A staple in the arsenal of Christian apologetics is that, at the end of the day (not End of Days), even scientists base their beliefs on faith. Recently in the New York Times, a scientist talked about using the f-word in making the leap from
SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term âdoubting Thomasâ well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.
The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified. …
Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith â namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence. …
Until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
Thoughts?
(Hat tip: The Frontal Cortex)
