Do you believe in God?

[Frogberto]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I disagree. I'm not saying it's the same kind of faith as religious faith, but it still takes a certain level of faith to accept unproveable axioms (I'm talking a=a; if a=b and b=c then a=c, etc.) as, or close enough to, true. Yes, it is clearly different in that those axioms are open to change should evidence otherwise come forward, but the fact remains that to get off the ground, to make any mathematical or scientific progress, one must believe that certain things are true without proof. Experimental evidence, yes, but not proof. I, for one, do believe them to be true.

Well, and this may just be semantics, but I disagree with your disagreement. (I also can't help the double negative).

If you're saying that if you regress enough questions, than the underlying assumption of anything about reality, then that might be true. Nothing is categorically absolute in science, because there may always be additional data that requires the modification or the "throwing out" of an entire theory. So in that sense, it's provisional. But, if I ask you enough questions about anythinng, you have to admit that there are some unknowns at a deep level. We have to act with things consistent not only with our understanding of how reality behaves, but also consistent with everything else we know and have tested. For that reason, no one's ever seen an atom, true, but we have other ways of measurement, and everything is consistent with atomic theory, to the extent that rejection of that theory is madness without overwhelming proof.

I hear again and again that "science is just another type of faith". But science is anything but. Whenever evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for any theory in science is exactly the opposite of the sort of "faith" you've implied by your statement.

In fact, your statement implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in anything on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

Science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Science is a method of thinking, a process, if you will, based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.

Faith, on the other hand, is a conclusion, and science is a process. Because scientific results are tested, the results have two very important consequences: First, the scientists know that their results will be subject to challenge, so they work harder to make sure the evidence really does support their results. Second, published ideas that the evidence does not support will get rejected, especially in times or places with different cultural biases.

Scientists, as opposed to those of faith, usually welcome disconfirming evidence when it comes along. They key problem with your statement is that science is not a position - it's a process.