Scientific faith is way different from religious faith

Here's an interesting look at faith: "No Faith in Science -- why the Higgs boson is not like a sea of milk that sustains the gods."

Just because a scientifically minded person uses the word, faith, doesn't mean it is being used in the same sense as religious faith. 

I have faith that global warming is happening, because the evidence in support of this conclusion is clear, convincing, and attested to by almost all of the world's climate scientists. 

I don't have faith that Jesus saves, because this is a belief with zero demonstrable evidence backing it up. 

The Slate article is well worth reading. Here's how it starts out. 

A common tactic of those who claim that science and religion are compatible is to argue that science, like religion, rests on faith: faith in the accuracy of what we observe, in the laws of nature, or in the value of reason.

Daniel Sarewitz, director of a science policy center at Arizona State University and an occasional Slate contributor, wrote this about the Higgs boson in the pages of Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious science journals: “For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.”

Such statements imply that science and religion are not that different because both seek the truth and use faith to find it. Indeed, science is often described as a kind of religion.

But that’s wrong, for the “faith” we have in science is completely different from the faith believers have in God and the dogmas of their creed. To see this, consider the following four statements:

“I have faith that, because I accept Jesus as my personal savior, I will join my friends and family in Heaven.”

“My faith tells me that the Messiah has not yet come, but will someday.”

“I have strep throat, but I have faith that this penicillin will clear it up.”

“I have faith that when I martyr myself for Allah, I will receive 72 virgins in Paradise.”

All of these use the word faith, but one uses it differently. The three religious claims (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, respectively) represent faith as defined by philosopher Walter Kaufmann: “intense, usually confident, belief that is not based on evidence sufficient to command assent from every reasonable person.”

Indeed, there is no evidence beyond revelation, authority, and scripture to support the religious claims above, and most of the world’s believers would reject at least one of them. To state it bluntly, such faith involves pretending to know things you don’t. Behind it is wish-thinking, as clearly expressed in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

In contrast, the third statement relies on evidence: penicillin almost invariably kills streptococcus bacteria. In such cases the word faith doesn’t mean “belief without good evidence,” but “confidence derived from scientific tests and repeated, documented experience.”

You have faith (i.e., confidence) that the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has, and there’s no evidence that the Earth has stopped rotating or the sun has burnt out. You have faith in your doctor because, presumably, she has treated you and others successfully, and you know that what she prescribes is tested scientifically. You wouldn’t go to a shaman or a spiritual healer for strep throat—unless you want to waste your money.

Comments

[Ty Davison]

Much of science we take on faith in almost precisely the same way that religious followers do. I can't prove (or in some cases have time to prove) most of the scientific precepts I've been taught are true. Smart people tell me they are true and I believe them. I experience basics of science (if you will) every day, but faith steps in pretty quickly after that. Higgs-Boson? I can't prove that exists any more than you can, but it's a reasoned faith because we have each verified science at the lower levels.

A religious person may have a similar experience. They may not have had a full on "God speaks to me" moment, but there are enough coincidences and patterns in daily living that they could be (and frequently are) convinced religion is true at the lower levels—they take this as evidence even if we don't—and have faith in religious leaders who tell them it's true at the higher levels as well.

All human beings rely on faith in varying degrees. It's a major blindspot for the rationally minded to think otherwise.

[Roger]

Ty,

Nice comment.

You mentioned,

"All human beings rely on faith in varying degrees."

---Yes, this is correct. No harm in such. Faith in it's simplicity is okay. The supposed rest could be a simple acceptance of mystery. No harm in that too.

"A religious person may have a similar experience. They may not have had a full on "God speaks to me" moment, but there are enough coincidences and patterns in daily living that they could be (and frequently are) convinced religion is true at the lower levels—they take this as evidence even if we don't—and have faith in religious leaders who tell them it's true at the higher levels as well."

---Which religious leader has experienced a "God speaks to me" moment? Do you have any further raw information regarding such?

My faithful understanding is that God's voice sounds much like Bing Crosby. Is this "higher" level truth truthful?

[cc]

All human beings rely on faith in varying degrees

Secular faith is not characterized by magical thinking, and religious faith is not tempered with reason, but the rational mind must exercise some degree of magical thinking to carry on, and the religious mind must deal with realities that undermine its conviction.

The religious mind sees the rational mind as cynical and defeatist in its skepticism, and the rational mind sees the religious mind as reckless and irresponsible in its credulity, but they both operate on faith that the earth will continue rotating on its axis as it revolves around the sun.

[Avi]

" ...... they both [the rational mind and the religious mind] operate on faith that the earth will continue rotating on its axis as it revolves around the sun."

Without HIS will not even a leaf can move - is the typical thinking of a "fundamentally religious" mind. So, the religious mind attributes "everything" (including many things for which science has clear explanations) happening in the universe to a supreme power that some people call God. And that, of course, includes the earth rotating on its axis as it revolves around the sun.

Science progresses incrementally. So, at any given point of time, science has "validated" explanations for many things and it does not have explanations for many other things. The "average rational" mind, therefore, is content with attributing all those "unexplained" things/phenomena to "something" which is beyond its comprehension. We may call this "something" by any name - faith, belief, god, God, GOD, etc. etc.

[Avi]

You wouldn’t go to a shaman or a spiritual healer for strep throat—unless you want to waste your money.

On a lighter note, when it comes to treating one's own throat, even somebody like Gurinder Singh (current head of RSSB), who is considered GIHF (God in Human Form) by many, would like to be treated / operated upon by a well-qualified doctor (and would also follow the doctor's advice in terms of taking an off from "work" for the prescribed recovery period) rather than relying on ANY spiritual healer, leave alone doing it/treating HIMSELF.

Excerpts from some comments made at another post on this blog provide the context for my comment above:

"It was announced in Satsang yesterday (Sunday, UK) that Baba Ji has had an operation. All Satsang programs at Dera and abroad have been cancelled (until February 2014) while he recovers."

"These saints have to bear the karmas of their disciples on their own bodies, and to burn the karmas he has undergone a throat surgery, and the recovery will be in 3 to 4 months."

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2013/11/december-visits-to-the-rssb-dera-cancelled-anyone-know-why.html

The first statement looks like a sensible statement if we consider Gurinder Singh aka Baba Ji to be a normal human being. But, Gurinder Singh aka Baba Ji is, indeed, considered by many to be GIHF or at least somebody who has the power to take others' "karmas" on his body, as typified in the second statement.