Does science require faith?

There was a recent post at the heterodox stem substack, arguing that science requires faith. My thanks to Jerry Coyne for the reference. Coyne has already expressed his disagreement with that viewpoint. In this post, I’ll add my own disagreement.

In elementary school, after we learned to use fractions we were taught to use 22/7 for the value of $\pi$. We did not actually use the symbol $\pi$ at that stage. We were not given any reason for using 22/7. We had to trust the teacher for that. This was for doing what we called “mensuration” problems — finding areas and perimeters. So, yes, you could think of that as a kind of faith. A child needs to trust teachers and parents while growing up.

The next year, we learned decimal fractions. And we began to use 3.14 or 3.1416 for $\pi$. I quickly worked out that this was not the same as 22/7, so by then I understood that these were approximations.

In high school, we studied physics every year. One of our first physics experiments was to find the value of $\pi$. We were given wooden cylinders, and wrapped a thread around the cylinder as a way of measuring the perimeter. And we directly measured the diameter. At first this seemed strange. I had done enough reading to know that the value of $\pi$ was usually found mathematically (with an infinite series), so the physics experiment seemed bogus. But then I realized the point being made. We did not need to depend on faith. We could find these things out by ourselves. And that’s what is distinctive about science.

The argument

Let’s look at the argument given in the referenced substack post.

Some believe that science is a superior alternative to faith. But if we peer a little deeper, we see that the scientific method actually requires a great deal of faith before it can even get off the ground. For example, here are five axioms that every scientist (often unconsciously) believes:

The author then goes on to list 5 items that he takes to be matters of required faith for science. I disagree with all of them.

• The entire physical universe obeys certain laws and these laws do not change with time.

This is a common misunderstanding of science. We often describe science as if the universe is following laws. But the universe is not checking our laws to see how to behave. The laws are human constructs. It is really the scientist who is following the laws. The scientist sees an object that is accelerating, so the scientist then ascribes a force to explain that acceleration. The universe is not doing anything beyond behaving as it normally does.

• Our observations provide accurate information about reality.

This is a misunderstanding. Yes, we want our observations to be accurate. But this accuracy takes hard work by the scientist. It is not axiomatic and it is not guaranteed. We must be careful in how we do our observations.

• The laws of logic yield truth.

This is wrong. If false premises are used in a logic argument, the conclusion may well be false. The correct statement should be that logic preserves truth.

• The human mind recognizes the laws of logic and can apply them correctly.

I have taught mathematics and computer science for many years, and it is my experience that many students have difficulty with logic.

• Truth ought to be pursued.

Why ought truth be pursued? Boyle’s law is false and known to be false. It is a good approximation, and it works very well. Should we then throw it out as false? Similarly, heliocentrism is false, but works very well. Should we throw it out as false?

Science is a pragmatic venture, rather than a truth seeking one.

Summary

No, science does not depend on faith. The idea that it does is just a false claim that religious apologists repeatedly use.

I do not criticize people for their faith. But they need to be honest about recognizing that science is different.

Is science a superior alternative to faith? I do not make that claim. What counts as superior depends on what you are evaluating and why. Science does not answer every question that we have. But it appears to be the best way of understanding our natural world.

34 Comments to “Does science require faith?”

1. I agree Science is different. The difference is an intelligent being i.e. God created science down to the DNA of everything in every universe. Several scientist will back me up on that.

Liked by 1 person

• Thanks for the comment. That’s a good example of a conclusion that can only be reached by faith. But most scientists will avoid that conclusion, because we do not know of any way to test it. This emphasis on testability is a good illustration of the pragmatic nature of science.

Liked by 3 people

• I don’t know, but it does seem you have a special definition of science. As I understand it, science, construed broadly, is a human endeavour to understand the universe around him/her, through observation, and experimentation

Liked by 4 people

• Yes, I agree, yet some take science further into a religion onto itself. Once science is used as an explanation as to the Creation, it has crossed the experimentation stage to the Word on which Creation stands. Only the Bible claims to be the Word of God and the story of Creation. And faith is its expression of belief. The word of man vs. the Word of God.

Like

• The only words we know are of men. We have no evidence of a god having spoken other than claims of men.
I don’t know what science books you read, but it does seem they do you a disservice. Only creationists claim that what they are engaged in is science.

Liked by 2 people

• Mark my words, there will be a moment in your life when you will cry out to some power greater than yourself to save you. What power will that be? Because the first step to maturity is the realization you cannot trust your own intelligence.

Like

• This is truly laughable. This is the specie of argument that Pascal’s Wager belong and it doesn’t work.

Liked by 1 person

• I’m so sorry for you.

Like

• I have heard that a lot.

Like

• I’m sure you have.

Like

• I don’t believe SCIENCE has made any claims about creation. Rather, it has offered some theories based on extensive studies, but I know of no scientist who has unequivocally stepped forth with “the answer.” Whereas many believers (lacking the same proof as the scientists) have set forth their ideas based entirely on a several thousand year old story written by people who thought the world was flat!

Liked by 1 person

• Well, I tried to offer you something that hasn’t fallen apart in over 2,000 years. But closed minds are closed minds so I’ll be leaving you that depend on your great intelligence.

Like

• I don’t know of any scientist who believes that science explains creation.

Like

• What happened to the Big Bang theory?

Liked by 1 person

• The big bang theory is not actually a creation theory. Rather, it is a theory of what happened just after the universe came into existence.

Like

• So, how did the universe or universes come into existence? Or did they always exist?

Liked by 1 person

• We don’t have an answer for that.

It is okay to admit that we don’t know.

Like

• Phyllis…I’m an atheist, but I do recognize that in times of great stress or fear or pain, I may cry out for help. That is a normal human reaction. Babies do it instinctively, and most of the time an adult carer will come along and comfort that child. But we are no longer children, your God is not a nanny, and any ‘faith’ that only manifests itself when the organism is in dire danger is not faith at all. Frankly, if I were a god, I would feel well and truly annoyed.
Which is perhaps why those self-serving Road to Damascus moments are never answered.
I truly think your god deserves more respect than that, don’t you?

Liked by 2 people

• Do atheists love? Because whether you do or not doesn’t matter to Him. He loves you. You can only feed your intelligence and have no true compass for behavior. It may seem like freedom, but you don’t recognize another force at work in the world. That force is the force of darkness that rules the world now, but whose days are numbered. We all have a choice which one we will follow. Feeding one’s own self image enhances nothing good.

Like

• Atheists are humans, too. They have similar emotions and passions to theists. Christians should stop trying to dehumanize them.

Liked by 1 person

• ‘Feeding one’s own self image enhances nothing good.’????
You are so right, but not for the reason you think. From where I’m standing, every evil thing in this world has been committed by humans. We created a god, angels and demons in our OWN image. And for most of our pathetic history, that ‘god’ has been wrathful and vengeful and proud. Just like us.
There are so many biblical verses I could quote at you but I’ll say just this ‘Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?’ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3A3-29&version=NABRE

Liked by 3 people

2. I’m FAR from being a scientist … or even a mathematician. But your logic makes sense to me! But then, as you know, I’m not persuaded by airy-fairy religious thinking. 😊

Liked by 1 person

3. Like

• I pay no attention to Jordan Peterson.

Liked by 1 person

4. Bravo! One of the first radical ideas we were exposed to in Philosophy 101 was that there is no such thing as ‘truth’. It’s a human construct much like the laws of physics. I suspect that people who cling to these ideas are simply incapable of accepting that there is no ‘guiding’ force controlling the universe.

My Dad was a mechanical engineer who innovated large plants based on the things we’ve discovered about the world around us – like gravity, friction etc etc. He knew how to harness those facts to create machinery that often seemed counter intuitive yet always worked.

The deeper we delve into the universe the more accurate our understanding becomes, and the things we can’t understand today, we may learn to understand next year, or in a hundred years, or a thousand.

Liked by 2 people

• One of the first radical ideas we were exposed to in Philosophy 101 was that there is no such thing as ‘truth’. It’s a human construct much like the laws of physics.

Yes, quite right. But there are many people who don’t want to hear that.

Liked by 1 person

• Apologies. I thought I replied to this but apparently I didn’t. Anyway, I’ve found that for many people, the myth of order is far more comforting than what actually is because order implies control. -shrug-

Liked by 1 person

• So, am I to believe if I never put my house in order and leave it to complete chaos, I’ll live a normal existence?

Liked by 1 person

• In a word, yes. But chaos is not as scary as it sounds. And we /can/ create order in our own small slice of chaos because it’s mechanical. Step in front of a bus and you’ll be run over no matter what you believe. Turn on the gas and light a match and…poof, you’ll burn. Don’t do those things and there’s a good chance you’ll live a long and happy life.
Believe it or not, I’m a bit of a control freak, but only about things I know I can change.
I don’t need the promise of an afterlife to be happy in /this/ one because I’ve tried to live a good life at every step. I have tried to use my ‘talents’ to the best of their ability. And I have tried to treat others as I would have them treat me.
Last but not least, I have never tried to force my beliefs onto anyone else. When I’m lying on my death bed I hope to look back at my life and have no regrets. I hope to die happy, not fearful.

Liked by 1 person

• Do you follow all radical philosophical ideas or choose which ones you believe?

Like

This is not a religious blog. It is a blog about philosophy, science, epistemology.

If you want to argue against atheism, take it to your own blog. It is not welcome here.

Jesus taught “love they neighbor”. He did not exclude atheists from that love.

Liked by 1 person

• Why start a blog about whether science requires faith if you don’t want to hear from a person of faith? God bless you all. And I believe I will start a blog on my Christian website concerning this debate. Only anyone is welcome to opine. I will not exclude those who don’t think exactly like I do.

Like

• Why start a blog about whether science requires faith if you don’t want to hear from a person of faith?

The topic is whether science requires faith. The topic is not atheism.

I have unapproved your two most recent posts, because they are off topic and they ignore my earlier request that you stop.

Liked by 1 person

• I wish you well. However, prayer for another is more effective. If there ever comes a time you need a prayer, I’m here.

Like