Science is a bout empirical evidence, the observable, testable and predictable. Faith is the «evidence for the things not seen». And science is the systematic storage of knowledge from the phenomena observed and predicted to happen, once and again.
How can there be «faith» in science? Not observed things would automatically be ruled out and dismissed in science, not whimsically embraced. Aren't faith and science actually very opposites?
Update:@Saint Anthony's Fire: Sorry, it's not «fly» but «fire», my short-term memory and your avatar betrayed me, lol!
Update 3:@Saint Anthony's Fire: Yes, there is enough evidence to determine whether the patterns of stimuli correspond with reality. Actually, it's the other way around. Reality by definition is the set of stimuli received consistently through the senses and stored:
«The fact that certain input patterns repeat time and again is what lets cortical region know that those experiences are cause by a real object in the world. Predictability is the very definition of reality.» Jeff Hawkins, On Intelligence [p.128]
Besides, again, science is always willing to update their knowledge in the face of new better evidence, faith isn't.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Absolutely. Those Christians who claim that science is just another religion have no understanding of how science works, and the same goes for atheism. I've heard pastors preach that both of them are just another form of religion. I used to be one of them.
I disagree.... we must all have a degree of faith when examining the begining of existence... like what came before the big bang? Is the universe cyclical or linear? How could it be cyclical? when did the cycle begin? What came before that? Scientists always put a degree of faith into theories and hypothesis otherwise they would consider a Creator as well. There really isn't always a good direction to look into about this, so a Creator is as good an option as any.... There is a degree of faith involved.... faith that there is not a God.
On the other hand science can exist within faith... I have faith and yet I am also a scientist. Apostle Thomas the doubter is proof that the need for empirical evidence is not a crime in Christianity. And this verse is another example of using empirical evidence to understand the supernatural in Christianity....
1 John 1
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete.
Faith steps in when we trust that these men weren't insane.... sort of like how many scientists trust the discoveries of other scientists believing that they haven't lost their marbles.
Science indeed builds upon empirical evidence and changes according to observables. However, if one go back to the origin of the empirical's empirical, scientists have to take it by faith that it is correct. Otherwise, no foundation of the empirical evidence can be built and no science can be established. Under normal circumstances, this is not obvious, as all scientific investigations are built upon intellectually reasoning, not faith.
For example, the fundamentals of atoms, which is quantum mechanics, which itself is built upon several fundamental assumptions that one has to take it as correct, without ever able to prove it to be correct. And all other theories, observations, etc are the scientific reasoning, which are built upon these fundamental assumptions, that have to take it as correct, without prove.
All scientific proves are built upon the fundamentals underlying the prove, which in trun relies on even more fundamentals. This goes on until one reaches THE fundamental. How then can one prove THE fundamental, except take it by faith?
scientific reasoning takes you ever near to the fundemental but never reaches there, faith takes you there.
Many of the world's greatest scientists have been men of faith. Why should science rule out faith?
"Faith" involves belief in an axiom.
Both scientists and non-scientists have faith in all sorts of things and we all go through life trusting in various axioms.
So I see no reason to presume that faith and science are in some sort of necessary conflict.
Can I say I have faith that science will explain everything, or do you want me to say that I have science that science will explain everything?
Scientists have faith, only it is labeled as uniformitarianism.
(Science is NOT as empirical as you assume.)
faith and science are binaries
Because "science" is all that atheists have to cling on.