Does science require a certain level of faith? Is science a presupposition?

This is a classic fundie argument: conflating the meaning of the word 'faith' to equate it to religious faith.

Sure, we're not all particle physicists, so when they start blasting protons around the Large Hadron Collider next month, us lay-people will have to have 'faith' that what they find is what they find. We have to trust them because we don't have the education or inclination to find out the answers for ourselves.

But thankfully science is based on peer review, and if people are either wrong or deliberately misleading, they'll get found out eventually. If only the same thing was true for religions!

Trusting in science, with the backup of evidence and review, is a whole lot more sensible than trusting in baseless superstitions!

This is something many Christians refuse to accept; the playing field is not level between us. The things that a science-minded person believes in are simply more valid (a tough pill for a Christian to swallow). By definition, faith is believing in something with no evidence to support it. Without evidence, science could not exist; and without evidence, religion cannot be science.

Here I will compare the scientific method with whatever method is used by the faithful.

Scientific Method:

1. Observation

2. Hypothesis

3. Experimentation

4. Collection of data

5. Theory & debate

Faithful Method:

1. Absolute truth (i.e. conclusion) & debate

2. Reach for evidence (unsucessfully)

3. Find anomalies in existing scientific theories as to find "God in the gaps"

4. Collection of false data

5. Organize and gain political power

EDIT:

To suzette,

You are misinterpereting the definition of faith. Acurrate use of the word "faith" is contingent on there being insufficient evidence for the idea in question; meaning, if you have a reasonable amount of evidence for something it is not considered "faith" to believe in it--absolute proof is not required. Evolution has more than a reasonable amount of evidence, both rational and empirical.

Further, you clearly aren't understanding how science works. This is exemplified by your use of the phrase, "Evolution is just a theory." You know, the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is a theory too (one that your bible also contradicts). The last step in the scientific method is theory; not fact or proof. The reason for this is that scientists are following a philosophy of doubt. Doubt is what leads us to all new knowledge. In science there is no thesis that is not open to be disproven; this best ensures that our understanding of the universe continues to grow, and does not stagnate. In fact, there is more controversy among scientists over gravity than evolution. This is what separates the faithful from the science-minded. In science there are no sacred cows, no absolute truths; just evidence and theory. You should note that "Theory" is the last step in the scientific method, whereas the faithful start with their conclusion and work backwards.

Also, there are no "levels of faith"; you are either 100% faithful or 100% not. You have no evidence for God, you have faith; scientists have evidence for their theories, they do not have faith. I value knowledge and reason and I don't understand why anyone wouldn't. So, being that faith is the opposite of reason, I really can't understand why someone would be proud to have faith.

And what's so wrong with being proud and self-confident? Don't get me wrong, I have great compassion for others, but what's wrong with having compassion for myself too? I don't live my life just for myself; I'm actually studying now to become an English teacher, hopefully at a low-income school. I made a decision a long time ago that I don't want to work all my life to make some rich guy even richer. I want to do something to help people that need it. I've even been toying with the idea of teaching in Africa. It's so presumptive and rude of Christians to always make us non-believers out to be a bunch of selfish assholes. Belief in God is completely unreasonable, yet I don't say, "All Christians are idiots!" I've met quite a few very smart Christians (some smarter than me for sure). I view God as a delusion that otherwise normally intelligent people fall prey to. Just as it wouldn't be fair for me to call you an idiot, it's not fair for you to call me selfish.

P.S. - I'm pretty sure "scientistific" isn't a word.

Science is not only about making observation and testing hypothesis it is also about making predictions about the future.

People have faith in science that it says 2 + 2 = 4 always. Actually 2 + 2 = 11 if you are using base 3; or 2+ 2 = 10 if you are using base 4. People have a misplaced faith in science the same way that people have a misplaced faith in religion. That is not saying that all faith is misplaced.

Faith in science sends the shuttles into space and misplaced faith in science blows up the shuttle. Science does not kill people the misuse of science kills people.

What economics does to science is no different to what religion has done to science. There is no agreement on global warming because of economics not because of religion. *runs away to hide from irate accountants*

There is a stark difference between a fact and a theory.

To believe in a fact which you can see, measure and record for yourself merely requires faith that your eyes and your measuring devices are not misleading you (still requires faith just not that much, most of us trust our perceptions as really we have no choice).

Believing in a theory requires you to have faith in the interpretation of a set of facts (more faith this time as you're having to trust other people not just yourself).

Unless you are a professional scientist who works daily in lets say the field of advanced particle physics then when someone explains a theory of advanced particle physics to you, you have to take it on faith, faith in the scientific method and faith that the person telling you isn't talking doggy do doo.

Allow me for a moment to speculate along these lines..might be a bit abstract but bear with me. When I say "atom" to you you understand me to mean the extremely small particles which make up all matter in the universe, because this is the commonly accepted theoretical explanation of matter in the universe, but how many of you have actually SEEN evidence of atoms? My guess would be virtually none of you, I know no-one has ever prooved to me that atoms exist so I have no choice but to either deny it or accept it on faith. Personally I choose to accept it but I don't make the mistake of deluding myself that it's not a blind faith based acceptance. The same can be said of evolution, gravity, the big bang and a multitude of other things.

In some ways he is correct but not in the way one would believe in God. We put our faith in science that when we wake up tommorrow we will still continue to have oxygen on this planet and that the sun will come up. If the sun just vanished without explanation there would be a problem. There is a certain trustworthiness to science. But 99.9% of the time science comes through, but there is always that tiny chance it may not.

Science requires no faith. Faith Science is an oxymoron.

Hey go to youtube and type in double slit experiment or two slit experiment. It is the best video for that idea.

Our thoughts are energy and exist in space and have mass. Thoughts influence energy around us. The experiment demonstrates that the act of observing energy influences it. It reacts the way they think it's supposed to when they watch.

Since presents facts that can be demonstrated as correct time and time against.

Compare that to Christianity-

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one!!! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!!

Outside of the bible he is not mentioned in anything until many years after his supposed death!!

The Roman Emperor Constantine produced the bible and he was a pagan not god!!! He also organised Christianity into the Holly Roman Catholic Church!!

What a wonder full disinformation and deception campaign he waged against his Christian enemies - so good in fact that Christians are still following the deception to this day!!!

But for all their repudiation of science - the moment they get ill they go to the doctor for treatment that is entirely scientific ans mostly based on evolution!!!

If believing 2+2=4 every single time is an act of faith, then sure, it's faith. But it requires facts to be true. So from my point of view, I have faith in whatever the facts reveal.

Faith is believing something without evidence, so no, that doesn't make sense.

I guess you could say we have some faith in peer-review and documented findings since we can't see everything done personally, but that's the point of multiple people testing, witnessing, documenting and reviewing everything.

Saying we have "faith" in that is bordering on conspiracy theory, since the scientific community isn't THAT disconnected from the rest of the world.

yes it does require a bit of faith as does starting a car just as swithing on a light cause faith is only a fance word for trust.