Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5a.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!trc
From: trc@hou5a.UUCP (Tom Craver)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: The Fallacy of Faith
Message-ID: <487@hou5a.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Jan-84 16:14:12 EST
Article-I.D.: hou5a.487
Posted: Thu Jan 12 16:14:12 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jan-84 07:27:47 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 71

I would like to comment upon a fallacy that I have seen go essentially 
un-challenged.  Personally, I find it rather saddening that no scientist 
made the comment rather than me, a mere programmer type.

The statement has been made that science is a religion, because both
science and those systems that are commonly called religions are based
at the most fundamental level upon faith.  This is false.  Science is 
not based upon faith.

Faith is the acceptance of the truth of an idea without evidence.  Axioms 
are *not* accepted upon this basis.  Axioms are derived by induction from 
observed reality, and are generally self evident to a human (EG "I exist").  
(Which is not to say that a human mind cannot become so ruined by faith as to
reject these things.)  Hence, the axiom that nature is "regular" is based 
upon observing that the universe "behaves" in a manner consistent with past 
behavior, in a given context.  Only *counter-evidence* invalidates an axiom, 
and if there is strong evidence in support of the axiom, the counter evidence 
must be equally strong in nature.  (EG a second hand report that the world 
has suddenly become flat can be discounted, since there is strong evidence 
that the universe does not operate that way.)

Someone is sure to say "well, you have to have faith that your axioms wont
be shown to be incorrect".  Not at all.  One can be quite willing to accept
*evidence* showing an axiom incorrect.  As long as the axiom "works", no
evidence will have been found (since only a failure of the axiom would be 
evidence against it).   Hence there is no problem with using it until such 
an event.  As soon as a real exception to the the axiom is found (IE it doesnt
work), the axiom must be modified or replaced to fit the new evidence plus 
valid old evidence.  Then the new axiom takes on the same status the old 
axiom held.  The mere fact that an axiom *could* be found incorrect does 
not invalidate the idea of basing one's reasoning upon axioms.

Science is based upon *axioms*, not faith.  Religion is based upon faith.  
Evolution, as a product of science, *could* be proven incorrect.  But it 
*would* have to be proven incorrect, because it has strong evidence, and 
is consistent with the axioms of science.  Creationism, as a product of 
religion, does *not* have to be *proven* incorrect, since it has never 
provided strong evidence for its correctness, and because it is in opposition 
to well established axioms of science.  In short, creationism is based upon 
faith and religion (which is in turn based upon faith), and cannot be 
considered science without first invalidating the axioms of science.  Science 
and creationism (faith) *are* incompatible.  

It is *not* true that an "article of faith" (EG "God exists" or "The universe 
was Created") requires conclusive counter-evidence to invalidate it.  Such 
things are based upon little or no indicative evidence, and typically are
contradicted by other, stronger evidence (as is the case with evolution vs 
creation of life).  Also, such evidence as tends to support them tends, over
time, to be found explainable within the axioms of science.

What saddens me about the acceptance of faith as the basis for science is 
that it will eventually mean the end to real science.  Creationism provides
a good example of how this may come about.  The objective of the creationists 
is *not* truth, but establishing their idea of what the truth *should* be.  
Once creationism has achieved the sanction of good science, it will have 
attained its goal, so far as it is concerned with science.  Hence it can 
turn from seeking favor with science, to inhibiting it - so that it will 
not have to continually sew new patches across its rotten fabric, as new
(even minor) discoveries rip it wide.

Faith has a more direct effect, however.  Once faith becomes acceptable as
a basis for "creation of hypotheses", scientists will be admitting that
reason is not required to create the products of reason.  Another of those
products is the in-validation of a hypothesis.  This will be the next to fall.
The nature of faith is that it rejects the validity of evidence.  Without
valid evidence, nothing can be proven invalid.  Hence any hypothesis can only 
be judged upon subjective standards - does it "feel" right or does it insult 
one (by contradicting one's other opinions, hence making one look bad).

	Tom Craver
	hou5a!trc