1 The questions

Science studies the physical universe – observing, measuring, categorizing, experimenting, and theorizing about whatever is in or has an affect on that universe. I have always had an interest in ideas concerning the assumptions that one must adopt that make science possible and meaningful. Scientists and philosophers have debated what assumptions underlie science and provide the framework that allows us to take it seriously. Irrespective of the pleasant and convenient fact that it works very well at explaining our world, some valid questions can be asked:

• What justifies our confidence in science as a methodology and approach to understanding the world?


• Is science ultimately based on pure faith or on something more substantial?


• Is science itself just a new modern religion?

Many thoughtful people have approached these questions from different religious and philosophical positions. Those from a particular viewpoint - the anti-scientific, sometimes fundamentalist, post-modernist, or mystical camps - frequently denigrate the underlying postulates of science as being just as unprovable as faith in an all-powerful creator or other unprovable explanatory concept. I see this transparent attack as an attempt to put science in the position of “a pot calling the kettle black”. If these aspersions could be made to stick, then by what right would so-called “irreligious science” advocates have to accuse the religious or mystical of blind faith when they are just as guilty of resting on the same foundation?

These issues are not being debated in science circles. Most scientists are generally not also metaphysicians. They have as little need of it as plumbers or dentists. They can do their job independent of the answers to these questions because science is primarily a methodology rather than a philosophy. It is possible to be a good scientist while having either no opinion of, or even unusual opinions of the underlying philosophy. The accusations of groups like the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, right-wing pundits, new age advocates, post-modernists, alternative medicine proponents, and others go mostly unnoticed by those actually contributing to the advance of knowledge. But the mischaracterizations and semantic sleight of hand from these groups are damaging to the public understanding of science and to the overall intelligence of our society. They deserve a response.

This paper will explore the “faith” that underlies science – or better expressed, the first principles that are either implicitly or explicitly accepted in its practice. These involve belief in the existence of a real world, belief that humans can experience that world, and the belief that they can draw valid conclusions from those experiences. It will examine the approaches that well-known and influential writers have taken to addressing some problems related to the concept of faith/belief in science:

• What is faith?


• How does faith differ from rational belief?


• What is reality?


• Can humans have meaningful experiences of reality?


• Can we draw inferences and conclusions based on our experience?


• What are the basic, underlying assumptions of science?


• On what basis can we have confidence in these assumptions?


• Is nature uniform and predictable?


• What values does science embrace?


• Why is science not a religion?

I’m not a scientist, but an avid science supporter. I sit on the sidelines and cheer on the various contributors. Having had a long interest in the philosophy of science, I hope to help clarify the confusion generated when adherents of many anti-reason, anti-science faiths make the false equivalence between their faith and the assumptions which underpin the scientific process.

Note: The following text borrows heavily from a number of sources, which I list in the references. With apologies, actual footnotes are not included in the body of the text. When in doubt, you may assume I have borrowed ideas and phrases from other sources, though I attempted in all cases to express ideas formulated by others in my own words. I don’t claim to have originated the all of the concepts outlined here, but only to have presented them in my own manner.