Men of Great Faith

Science is fantastic. Without the principles and methods of science, we would be suffering pretty painfully physically right now.

Scientists take pride in believing only by the evidence they see and in strict causality.

To simplify matters, how our world operates can be summarized in a simple formula: F = ma.

From the reaction of chemicals in each microscopic cell in our bodies to the motions of the largest of stars, F = ma applies, strictly and without exception.

Whether an airplane stays aloft or a building stays upright, it is governed by F = ma.

F = ma has been proven by data using empirical methods. There is no disagreement. But, but, the "=" sign in that equation is not "is equal to". It is "was equal to". What has been proven is history. There are no indications to suggest that past performance will repeat in the future. There is no proof that F will = ma at 9am tomorrow in New York city.

The hypothesis that "F = ma in the next moment everywhere" has not been proven at all. Scientists accept it based on faith, of the pure, blind category. Meek, child-like, superstitious faith.

Scientists' un-reasoned faith in the universal truth of F = ma puts all Christians to shame. Every Christian I know at some point in his converted life has doubts. But not scientists. They build bridges, based on nothing but the unfounded supposition that F will = ma is going to hold the bridges in place and nobody will be injured or killed. They board a plane, without fear, simply on the blind faith that F = ma will apply for the duration of the flight in the area they will be traveling.

In summary, science preaches the truth of propositions for which it has no evidence. Science requires an a priori commitment to defend and justify one's preferred claims, in this example, that F = ma always.

No one has seen force, or mass, or time. Scientists have the conviction of things not seen, and live with the assurance of things hoped for.

Fact, as highlighted by militant atheist Jerry Coyne, is defined as "a particular truth known by actual observation as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture; a datum of experience, as distinguished from the conclusions that may be based upon it". Clearly, by this definition, F always = ma is not a fact!

So, scientists first place their faith, without any evidence whatsoever, in the proposition that F = ma always, and then proceed to build great things out of this belief. No quarrels with that. Similarly, Christians first place their faith in the truth of the Bible, and then proceed to live a great life out of this belief.

Scientists are no different from religious men after all. All scientists are men of great faith. Fantastic faith!

A true scientist therefore cannot say with a straight face that he is not religious, unless he is willing to violate the very principles of science.

Christopher Hitchens famously proclaimed that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Are scientists willing and ready to dismiss F = ma? No, because faith works.

(The phrases in red above are lifted from Jerry Coyne's book Faith vs Fact. He used those phrases to mock people who believe in God.)


» Next…

Every religion preaches the truth of propositions for which it has no evidence” (Harris [ 12] , 23). For Dawkins, “Faith is evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument” (Dawkins [ 6] , 308). Daniel Dennett appeals to a citation from Mark Twain: “It was the school‐boy who said, ‘Faith is believing what you know ain't so.’” Also, “Dawkins drew attention to what we might call creedal athleticism, the boast that my faith is so strong that I can mentally embrace a bigger paradox than you can” (Dennett [ 7] , 321, 229). I argue that the toolkit of science, based on reason and empirical study, is reliable, while that of religion - including faith, dogma, and revelation - is unreliable and leads to incorrect, untestable or conflicting conclusions. Indeed, by relying on faith rather than evidence, religion renders itself incapable of finding truth. ..for faith led them to discount and reject the facts right before their noses. kind of tactics used by pseudoscientists to defend their turf. One of these is an a priori commitment to defend and justify one's preferred claims Yet religious people were staking their very lives and futures on evidence that wouldn't come close to, say the kind of data the US government requires before approving a new drug for depression. God, and the tenets of many religions, are hypotheses that can be examined by science and reason. If religious claims can't be substantiated with reliable evidence, they should, like dubious scientific claims, be rejected until more data arrive. I was flabbergasted. How could it be that someone found evidence convincing but was still not convinced. The answer, of course, was that his religion has immunized him against my evidence. faith - the form of belief that replaces the need for evidence with simple emotional commitment. Religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do no (and cannot) know. All I lack is faith One can meet all the emotional requisites of a human - except for the assurance that you'll find a life after death - without the superstitions of religion. I will have achieved my aim if, by the end of this book, you demand that people produce good reasons for what they believe - not only in religion, by in any area in which evidence can be brought to bear. I'll have achieved my aim when people devote as much effort to choosing a system of belief as they do to choosing their doctor.