Trust in Science vs. Faith in Religion - What's the Difference?
Stuart writes:
I don’t have faith in science, I trust it. I trust it like I trust that the roof over my head won’t cave in, or that the bridge I went over every day all summer wouldn’t collapse. I trust these things because they have a record of working, similar things have a record of working, and those records indicate to me that they will continue to work.
Faith, in the conventional, religious meaning, is completely different. Faith implies that there’s not necessarily a proven record, and in with religious faith there’s none at all. This means that you’re taking it “on faith”. You have no reason to believe that anything a religion says is true, it’s all faith.
Science is a method of gathering knowledge, and the knowledge that has been gathered through that method. Science works. It works every time you start your car, every time you flip a switch, every time you use GPS to find your location, every time you fly. The list is enormous, and a full description of the triumphs of science would fill pages and detail nearly everything we know about the way the world works. That is why I trust science, and whether or not you want to admit it, you do too: the conveniences of modern living are the results of science, you can’t trust them without trusting it.
So if both believers and non-believers trust in science and the scientific method in approximately the same way, then believers would not be justified in expecting non-believers to explain, defend, or justify that trust. If believers trust in science in about the same way as non-believers, then they can be expected to understand that this isn't at all the same as the sort of "faith" which is expected of them in the context of their religion — and so they should never try to compare the two as if they were identical.
Finally, so long as believers argue that we should have religious "faith" alongside trust in science, then by adding this extra "something" they are obligating themselves to support, defend, and explain that "something." This is analogous to how both believers and nonbelievers accept the existence of the natural world, but believers add in as an extra a "super"-natural realm. Since they are adding something extra to reality, they assume an obligation to support, defend, and justify that. If they cannot, then they have no business asking anyone else to believe as well — and they can't claim that their own belief is very rational or reasonable.
Comments
There are a lot of atheists who don’t like to be associated with any kind of “faith.” Personally I don’t mind, I admit freely that I put my faith in science. As far as I can tell faith and trust are the same thing. There is (IMHO) a difference between my faith in science and the kind of faith one puts in religion. I put my “faith” in science because it gets results, plain and simple. Because of the repeatability requirement in the scientific method, I know that predictions made scientifically are extremely likely (if not certain) to hold true when I’m interacting with the material universe. For example, if one were being attacked by any number of badgers, some would trust in god to save them whereas I would use a flamethrower because scientific experience has determined a flamethrower to be an effective method of repelling badgers (or any irate mammal for that matter) where prayer has never been shown to have any measurable effect on the material universe, which is where you and I and the badgers live.
Trust and faith are similar but there is a difference. Religious folk, however, will deny it no matter what we tell them.
It’s a bit odd that they try to dispute the difference. What do they mean to imply? That all trust/faith is based on nothing or that their religious faith is based on something? Either one seems ridiculous and obviously false.
Why would religious belief and scientific belief work in the same way? There is plenty of evidence that religious faith is not dependent on evidence, whether atheists wish it were or not.
The conceptual form of faith has a much more in common with the concept of magic - the kind that you see magicians do on the stage, not the merlin kind.
Magic is accepted not because of its literal truth, but for what it does - entertain in the example of stage magic, or generate a deep, purposeful, meaningful, tradition embedded life in the case of religion.
To push the evidence of faith into religious peoples faces is the same as ruining a trick by running onto the stage and pointing out that there actually are no rabbits in the hat. Its all well and good if you are absolutley sure that the trick is harmful, say the magician is releasing rabit rabbits into a crowd of children, but if you’re not - and to generalize the effects of religious faith is evidentially absurd, then what you are doing is simply hurtful.
A great many people now do not believe in the magic of heaven, and miracles, and an all loving god. But that does not mean they are right to ruin it for those still in the theatre.
So religious people are so callow and fragile that they must be protected from any questioning of their dogmas at all costs, for fear that the slightest criticism will destroy their faith, and thus deprive them of purpose and meaning in their lives, eh?
Religious people are children who need to be coddled? The great unwashed cannot be trusted to live their lives without some comforting fairy tales to put their trust in, however misplaced that trust may be?
Charming. Could you be more patronising to people with religious beliefs? I bet you think that this constitutes “respecting the beliefs” of the faithful as well.
To hell with that. I’m going to continue to treat religious people like adults, thank you very much. Adults should be prepared to deal with criticisms of their views without crying about how nasty sceptics are trying to ruin their fun.
Furthermore, Your equation of religious belief with attendance of a magic show is truly awful. Nobody in the audience of a magic show believes the illusionist has real powers. Nobody wants the illusionist’s stories taught as science to impressionable children. Nobody wants their children to grow up free from viewpoints that might contradict those of their illusionist of choice. Followers of illusionists with different tricks don’t kill, torture and bomb each other, and innocent bystanders. People who don’t accept a magician’s powers aren’t barred from election to public office, or even killed in some countries. Candidates for election to the leadership of the most powerful nation in the world don’t claim that illusionists want them to wage holy wars.
Do I need to go on? If all of these things were true then it would be an unavoidable moral imperative to denounce the illusionist as a fake.
If you want to defend religious beliefs as useful lies, then you need to talk to the people who think religious claims are actually true, and who will happily kill and die, and mutilate innocent women and children for those beliefs, not to atheists; people who have the same views of the truth of religious claims as you do.
So when believers say that their faith can be proven, are they lying?
So, it’s wrong for people to tell the truth?
“Candidates for election to the leadership of the most powerful nation in the world don’t claim that illusionists want them to wage holy wars.”
Really? I think you’ll find Bush said that the invasion of Iraq was the will of god, there’s a video on youtube of sarah palin saying exactly the same thing, and that an oil pipleine through alaska was ‘gods will’ as well. The difference is, the man in the street who claims to be doing gods will is called a nutter, the politician or priest who says the same thing, is given an elevated status for saying it.
Anyhoo, digression. As an atheist, i do have ‘faith’ in science, faith that scientific method, scrutiny and analysis is being performed under lab conditions. The difference here would be that the claims made by science are backed up by evidence, not just superstition.
I would say that my faith in science isn’t blind, like it is in religion, that the evidence is there to be analysed, and refuted.
At the end of the day, both science and religion are current ‘best guesses’ about our universe, how it works, and how it began. The difference however for me is that science has a more educated guess, that can evolve and update explanations as new evidence comes to light, and is discussed and tested. Religion is stuck in the ‘this is the way it is’ best guess, and contradictory evidence isn’t incorporated into the theory, but discarded as heretical! Thankfully they don’t burn anyone at the stake anymore for disagreement!
“Candidates for election to the leadership of the most powerful nation in the world don’t claim that illusionists want them to wage holy wars.”
Really? I think you’ll find Bush said that the invasion of Iraq was the will of god, there’s a video on youtube of sarah palin saying exactly the same thing, and that an oil pipleine through alaska was ‘gods will’ as well. The difference is, the man in the street who claims to be doing gods will is called a nutter, the politician or priest who says the same thing, is given an elevated status for saying it.
Anyhoo, digression. As an atheist, i do have ‘faith’ in science, faith that scientific method, scrutiny and analysis is being performed under lab conditions. The difference here would be that the claims made by science are backed up by evidence, not just superstition.
I would say that my faith in science isn’t blind, like it is in religion, that the evidence is there to be analysed, and refuted.
At the end of the day, both science and religion are current ‘best guesses’ about our universe, how it works, and how it began. The difference however for me is that science has a more educated guess, that can evolve and update explanations as new evidence comes to light, and is discussed and tested. Religion is stuck in the ‘this is the way it is’ best guess, and contradictory evidence isn;t incorporated into the theory, but discarded as heretical! Thankfully they don’t burn anyone at the stake anymore for disagreement!
Richard Brown
Huh? Which stage magician did Bush and Palin refer to?
NeroNull: You may have “faith” in science (as in not needing to look for the proof) but you don’t have to have faith as you can read articles and (in most cases) do your own tests to show the accuracy. With religion, you are almost always taking someone elses word on things.
Apicturehelduscaptive: I concur with what you are saying. I am happy to let others believe what they wish, as long as they are not trying to make me believe it (then I will refute what they are saying if needed) or their actions are not affecting my quality of life (God will save us, we don’t have to stop polluting the environment!) But there is much to be said about giving people options. A lot of religious people are religious, not because they weighed all the options but because that is what they learned growing up. They are trapped by their own upbringing. But, alas, it isn’t up to me to release them.
And , it may not be nice to tell people that the secret of the magic trick, but it’s also not nice to not offer and even encourage the acquisition of real knowledge. believing that magic is real may not be harmful at the moment, but in many cases it is (God will save my child, who needs health care!) How do we differentiate these cases?
I wouldn’t trust religion or science too much. Religion is wrong because it is always standing still. Science is wrong because it is never standing still. You’ll just have to live with common sense and comparing and contrasting things.
My best friend in the world is a theist. There are times when I come across some publication that,to me, clearly points out the futility of believing in a god, and I want to recommend it to her. Then I think of how much her faith enhances her life and I do not go there. It would be almost unkind. She knows I am an atheist and she accepts me completely, never trying to convince me otherwise. I know my life is much better for my not believing, and she thinks her life is better because of her belief system. We respect each other’s perspective in the matter. She is a staunch believer in separation of church and state. I guess theism fills a need in her life, a need I don’t have.
I am curious what people contributing to this blog think about theists like my friend. Each one of us thinks we are “right”, but is it necessary to try to convince each other of that if no one is harming anyone else?
So long as they don’t publicize their opinions, there’s no reason for anyone to challenge or question those opinions directly to them. However, lots of others to publicize their theism, so challenges to theism are already out there in public.
All that aside, since when has “it doesn’t harm anyone” been a reason not to question, challenge, or critique an opinion or idea? Your relationship is a good reason to stay away from that area, and in other relationships there are similar reasons to stay away from debates over sports, history, politics, child rearing, and other things.
If you didn’t have that relationship, though, the idea that “it’s not hurting anyone” just isn’t very relevant. It might change how forceful you are in expressing yourself, but it’s not by itself a reason to keep quiet.
Good points, Austin. Thank you.
I believe the true question is what is out there when we step out into eternity? Why is it that humans have a conscious mind? We have choice, animals have instinct they cant process things. Why our there so many scientific things that have to take place simultaneously for life to exist on this planet we call earth? i trust the science that supports my faith. A good book to read that shows science supporting faith is ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY by Mark Cahill. Check it out. Try to keep an open mind
animals have instinct they cant process things.
You obviously have never owned a cat. I’ve frequently seen my felines outthink and outwit the humans around them.
Try to keep an open mind
Why is it that apologists always tell us this when it was ‘keeping an open mind’ that made me an atheist in the first place, and continues to strenghten that decision with every encounter with religion since then.
Self righteousnss does hurt both the container and receiver. Religious wars are not good. Spreading disinformation and misinformation about the Constitution does hurt. Not protecting oneself against attempts of forcing religious based controls does harm and should be opposed. If that demands the use of evidence (not necessary to call it science, for reification and deification are common fallacies science vs religion) and logic, use it without shame or hesitation.
Brad Flesher wrote:
“I believe the true question is what is out there when we step out into eternity?”
Er, no Brad, that’s not a question, that’s an assumption phrased as a question. No human has the ability to “step out” into eternity.
“Why is it that humans have a conscious mind?”
Other mammals have conscious minds too. Do you ever ask yourself why? A better question would be “how”, not “why”. The answer is “because that is how life has evolved.” The process is explained by any high school biology text, so “try to keep an open mind”, and re-read all the stuff you should have stayed awake through in high school.
“We have choice, animals have instinct they cant process things.”
Which animals? Are you aware that there is a difference between, say, mammals and insects in regards to mental capacity?
“Why our there so many scientific things that have to take place simultaneously for life to exist on this planet we call earth?”
What are you asking here? Everything has a “scientific” explanation. And everything that exists, well, exists. So everything that exists “simultaneously” has a scientific explanation.
“i trust the science that supports my faith.”
And which “science” is that, exactly?
“A good book to read that shows science supporting faith is ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY by Mark Cahill.”
So, does this book allow religious people to rationalise keeping their religious faith despite the fact that it contradicts reality, or does this book pretend that all scientific advances which disprove the various gods and religions have actually done the opposite? Isn’t the point of this book really to allow people to compartmentalise their fear of death, and keep their afterlife fantasy/mythology intact in a world which no longer treats magic as if it were real?
“Try to keep an open mind”.
Is this advice that you follow? Or does this statement really mean “stop thinking differently than I do”?
Science and religion serve sociopaths. Science might be even worse.
John Hanks says, “Science and religion serve sociopaths. Science might be even worse.”
Can you suggest how science serves sociopaths?
Drew? Why are you so mad at Brad Flesher.
A lot of religious people are religious because of their own upbringing
So play nice.LOL
Come on folks, every belief system requires some unprovable “faith”. A belief in science requires unshakeable faith that the natural world contains all that is needed to understand and explain the natural world, and everything in it. If you’re an athiest, that’s your faith. Period.
I lean toward that belief (say 51-49% certainty). Religionists are certain that something else, outside nature, is required. In this life, none of us is ever going to know which is “right”. No amount of argument is ever going to settle it.
As long as there is anything unknown in life, one side will always say “God did it!”. The other side is just as sure that, “We’re still figuring it out!”. Until the day we learn everything, we’re going to have to make do with that.