International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Is science faith-based?

Bill Thompson 75 · 9th May 2012, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by SkeptimusPrime

The argument used by the religious (at least the ones who make a cogent argument) is to say that one has to accept that empirical thinking is valid without any proof, since proof would necessarily rely on empirical thinking and would therefore be circular.

The argument is therefore that we accept methodological naturalism in a sort of faith based way.

I think the primary failure here is a sort of confusion about degrees of certainty, as if because we cannot be 100% sure of empiricism means that believing in it puts you on equal footing with people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old because a book said so.

Just because neither claim can be demonstrated as true with 100% certainty doesn't mean it is equally reasonable to believe either one.

This is the crux of the issue, that one requires more faith than the other.

9th May 2012, 11:43 AM	#125
Bill Thompson 75 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,437	Originally Posted by SkeptimusPrime The argument used by the religious (at least the ones who make a cogent argument) is to say that one has to accept that empirical thinking is valid without any proof, since proof would necessarily rely on empirical thinking and would therefore be circular. The argument is therefore that we accept methodological naturalism in a sort of faith based way. I think the primary failure here is a sort of confusion about degrees of certainty, as if because we cannot be 100% sure of empiricism means that believing in it puts you on equal footing with people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old because a book said so. Just because neither claim can be demonstrated as true with 100% certainty doesn't mean it is equally reasonable to believe either one. This is the crux of the issue, that one requires more faith than the other.