Does science require faith?

Science is the alternative to religious faith... yet perhaps, even itself may require one to take a leap of faith.

Is believing, and putting ones full belief and faith into science the same as putting ones faith into christianity? Is it one in the same?

Science requires a lot of faith. You have to ‘believe’ and have ‘faith’ in the things that scientists write have been proven true in a laboratory. Say that gravity pulls, that light travels very fast or that fire is hot. You can go out and prove a lot of these and witness them (through sensory experience) directly. But, inevitably we run out of time, or lack the ability to test every little thing we read or hear and so we have to take a leap of faith that some things, in science, are true- simply based on another persons word. We have to trust that scientists are telling us what is and isn't true. (given they already passed whatever personal-criteria we may need to give the stamp of legitimacy).

So have I ever seen light travel as fast as it does in actuality? Well no, because when I turn on a light in my room it is around me, seemingly, immediately. I have to trust the inventor of the speed of light that my seeing this appearance instantly is simply an error on my brains ability to recognize things as fast as his scientific instruments did and that light does indeed travel at 186,000 miles per second. Or, perhaps, I could infer from other experiments that used his results, that indeed the findings have shown to be true, in a different but similar test. Say light traveling in laser-signals over astronomical distances. (when NASA sends a command to Opportunity rover on Mars it can take 20 minutes to get there, and 20 more minutes for it to get back, even at 186,000 miles per second)!

Yet science is a grand-structure and if you knock out one of the foundational pillars parts of the building collapse. If someone proves that indeed light DOESN’T travel fast, and is slow- you would have to observe, first of all, why previous experiments showed otherwise, and also that every science utilizing the previous wrong-conclusion are indeed wrong. So something like alchemy has to eventually be proven faulty, because lead cannot turn into gold (although oddly enough one could turn lead into gold if they had access to some real nifty scientific technology), and all previous science using alchemy's conclusions has to be in some-part wrong. Alchemy's pillar broke, and with it all science using it’s support. Sometimes these collapses can be devastatingly wide-spread (such as Newton’s laws being proven ‘wrong’ with relativity theory, or the onset of quantum indeterminism).

Yet science is robust and is openly awaiting these devastating foundational rumblings, indeed embraces them as a central strength (although these shifts, themselves are always met with exceeding cynicism). The monument of science was always built to be moveable, and breakable, and adaptable (dare I say evolutional).

Yet, this is not blind faith in science. I do not believe 100% in anything because so much has been proven wrong in the past. So we, as critical scientists, look at the world with concern and dis-belief with the hope our conclusions will prove to be of a much more sound base than other systems of conclusion (religion). So my faith is non-existent in a sense, because I do not have 100% faith in anything. I will never undyingly profess my belief in Newton’s mathematics, even though they have proven true every-time I try and dis-prove them(i.e.: use them). For example, by using his theory that a square has four sides and seemingly finding it occurs to be true every-time so far in my 25 years.

Yet are christians willing to change their foundation?

Well, picture a christian whom believes that the bible is the direct word of God. If the bible is ever shown to be wrong (although faith and belief needs no proof so it technically could never be shown.... but hold your cynicism), if somehow I could convince this christian that indeed one little passage in the bible, lets take leviticus 11:12 "Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you..”, is wrong, and she was convinced that indeed eating shellfish is not a sin- than I have shown that the bible is only 99.999999% true and not 100%. Well if I had dis-proven the word of god, then the entire bible is to be viewed as not 100% true. the entire world of christianity would collapse if anything in the bible is proven wrong to these devout christians.

Of course no all Christians take the bible to be the direct word of god, or perhaps it is the direct word of god, but our translation or interpretation of it is wrong. Or perhaps the bible was simply written for all-ages and that what worked for them doesn't work for us... I don’t know.

To these non-traditional/fundamental believers. To the ones that admit stoning people is ludicrous (Leviticus 20:13) or that sacrificing your son because you hear gods word is kind of crazy (Issac) or any other insane story of the bible, MIGHT be wrong- well than you have already taken a huge leap towards enlightenment. You have already tossed aside the un-movability of the shackles of 100% truth belief, and are now steadily building speed on the slippery slope you just evoked.

Because if you are saying your interpretation of the bible is different and better than this immovable fundamentalist interpretation you are saying the bible is open to debate. God only gave us a hint in the bible- and it is up to humanity to use its brain-power to find the true meaning of the book. Some parts are wrong. Some stories aren’t true. And now we have a pock-marked foundation. and pock-marked foundations collapse, as will theirs if we press them hard enough to define who,what,when,where and why there faith has come to be what it is. If we ask them to discover any concession in the bibles 100% truth, this will lead to an irrevocable collapse of their highest beliefs.

Then we can start fixing this planet using reason and not crap.