Science, Meet Your Maker!

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that science is a faith-based belief system because we take for granted the fact that the universe seems to be resting upon several core systems that are readily predictable and measurable? That's an interesting angle.

Firstly, the presumption is made that science "started" by dealing with the base functionality of the universe and has made its discoveries outwards from that point, assuming that those core systems are immutable and absolute as it goes. I would argue instead that science started at a much more general, day-to-day level and progressed inwards, eventually discovering that the universe runs on a basic set of human-understandable and mathematically definable systems which are not yet fully understood, but generally accepted to work seeing as we haven't found any cases where they produce different outcomes.

The question of whether or not the knowledge of the sun rising every day is faith based is, I think, the result of a misunderstanding. We did not approach the question scientifically from the start. Indeed, the concept of the sun rising and setting once was a faith-based issue, but no longer. While I can't tell you what the sunrise looked like in 15000 BCE, I can explain to you the systems that hold our planet in place around the sun, and the optical illusion caused by our rotation both in place and in orbit around it making it appear as though the sun is rotating around us. We know about these things because intense research has been conducted, and the data gathered has shown us that in 100% of recorded instances, the sun has risen in the morning. We've taken the sun's behavior and obtained a very consistent set of rules from it, rules which hold true in 100% of our observations. Because of this, I can say with honest confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow because that is the way it physically behaves. Is it faith that tells me that this is true, and that the sun will not spin a loop tomorrow morning? No, it is my experience, my observations that tell me that it won't. Saying that I think the sun will rise tomorrow only because I take for granted the fact that it will not rotate backwards doesn't take faith. Holding the belief that the sun may just rotate backwards, even though it has never been observed to have done so...that's faith.

I can assure you that if we one day find a particular segment of the universe where these laws do not hold sway, there will be a lot of very interested people immediately working on an answer as to why they do not.

Two other things of note, the first being:

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The idea of a rational universe was first invented by the pre-Socratic Greeks like Pythagoras. However the concept was quickly stamped out by the pagan God worship of most Greeks who most believed the Gods controlled the universe at their ever dramatic whims. That being the case, from where can we trace the origin of this modern scientific faith in the rational intelligibility of the universe? History points to Christianity

I'm going to have to go ahead and say that this little quote is more than a bit sensationalist. The image presented of the Greeks being a people chained to eclectic religious belief which completely overrode all other aspects of their lives, whereas Christianity is the font from which all modern science sprang is more than a bit hard to swallow. Greeks such as Epicurus had already begun laying the foundation for atomic theory in the third century BCE, and Heron of Alexandria constructed the world's first steam engine nearly 2000 years before the industrial revolution in Europe. These were terrifically intelligent people, capable of incredible feats of engineering for their time. Contrast that to the height of Christianity's power during the Dark and Middle ages, when scientific discovery was at an all time low and even the mention of the Earth orbiting the Sun was heretical, and you'll see that the above quote is almost humorously inaccurate. I will give Christianity some things, such as Gregor Mendel (sorry, he was Catholic, which doesn't count), but for the most part it has only given us a backward march towards fundamentalism, driven by the power hungry and fueled by the uneducated (in the case of the Dark Ages, anyway. They weren't called dark because light bulbs were not yet invented)

And the other point of note, is that I see this thread is an attempt to discredit science because it is faith based. Fair enough, opinions being what they are. However, setting aside my previously-stated thoughts concerning the validity of your argument, I do have a question about this kind of thought process that I have always been curious about. You're trying to demonize science because it is faith based and therefore...not reliable, I'm guessing? If the "fact" that it is faith based causes it to be nothing more than unreliable guesswork, then what makes any faith reliable? If science can't work because it's all made up without final, concrete proof to back it up, why should we look on Christianity as a viable alternative? Isn't it faith based, and therefore in the same hokum league as science? How do you reconcile this in your own mind before presenting it as an argument? I'm honestly curious about this.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Faith is not a highly esteemed word in the scientific community.

You're absolutely correct. Faith is scoffed at in scientific circles but it sure does take some faith to believe in evolution.

Richard Dawkins says faith is belief without evidence.

Dawkins is a man of faith, I suppose then, as he devoutly believes in his religion of evolution. Maybe his church can achieve tax exempt status.



On a more serious and not so sassy note, good thread. Well researched, as always, BW. 'Science meet your maker' is an appropriate title and a very succinct statement in itself. All science really is, is discovering the process God created and uses in His creation. Gravity, DNA, geology, space exploration, biology, etc. When we learn about such things, we are learning about His techniques.

Originally posted by Thousand
The question of whether or not the knowledge of the sun rising every day is faith based is, I think, the result of a misunderstanding. We did not approach the question scientifically from the start. Indeed, the concept of the sun rising and setting once was a faith-based issue, but no longer. While I can't tell you what the sunrise looked like in 15000 BCE, I can explain to you the systems that hold our planet in place around the sun, and the optical illusion caused by our rotation both in place and in orbit around it making it appear as though the sun is rotating around us. We know about these things because intense research has been conducted, and the data gathered has shown us that in 100% of recorded instances, the sun has risen in the morning. We've taken the sun's behavior and obtained a very consistent set of rules from it, rules which hold true in 100% of our observations. Because of this, I can say with honest confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow because that is the way it physically behaves. Is it faith that tells me that this is true, and that the sun will not spin a loop tomorrow morning? No, it is my experience, my observations that tell me that it won't. Saying that I think the sun will rise tomorrow only because I take for granted the fact that it will not rotate backwards doesn't take faith. Holding the belief that the sun may just rotate backwards, even though it has never been observed to have done so...that's faith.

so you saying that because there is proof and information have how the sun works that faith is not involved?

i submit that you have faith in the data. not in god. but faith doesnt have to be about god.

how do we know that the sun wont go supernova, or that gravity will not simply stop? we have faith in our experience and observance.

what im saying is that in faith, people assume its a belief in something unprovable. but its not. faith is very close to trust.

science is built on a faith or trust in the data. and as i said before, it allows us to draw conclusions about things that we may not have personally witnessed.

you cant with your literal eye see magnitism. but we do see its effects. those effects give us data that allow us to predict and use something we will never see.

reply to post by AshleyD


No, it takes an understanding of the evidence and processes in play to believe in evolution. No faith is required. Nice try, though.

reply to post by dave420


Get some new material, Super Dave, and quit implying that because one disagrees with your view they must be ignorant of it. One can understand the processes and evidence evolutionists claim back up their science and still call it for what it is [bunk] because they do not have enough faith to believe what evolutionists are trying to push on them.

That's my two cents. No hard feelings.

Great thread Whammy!
S&F'd!
Thank's for doing homework!

reply to post by AshleyD


You can keep telling yourself it's a matter of faith. It's no skin off my nose. I'm just trying to help you, that's all.

It boils down to the fact that if you do understand the theory, and you do understand the evidence, then there is no faith required. It easily and simply spells out exactly what's going on. The only time faith gets in the way is if you have a pre-existing faith in some other theory that evolution poops all over. That's it. You seem to not understand what a scientific theory is, or even what the scientific method is.

I agree that my schtick is old, but it's still perfectly accurate. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make you right. I have the weight of the scientific world backing me up, and you have your Bible. Even the Pope is on my side. Go figure.

One thing about the atheist belief system is that it chooses to believe that life is nothing more than a random act of science and continues to evolve. However, both atheist and science have not yet been able to explain how something as random as a fractal still has elements of design and mathematics.
Every design has a designer.

The title of this thread can also be named:
Science, who's yo daddy!

reply to post by Alxandro


There is no "atheist belief system", apart from the fact that they don't think there's a god. That's it. Beyond that, an atheist's beliefs can vary massively from one atheist to the next. Saying they have a belief system is really taking the mick. There is no "Church of Atheism". There is no governing body of atheism. There is no holy atheist book. There is no atheist messiah.

"Random act of science"? May I suggest you take a dictionary and look up the meaning of the three largest words in the sentence, as I think you think they mean something different to what they actually mean.

A fractal has elements of maths, because it's a mathematical construct. Just as addition has elements of maths. Add "Fractal" to your list of words to look up in the dictionary - again, some confusion exists here.

Sure every design has a designer, but who's to say we are designed? You need some evidence to back up your claims, and so far not a single creationist over the last 2,000 years has managed to come up with any evidence what-so-ever.

The title of this thread could also be "Creationists show the world they don't understand science".

I'm loving that faith alone allows me to enter this sequence of letters onto a wireless keyboard and they 'magically' make their way onto a little screen where faith based science angels pick them up and fly them to millions of computer screens around the world.

Or that faith alone allows some science angels to magically create vaccines that will prevent my children from dying of polio or some other virus.

Looks to me like faith in scientific miracles is a lot more logical than faith in anything else. After all, these science faeries have a lot more documented success than the other kind.

reply to post by AshleyD


No one is trying to push evolution on you any more than they're trying to push proper grammar or mathematics. Evolution does not require faith, only observable proof. If you don't want to believe that 2+2=4 that's your prerogative, but don't come crying to science when you keep getting incorrect change because you didn't have 'faith' in mathematics.

And Alex, just because we don't know the exact answer to everything yet doesn't mean that God did it. People are always putting God in the gaps, and that is a silly thing to do.

Why is there lighting?
Zeus threw a lightning bolt, that's why!
But wait, isn't it the discharge of electricity from storm clouds?
But Zeus made the storm clouds
Wait, didn't the storm clouds form by surface water evaporating into the atmosphere?
But Zeus made the atmosphere......

As each question is answered, the faithful throw God into the part they don't have an answer to yet, then God gets pushed further and further away and we realize that God, if it exists, most likely doesn't have an active hand in the world. It doesn't throw lighting bolts, or make it rain when he cries, or make thunder when he bowls.

The difference between science and religion is the ability to dispassionately accept new evidence, and the passionate unwillingness to do so.

Science is not a religion, atheism and evolution are not faith based. "God of the gaps" arguments and BigWhammy's attempts to lower opponents down to his/her level, fortunately, do not have an effect on real evidence, which science is based on.