Faith in religion and faith in science are NOT the same thing


#1

I shouldn’t be writing this now as I have an essay and a test in several days, but I’m going to anyways. I won’t be able to respond very frequently at first, so I apologize.

But the reason I want to post this is because I’m tired of hearing religious people claim that science requires faith just as religion does. Religion requires faith for belief in the empirically unknowable and usually unreasonable positions. Your belief specifically requires faith in the foundational mysteries at the heart of Christianity (like original sin, immaculate conception, death and resurrection of Jesus), especially the belief in God (capital G), as well as subsequent truths you claim (like the reality and effectiveness of prayer). This all requires 100% faith.

The faith of a scientist (and atheists and agnostics for that matter) ends once he accepts that he exists and is real. This is because ever since birth we realize and utilize the scientific method, although we may not notice or label it. We know this is so because we know that the world around us affects us. When we are hungry, food ends it. When we touch something hot, we are burned and have pain inflicted upon us. When we are cut, we bleed, and we may see that if someone bleeds long enough, we die. If we grind a stick against a rock it becomes sharp and is useful for catching animals. We do not take on faith the proposition that science is an effective method to achieve ends because we experience that it is. Our senses and reasoning serve us in our everyday lives, so as long as we accept we are real and not just a brain in a vat, there is no more need for any faith (in the same sense as religious faith) in our lives.


#2

What is “faith in science”? The belief that science will explain all? But nothing can explain all. And that is exactly where the faith of theists and the faith of atheists comes in. In accepting that final thing that cannot be explained. Theists say it is God. Atheists say it is anything else but God. Both statements are statements of faith.


#3

There you’re just misrepresenting and contorting the atheist and scientist belief/position. Atheists see no reason to believe in God, that’s it. It is not a statement of faith. Scientists nor atheists think that science will explain everything. We DO know that science has been progressing ever faster in that last several hundred years, and there is no reason to think that it will stop any time soon save for some catastrophic event.


#4

I have no faith at all in science. So long as it works, fine. If it ceases to work, we find something else that works. It’s just a method, like plumbing. It’s foolish to put your faith in that.

My faith is in God.


#5

I dunno…whenever I do plumbing, it’s an act of faith that it won’t leak all over the place. :wink:


#6

Hi All,

I assisted at a series of conferences by astrophysician Hubert Reeves and he concluded his last conference by saying something like:

“We can say what happened up to a fraction of a nanosecond of the Big Bang, but beyond that, we have nothing to say. It is the realm of philosophy and theology.”

I think that is the right attitude.

Verbum


#7

Thank you for pointing out my errors. :slight_smile:

First of all, a good many scientists have faith in God, so suggesting that they are at odds makes no sense.

Now, atheists don’t know how or why, at the most fundamental level, the universe exists, right? You have to agree with this, it is unassailable. But even not knowing, they claim that the fundamental how and why does not involve God. This is a statement of belief without proof. It is a statement of faith. Why is it so important to you to deny that? Why are you afraid to admit the obvious?

You say you find no evidence that the universe exists because of God. Well, I find no evidence that the universe exists without God. So why is my statement a statement of faith but yours is not?


#8

I dunno…whenever I do plumbing, it’s an act of faith that it won’t leak all over the place.

:clapping:


#9

Are you claiming that atheism is supposedly based entirely on science & reason, and is strictly limited to the absence of a belief in the existence of God?

“… that’s it”, huh?

If so, your claim is entirely irrational, given that it necessarily accepts the validity of atheist belief in astrology, Buddhism, reincarnation, Heaven, Hell, pagan gods and every other supernatural phenomena or concept currently unknown to science.

No one ever claimed that science would stop.

While faith is typically associated with religious belief in God, the issue of the faith exhibited by sciencists (Yes, “sciencists”, not “scientists”) is in regards to their religious-level of faith in science, by way of assuming that all previous scientific discoveries are true.

This scientific version of religious faith is additionally seen in the belief that scientifically obtained evidence is the only evidence that can (or should) be admissible.

While scientifically formulated evidence can be valuable, it is hardly the be-all-end-all of evidence for anything. Even your recognition of scientific progress refutes that claim. Look at the many “facts” that science has discovered through the centuries that were later disproved. One need not even even consider the long string of misrepresentations, hoaxes & outright lies that many “scientists” have attempted to perpetuate to further their own pet ideas.

Granted, science cannot prove the existence of God. Nor can it disprove the existence of God. At best, if you believe in science alone, you can honestly only profess agnosticism, the athiest version of unitarianism. (Yes, I know that is what your profile says. It also says you’re 19. You remind me of me at that age.:cool: )

Science does not have any kind of monopoly on reason. The claim that it does is both unreasonable, irrational, & either intentionally or not, ignores reality.

Faith nor reason are mutually exclusive, In fact, they support each other, in both science & religion.

Regards,

Chris


#10

Which is confidence.

Thank you for pointing out my errors.

First of all, a good many scientists have faith in God, so suggesting that they are at odds makes no sense.

Now, atheists don’t know how or why, at the most fundamental level, the universe exists, right? You have to agree with this, it is unassailable. But even not knowing, they claim that the fundamental how and why does not involve God. This is a statement of belief without proof. It is a statement of faith. Why is it so important to you to deny that? Why are you afraid to admit the obvious?

You say you find no evidence that the universe exists because of God. Well, I find no evidence that the universe exists without God. So why is my statement a statement of faith but yours is not?

-VociMike

You’re right, if scientists used the same standards they used in their practice as they do in every other aspect of their lives like determining their religious beliefs, it would make no sense for a scientist to be religious. Scientists who are religious must suspend their rigorous demand for evidense and logical proofs in order to come to a belief in something specifically divine and super natural like the Christian God.

You’re right that atheists don’t know how or why the universe exists, but frankly, religious people don’t know either. As I said before, they don’t see a reason to believe a god in the usual sense is the how and why. It is a statement of belief without proof in the sense that since there is no proof for the proposition God exists either way. In my opinion atheists and agnostics are basically the same as they base their lack of belief on the same reasoning. I’ll address this later.

Question for you VociMike: You say you’ve found no evidence that the universe can exist without God. Are you able to provide step by step reasoning to justify a move from non-belief to belief in God with all the claimed attributes and actions? Last time I spoke with him, Tim Staples couldn’t get past the first step (don’t know if you know of him), and from his lack of responses to me it seems to me he’s been forced to reformulate his arguments and/or position.

While faith is typically associated with religious belief in God, the issue of the faith exhibited by sciencists (Yes, “sciencists”, not “scientists”) is in regards to their religious-level of faith in science, by way of assuming that all previous scientific discoveries are true.

-ChrisWRIT

Nonsenscal.
What is a “sciencist?”

This scientific version of religious faith is additionally seen in the belief that scientifically obtained evidence is the only evidence that can (or should) be admissible.

Empirically obtained evidence. What other kind of evidence is there?

While scientifically formulated evidence can be valuable, it is hardly the be-all-end-all of evidence for anything. Even your recognition of scientific progress refutes that claim. Look at the many “facts” that science has discovered through the centuries that were later disproved. One need not even even consider the long string of misrepresentations, hoaxes & outright lies that many “scientists” have attempted to perpetuate to further their own pet ideas.

Science doesn’t formulate evidence. It formulates hypothesis and theories based on evidence. It then tests these predictive theories, and if they hold up to rigorous testing, they are taken into account with a high probability to be true (depending on how well it has been tested and how accurately it represents reality).

Granted, science cannot prove the existence of God. Nor can it disprove the existence of God. At best, if you believe in science alone, you can honestly only profess agnosticism, the athiest version of unitarianism. (Yes, I know that is what your profile says. It also says you’re 19. You remind me of me at that age. )

Science does not have any kind of monopoly on reason. The claim that it does is both unreasonable, irrational, & either intentionally or not, ignores reality.

No, but I can show you that your beliefs are unreasonable.

Now I’ll address the atheist/agnostic thing. ChrisWRIT above says, “you can honestly only profess agnosticism.” A point to this thread is that atheism and agnosticism are both products of the same line of reasoning. Of course, all atheists agree that you cannot disprove God. So in the strict sense there are no atheists in the world. The term atheism has developed a more social meaning for those who describe themselves and strongly opposed to superstitious beliefs. In truth all atheists are agnostics and will acknowledge it when asked, but depending on how strongly they think there is no evidence for the supernatural in the traditional sense, they may socially identify themselves as atheists.


#11

Most scientists would disagree. Most are hostile to the suggestion. Most won’t say, “Well ****, we’re stuck at this spot here… Oh well, lets just give up!”


#12

That is terrible epistemology. Hume would have a field day. Let’s take a look at the levels of belief, all fragile:

  1. The Law of Noncontradiction. Also known as logic. What reasons can you give for believing in this besides from logical reasons (since that would be circular logic)? None! Indeed, you can’t give reasons at all, since all reasons by definition make use of the law of noncontradiction.

  2. The existence of the outside world. You gloss over this, but you really have no reason to believe in this that isn’t circular, since all evidence of the outside world would have to come from the outside but you can’t mention the outside world in your evidence.

  3. The reliability of your senses. Even if the outside world exists, you have no way of verifying whether your senses are accurately portraying it or not since all data of the outside world is sensory, practically by definition.

  4. Object permanence. What makes you think objects that you can’t sense still exist? How do you know the door behind you doesn’t pop into nonexistence every time you’re not looking where you suppose it to be? To prove that it’s there, you would need to view it, but in viewing it, you fail to test whether it’s there when you’re not viewing it.

  5. The immutability of physical laws. So let’s say that when you release an apple, it falls, the law of gravity. What makes you think it will continue to do this in the future? The only possible argument is that it has done so in the past, but this is akin to saying that because Kingdom Fulst has zebra farms Kingdom Malst must necessarily have zebra farms as well, regardless of where and how big and how rich Kingdom Malst is. It’s circular logic, because in order to assert that the future must resemble the past, you must first assert that the future must resemble the past. “It’s always happened like this.” “Yes, but it could change.” “No it couldn’t.” “Why not?” “Because it’s always gone like this.” “Yes, but I’m saying that it will change.” “But it’s always gone like this!”

  6. Cause and effect. Why must relationships be causal? For all you know, it’s a totally random chance that dropping an apple seems to make it fall to the ground. In order to know that this isn’t the case, you would need to have knowledge about all apples everywhere at every point in time, which you clearly don’t have. Also, there’s always the chance that a further-small subatomic layer is where the changes are taking place. Moving from the statement “There seems to be a correlation” to “There is a causative effect” is thus impossible without belief.

  7. Authority. Why believe what a scientist tells you? They aren’t infallible. In fact, they are frequently wrong. History has proven that scientists are wrong far more than they are right, even the really really smart ones. What makes you think this would change now?

These are seven points at which you require pure blind belief with no more nor no less reasons than religious belief. Justification of them is logically impossible at best and circular at worse. I could probably come up with more, too.


#13

Well first of all I’m not dealing with logic, I’m dealing with faith. Logic in the metaphysical sense is useless because it requires a certain certainty that is unrealistically unnattainable in all or almost all cases that are strictly examined. You should do well to notice that you must deal with these questions as well if you were trying to come up with total proofs of whatever.

  1. The law of contradiction is not “also known as logic.” It is an aspect of logic, but does not embody all of logic. I said in my first post, once we accept we are real, we experience the world around us. That empiricism has nothing to do with logic once we accept we are real and are affected by the world around us.

  2. We can reasonably believe the outside world exists because it drastically affects our selves.

  3. Senses are all we have, why ignore them?

  4. We come to an understanding of object permanence while we are still very young. The complexity of it only baffles infants.

  5. Your analogy doesn’t work. But of course, 100% certainty is theoretically impossible. Even with gravity we are merely about 99.999999999999999999999999999% sure that there is a gravitational force between objects. Our percent certainty that gravit won’t simply disappear like magic is also high up there.

  6. Correct again. We are merely 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that we are affected by causes and we produce effects, and other matter on each other, etc. But that’s no reason to bet on it.:o

  7. Right, but the solution to bad science is better science. The very nature of science provides many competing ideas. Most of them are bound to be wrong.

There is no “blind belief” here.


#14

It would also make no sense for a scientist to be an atheist, for exactly the same reasons.

Scientists who are religious must suspend their rigorous demand for evidense and logical proofs in order to come to a belief in something specifically divine and super natural like the Christian God.

Scientists who are atheists must do exactly the same thing.

You’re right that atheists don’t know how or why the universe exists, but frankly, religious people don’t know either.

That’s what I’ve been saying. Both positions eventually rest on faith, on belief in things not proven.

As I said before, they don’t see a reason to believe a god in the usual sense is the how and why. It is a statement of belief without proof in the sense that since there is no proof for the proposition God exists either way. In my opinion atheists and agnostics are basically the same as they base their lack of belief on the same reasoning. I’ll address this later.

But their lack of belief in X must imply a belief in Y which is not X. After all, the universe must have some explanation! And yet they can offer no proof of Y any more than a theist can offer proof of X.

Question for you VociMike: You say you’ve found no evidence that the universe can exist without God. Are you able to provide step by step reasoning to justify a move from non-belief to belief in God with all the claimed attributes and actions? Last time I spoke with him, Tim Staples couldn’t get past the first step (don’t know if you know of him), and from his lack of responses to me it seems to me he’s been forced to reformulate his arguments and/or position.

No, I can’t provide that. But I bet others could, e.g. perhaps Peter Kreeft. But that is not the question at hand. The question at hand is not the particular attributes of the Christian God, but whether or not all human world views must eventually rest on faith. Getting sidetracked on the particular attributes of the Christian God does not help us to discover if what you have asserted (that atheism does not rest on faith) is true or not.


#15

You’re holding scientific “knowledge” to a lower standard than religious “knowledge.” Proof is always impossible, so you always have to use belief, in both science and religion. You’re not drawing the distinction for me very well here.

1. The law of contradiction is not “also known as logic.” It is an aspect of logic, but does not embody all of logic.

Fair enough, but it is a necessary component of logic. It is the keystone.

I said in my first post, once we accept we are real, we experience the world around us. That empiricism has nothing to do with logic once we accept we are real and are affected by the world around us.

You realize that you’re agreeing with my assessment, right? The only difference is you’re underplaying the conclusion, sweeping it under the rug and hoping we won’t check there. If you cannot offer any proof for these seven things that doesn’t depend on circular logic, you have to take them on pure faith, just as a religious person has to take Jesus’ resurrection on faith.

2. We can reasonably believe the outside world exists because it drastically affects our selves.

Not so. Your sense perception data tells you that the outside world affects you, but “sense perception data” is a meaningless term unless you’re presupposed an outside world to perceive. Hence, circular logic. Hence, you need belief.

3. Senses are all we have, why ignore them?

Fallacious. What you’re saying is, “It would be convenient for our senses to function properly, so they do.” I’m not saying that we should ignore our senses. What I’m asking is what reasons can you give that prove that your senses definitely, accurately correspond with the outside world? You aren’t giving me a reason to think that our senses are true, but a reason to want them to be true, which is totally different. It would be like me saying to you, “Heaven would be a great place for us to go after we die, so why not accept it as true?”

4. We come to an understanding of object permanence while we are still very young.

This isn’t an answer. I might as well say, “We come to an understanding that God exists early.” This says when we acquire the belief, but not why, and it has nothing to do with the reasons that prove it. So, what are those reasons?

The complexity of it only baffles infants.

Ad hominem fallacy. Also non sequitur. I’m not asking how object permenance works, but why you think it does.

5. Your analogy doesn’t work. But of course, 100% certainty is theoretically impossible. Even with gravity we are merely about 99.999999999999999999999999999% sure that there is a gravitational force between objects. Our percent certainty that gravit won’t simply disappear like magic is also high up there.

How did you get those percentages, though? 87.4% of all percentages are made up on the spot, you know.

However, let’s assume you’re right, that there is a very high probability that gravity is true. You still have an infinite gap between “It is likely that this is true” to “It is true.” The gap is bridged only be the belief that things that are likely to be true are true.

*6. Correct again. We are merely 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that we are affected by causes and we produce effects, and other matter on each other, etc. But that’s no reason to bet on it.:o *

I’m not saying we shouldn’t bet on it. I’m asking what reasons you have for doing such, other than belief (since you claim there’s none of that in there).

7. Right, but the solution to bad science is better science. The very nature of science provides many competing ideas. Most of them are bound to be wrong.

“Better” doesn’t mean “correct.” Why hold these to be correct when the pattern has been failure after failure? Plus you ignored half my concern (7 really should be split into 7 and 8). Why believe a scientist? Sure they may be smart, but smart people can be wrong, and often are.


#16

VociMike, do you realize that what you are positing above is that everyone takes everything we think we know, every piece of evidence or knowledge, on faith? You are equating everything. You’re equating God with the toothfairy, with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, with invisible unicorns, with the Magical Teapot. You are watering down and reducing everything so that there is no point in believing anything. (You are doing this too Blaine Tog.) So really there is no point in talking about anything with you because everything is meaningless.

It is annoying when you avoid the practical in favor of obliviousness so that you can pretend you are on the same ground with beliefs which reasoning and evidence far more supports. But if you want to live in your little box go ahead. The rest of us will all pass by and wave at you (you might see us but you won’t think we’re real, so you’ll continue sitting there).

But my distinction between a belief with evidence and a belief with none still stands, even though no 100% proof can be obtained.

You’re holding scientific “knowledge” to a lower standard than religious “knowledge.” Proof is always impossible, so you always have to use belief, in both science and religion. You’re not drawing the distinction for me very well here.

-Blaine

No I’m not holding scientific knowledge to a lower standard, I’m holding them both to the same standard. Even though proof may be impossible, probability and reasoning are not useless. Of course you always have to use belief, but the distinction between religious faith and any kind of faith you think science requires still stands. When we use an empirical and practical standard, the distinction is very clear.

You realize that you’re agreeing with my assessment, right? The only difference is you’re underplaying the conclusion, sweeping it under the rug and hoping we won’t check there. If you cannot offer any proof for these seven things that doesn’t depend on circular logic, you have to take them on pure faith, just as a religious person has to take Jesus’ resurrection on faith.

-Blaine Tog

I know, I pre-empted this in my original post. I have not dealt with at all the issue of a proof determining whether or not we or the surrounding environment is real. I’ve taken that as an assumption and leave it to you to figure out whether or not you and this world is “real.” As I said in my original post, “The faith of a scientist (and atheists and agnostics for that matter) ends once he accepts that he exists and is real.” I’ll add to that: our senses are at least reliable in what they input to us, and that the world around us is real as well.

This isn’t an answer. I might as well say, “We come to an understanding that God exists early.” This says when we acquire the belief, but not why, and it has nothing to do with the reasons that prove it. So, what are those reasons?

-Blaine

The reason is the same as why we believe in gravity. Because if we take into account every instance when we see something, don’t see it, then see it again later, it grows into a very high number of instances.

How did you get those percentages, though? 87.4% of all percentages are made up on the spot, you know.

However, let’s assume you’re right, that there is a very high probability that gravity is true. You still have an infinite gap between “It is likely that this is true” to “It is true.” The gap is bridged only be the belief that things that are likely to be true are true.

-Blaine

I said “about.” It’s only an infinite gap if the universe is infinite. Compare you last sentence there with this next bit:

I’m not saying we shouldn’t bet on it. I’m asking what reasons you have for doing such, other than belief (since you claim there’s none of that in there).

-Blaine

Belief is not the same thing as faith. This is an important distinction. Belief is acting upon something that you hold to be true whether there is evidence for it or not. Faith pertains to a belief for which there is no evidence, not necessarily no absolute proof.

Here lies the distinction between scientists/atheist “faith” and theistic faith. Knowledge in the practical sense is merely a belief for which evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ll define reasoning as “the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.” Now, again, I know this is the practical aspect of knowledge because with Hume you can’t really know anything. This is to avoid making knowledge (or any word, really) a meaningless term.

My distinction between religious faith and scientific belief (using the word “belief” now just to clear it up) still stands.


#17

More like doubt. Ask my wife. :eek: :wink:


#18

Nonsense, I’m doing no such thing. I am talking about precisely one thing, which is the First Explanation, that from which everything else follows. Theists say it is God. Atheists say it is something (anything!) other than God. Both assertions are unprovable. Both assertions are also lacking in scientific evidence.

I think maybe, just maybe, you’re just looking for a reason not to pursue this question because it throws a monkey wrench in your neat “we are smarter, more logical, more reasonable, more in tune with reality, more interested in truth” view of the atheist/theist debate.

It is annoying when you avoid the practical in favor of obliviousness so that you can pretend you are on the same ground with beliefs which reasoning and evidence far more supports. But if you want to live in your little box go ahead. The rest of us will all pass by and wave at you (you might see us but you won’t think we’re real, so you’ll continue sitting there).

What have I ignored? What have I avoided? What is your reasoning and evidence that demonstrates that the First Explanation for everything is not God? I haven’t avoided it because you haven’t presented it. :slight_smile:

Further, how do you possibly conclude that I deny reality? I accept reality at least as firmly as you do.

All of this is evidence to me that you still cannot see, or refuse to see, that your own position is turtles all the way down every bit as much as mine is. You’re frustrated because you assume you hold the high ground in this question, but we are not in the least bit convinced of what seems so obvious to you.

But my distinction between a belief with evidence and a belief with none still stands, even though no 100% proof can be obtained.

Then show us your evidence that the existence of the universe is explained by natural (not supernatural) means. Provide evidence of your non-God First Explanation.


#19

No, but I can show you that your beliefs are unreasonable.

That’s quite a scathing and convincing argument, right there. :rolleyes:

Off topic, but are you a Dawkins follower? He refuses to address critiques of his assertions, instead preferring to dismiss them as “stupid” or “unreasonable” too.

The term atheism has developed a more social meaning for those who describe themselves and strongly opposed to superstitious beliefs.

Not anywhere close to most atheists are truly opposed to “superstitious beliefs”, despite claims to the contrary – most are only opposed to God.

Well first of all I’m not dealing with logic, I’m dealing with faith.

That’s apparent. For starters, your definition of faith doesn’t square with the dictionary.

Faith pertains to a belief for which there is no evidence, not necessarily no absolute proof.

Neither belief nor faith either require or disallow proof/evidence of any kind. They are simply opinions of what is (or might be) true. They may be based on one or more types of evidence, or they may not.

My distinction between religious faith and scientific belief (using the word “belief” now just to clear it up) still stands.

Nice fighting retreat. :wink:

Your “distinction” rests on the false premises that

  1. faith is completely unsupported by evidence;
  2. that scientifically obtained empirical evidence is the only acceptable evidence that exists; &
  3. that faith is not involved in the practice of the scientific method at all.

This is the view widely held by the disciples of the “religion of reason”. Such disciples are referred to as “sciencists” - people that are as dogmatic about science texts as some religious people are about their holy books.

While science does not require one to become an atheist, atheism does require a near-religious zeal for science, as the atheist has nothing else to base their moral values on other than cultural parasitism, usually minus the moral values that the atheist personally objects to.

Your assertion that;

Religion requires faith for belief in the empirically unknowable and usually unreasonable positions.

… is also incorrect, following as it is derived from an incorrect premise.

Yes, some people may have no reasons for holding their religious beliefs, but that hardly means that belief itself is not, nor can be, based on the use of reason & evidence.

On the other side of it, the claim that science requires absolutely no faith is incorrect as well.

It is completely impossible for a person, regardless of how old, to have discovered every piece of evidence or knowledge on their own, or even to have personally checked out & verified every pre-existing piece evidence & knowledge.

Scientific progress requires faith that what others have concluded is correct. That is not a bad thing; if everyone insisted on verifying things for themselves, “reinventing the wheel” wouldn’t be a figure of speech, but a worldwide pastime.

Still, what others have concluded is NOT always correct. Science is constantly disproving “facts” that were thought to be true. Often, something that disproves a “fact” is resisted for years, even decades, before finally being accepted, indicating what a traumatic experience it is for those who so doggedly hold those previously “proven” concepts to be true.

It is completely irrational to insist that everything be supported with evidence only derived from such a frequently morphing body of knowledge, & simultaneously denying the use of other types of evidence (like eyewitness, or statistical, or circumstantial), or even the use of human reason and logic to deductively arrive at conclusions.

Funny how you said:

But if you want to live in your little box go ahead.

Limiting oneself only to a single type of evidence, produced by a single method, would seem to be the epitome of “living in a little box.”

I don’t begrudge you though. Like I said, I knew everything at your age too. :wink: Just don’t let that keep you from trying to learn.

See ya,

Chris


#20

What’s the distinction? You can still be wrong.

No I’m not holding scientific knowledge to a lower standard, I’m holding them both to the same standard. Even though proof may be impossible, probability and reasoning are not useless.

But all of those are based on other beliefs.

Of course you always have to use belief, but the distinction between religious faith and any kind of faith you think science requires still stands.

How? Just because your house of cards is standing on other cards doesn’t make it any less fragile.

I know, I pre-empted this in my original post. I have not dealt with at all the issue of a proof determining whether or not we or the surrounding environment is real. I’ve taken that as an assumption and leave it to you to figure out whether or not you and this world is “real.” As I said in my original post, “The faith of a scientist (and atheists and agnostics for that matter) ends once he accepts that he exists and is real.” I’ll add to that: our senses are at least reliable in what they input to us, and that the world around us is real as well.

You would need to hold all seven things I mentioned as pure blind beliefs without any justification in order to make any claims about scientific fact.

The reason is the same as why we believe in gravity. Because if we take into account every instance when we see something, don’t see it, then see it again later, it grows into a very high number of instances.

But this still doesn’t mean it couldn’t change tomorrow.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.