I guess I didn't realize the roots of our disagreement ran so deep, although it seems obvious in retrospect. To tell the truth, I never imagined I'd be arguing for four pages in defense of my basic definitions --that was meant to be the "we all agree on this much, right?" portion of the discussion.

Most of what I said about science originates in David Hume, who was certainly no friend to religion. He is typically considered the father of modern empiricism, and the barriers he erected around science were a (largely very successful) attempt to keep metaphysics out. Since he's my least favorite philosopher ever, I had imagined I was conceding quite a lot by taking on his views as the starting point for the discussion.

I also didn't anticipate the extent to which "faith" itself has become a dirty word. I wish I had begun the thread with some less freighted term. But since my definitions of "science" and "faith" (and "fact" and "absolute") are so obviously not shared, maybe I should instead ask someone else to provide some more generally acceptable definitions. Perhaps that will bring about a more fruitful discussion.

I'm not sure why you think we feel that 'faith' is a dirty word. We disagree in the way you seem to want to apply it to our scientific understanding of our universe but I myself have given and example of something I have faith in. (The general goodwill and kindness of humans to each other)

OK, good, that's a much better starting point. Would you then say that you have "faith" in science (using your own definitions of "faith" and "science") in anything like the same way you have faith in human nature? In other words, this isn't a question of simple belief in the efficacy of science, but belief --for instance --that science makes the world a better place, or that scientists are good people, or that science offers us moral guidance.

Science doesn't offer moral guidance. It offers factual guidance, that can make our moral choices easier or more difficult.

I'm with drache on this one. Science is an action or a set of actions which pruduce a result. That result can be good or bad or neutral.

Another vote for drache.

I have a question (just wondering, not arguing a point) -- if science is what informs your understanding of the world, is your morality at least partially based on science? (E.g. if your morality says "it is wrong to do such-and-such to humans but not to animals" then do you rely on science to make that distinction between humans and animals?)

Apologies if I'm pulling kitoba's line of discussion off-track; I'm just curious how distinct or intertwined science and morals can be.

Science gives us an understanding of our universe and our place within that universe.
Religion supposedly does the same.
I think our morals are related to our understanding of our place in the universe.
For an atheist the understanding can change and our moral values may need to be changed as well.

I do think no matter where you receive your understanding of the universe though there are many different ways to perceive the morals inhearent in those lessons.

I really couldn't be bothered running through the whole thread, so apologies if this point has already been made.

My personal belief about the whole science as faith thing is that the way the question is put is the very reason why these always devolve into the Scientist vs Philosopher flame war that always seems to present itself. Atheists and those who follow Science are following a faith, but Atheism/Science isn't the faith.

No, the actual article of faith is in the belief that there is naught in this world bar that which can be perceived and measured. This is the fundamental article of faith that Atheists share, this is the basis of their beliefs. Science is a methodology in service to this article of faith, it's not a faith in and of itself. You don't have faith in Science per se, you have faith that these facts are observable and measurable, and more importantly, you will not place your faith in something that isn't observable or measurable.

I would say morality dictates what ends i have and science tells me, what means i have to actually achieve that ends. So science does not influence my morality, but it can have an effect on how i apply it.

I don't think that it has to be the case. I have found, in talking Philosophy, that typically your morality and the ways you define that morality are far more based on emotion than scientific logic (and in fact sortof has to be - Logic alone can't tell you what is good). People tend to use Scientific knowledge to justify their morality, rather than to decide it.

Well, I can't speak for all atheists, but I certainly wouldn't subscribe to this article of faith. I expect there certainly are things that cannot be perceived or measured. We just can't perceive or measure them, so they're not really relevant.

No, this is wholly incorrect. As a technical point, science does not have faith in measurements. That's why there are uncertainty bars. That's why multiple, independent groups repeat the same measurement. Further, science is fully, painfully, aware of the limitations of measurement.

The error in your statement is the repeated insistence that there must be faith. Science does not have faith that things may be measured. Science operates under the working assumption that measurements can be made and sees where that leads. To insist on this as faith is a disservice, both to science and to the faithful.

_______

Let me clarify that last point. The faithful profess to something profound and meaningful in their lives. Something larger and grander than themselves.They claim to be in touch with the infinite, the creator of the universe. Does anyone here seriously want to equate that with my alleged faith in my skills with a yardstick?

Put it another way. Starting a jigsaw puzzle is not an act of faith. I proceed under the reasonable assumption that most, if not all of the pieces are in the box. I may eventually discover that some of the pieces are missing. I may even discover that I have a box consisting of one piece from an infinite set of different jigsaw puzzles. But I don't assume any of this to start with. I just start putting pieces together and seeing where it leads. If problems arise with missing pieces or devious puzzle packers, I will deal with that when I have evidence of such a difficulty. Until then, I just keep working on the pieces I have, trying to assemble them into a picture. Science is like that, but with a somewhat larger puzzle.

I would say science isn't what dictates that, it would be society that determines morality in that case.

Technically the Christian stand point is that morality comes from God. Granted the chuch takes a lot of liberties with what God says as I am sure so does the religious organizations in other religions

I would distinguish between faith and the object of faith. God is not equivalent to faith, faith describes the relationship with God. One could potentially have faith in anything, even a yardstick.

I would further distinguish between "belief" and "faith", characterizing faith as a relationship of trust. It is possible to believe in God, but not have faith in God. I have belief in the efficacy of science, but that doesn't necessarily mean I have "faith" in science --although I do have faith, for example, that the majority of what is presented to me as scientific actually does meet the standards it is presented as meeting (I not only believe it to be true, I have a certain level of trust in its truthfulness).

However, while examples like this do help illustrate what I mean in general by the word "faith," when I talk about science as "a faith", I do have a stronger claim in mind: that there are people (

not necessarily represented on this board
not comprising all, or even a majority of either scientists or fans of science

) whose relationship to the institution of science is similar to my relationship to God in ways that make the term "faith" appropriate.

--------

To expand on this yet a bit further: To those posting here who profess faith neither in God nor science, what do you have faith in?

Yourselves? The power of reason? The evidence of your senses? Human nature? The democratic process? Love? Nature? Atheism itself?

I can imagine someone someone passing through life entirely without faith in anything, but I think it would be a very unnatural existence, a hard-to-maintain frame of mind.