/+26@SQLDigger
I'd say that the amount of natural phenomenons science has convincingly addressed thus far is much less than one trillionth of one percent of all phenomenons. But what amount of natural phenomenons has God convincingly addressed? - DrywallThief, on 02/19/2008, -4/+29Too many sheep out there for that to happen sir. Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow...
- greevar, on 02/19/2008, -3/+28Wow, did I just hear a mass of air go over your head? Did you even READ the article. Science is NOT based on faith. It is based on clear measurable evidence.
- commernie, on 02/19/2008, -0/+25Digg is the far left? Please! That just shows how much to the right you are.
- XNihil0Zer0, on 02/19/2008, -1/+26Ok 2 assumptions.
1. The universe obeys rules
2. There is a god.
1. Show me something that doesnt obey the rules.
2. Show me god.
Hmmm I think I see a pattern. - Dumbledorito, on 02/19/2008, -7/+32If you liked this article, do as I'm doing and re-watch (or puchase and re-watch) the awesome Carl Sagan series "Cosmos."
If you still don't "get" science after that, there's little hope for you. - BigManOnCampus, on 02/19/2008, -8/+32You have so eloquently and decisively made my point with your post... thank you.
- ncairns, on 02/19/2008, -0/+23Putting aside that you falsely conflate something being 'theory only' with being unproved, your comment is still lacking.
Dark matter is theoretical in the colloquial sense and hypothetical in the scientific sense - meaning you will not find a theoretical physicist (myself included) who tells you they are sure of its existence. It is supported by a large body of observational evidence, but as yet we have no conclusive proof. For that reason, we treat it as an interesting conjecture which, if eventually convincingly evidenced, could explain a lot of the fundamental strangeness of our Universe.
Or not.
There are already other ideas which explain deviations often attributed to dark matter, like MOND and NGT. - parkermt, on 02/19/2008, -1/+24I would love it if you could prove how quantum physics is born from the fear of death...
- tedlove, on 02/19/2008, -18/+41science is nothing more than a collection of rigorous observations of our world. it is the exact opposite of faith.
- ncairns, on 02/19/2008, -1/+24@SQLDigger
Impugning the rationality or admissibility of scientific axioms is laughable. The sum total of mathematical advance over the past three centuries or so is the direct descendant of axiomatic assumptions. Whether or not they are strictly, formalistically testable is irrelevant - because they produce testable results. The assertion that that testability is qualified, and therefore negated or weakened, by axiomatic lineage simply does not hold up as anyone in pseudorandom set theory or computational complexity knows. - XNihil0Zer0, on 02/19/2008, -1/+24OK sql, so are you saying that there is truth that you can not test for? Please show me this truth and tell me how you arrived at it without a test.
- thebellmaster1x, on 02/19/2008, -0/+22I find atheism to be wholly a more encouraging philosophy than theism. Instead of doing good things to save my own ass from eternal torment, I do good things simply to better the world around me and to benefit society as much as I can.
Which one sounds less selfish? - XNihil0Zer0, on 02/19/2008, -0/+22I'd say that you can't even answer a question like "what % of unanswered questions (past and future) do you think scientific naturalism has answered?" until you know everything. It's not religiony to follow a method which keeps us asking questions, its religiony to think you already have the answers. If you show me something that doesnt obey a law (like god), then maybe we'll have to rethink the primary assumption.
- Dumbledorito, on 02/19/2008, -1/+22"But militant, anti-social, atheisty sciency types want to leap ahead to the conclusion before they even get 1% of the way there . . ."
Wait, what? Religious types dash straight to "there's a God, he did it, end of story" and sometimes make futile attempts to work backwards to how that explains the existence of dinosaur fossils in layers above those of simpler organisms while maintaining a flood washed them all around and miraculously let the lighter stuff wind up on the bottom. - ThinkFr33ly, on 02/19/2008, -0/+20"There is a constant misunderstanding that us creationists are accused of"
People... you can all stop reading right there. Having exposed himself as a person overtly hostile to rational thought, there is no point trying to use said rational thought as a medium for communication. It won't work. Trust me... I've tried. -
Show 51 - 100 of 1005 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is