Argumentative religious people often seem to comment that science requires 
faith. Argumentative non-religious people say that's nonsense, since there 
is evidence.  I contend that there are at least two things most scientists 
take on faith, without supporting evidence:

1) That reality works substantially in accordance with measurements.
1A) We're not in the Matrix, nor other jar-in-a-brain situations.
1B) We're not wholly simulated entities created by an uber-programmer,
     a dreaming deity, etc.
1C) There is no supernatural entity attempting to mislead us. (E.g.,
     Satan is not intervening in the studies on how well prayer works
     in order to discredit its effectiveness.)

2) Humans aren't special.
2A) Humans aren't at the center of the universe, in spite of everything
     moving away from us.
2B) Humans aren't the first intelligent life forms, in spite
     of the Fermi paradox.
2C) Humans aren't in a region of space whose physical laws and/or constants
     are significantly different than elsewhere. (E.g., red shift is caused
     by galaxies moving uniformly away, rather than humans happening to be
     in a place where the speed of light is at a universal minimum or
     maximum.)
2D) There is no advanced or supernatural entity(ies) guiding evolution, etc,
     such that humans come out on top. (E.g., the meteor strike that wiped
     out the dinosaurs was accidental.)
2E) Most contradictions to this can be explained by the Anthropic principle.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message