Do you think Science is a faith?

[Furrowed Brow]

science is a methaphysical assumption

mateiralism is a metaphysical assumption

your rejection of superanturalism is a metaphsyical assumption

Science is currently the dominant religion,

I see a connection between the two quotes. If I went and dug hard enough I'm sure I could find similar opinions in this forum. These are just the most recent ones I've come across. If I may generalize - they are the kind of statements made by theists. They seem to reflect a belief/attitude (either explicit or implicit) that the theist's claim to truth or knowledge are just as strong as science, or that science's claim is just as rickety as theism's. This belief might best be summed up as: the rejection of supernaturalism (the immaterial) is just an assumption made by materialism and science, and to presume its truth requires a faith not dissimilar to a religion.

Ok lets define supernaturalism as the belief in non physical/non material beings, entities or existences.

So how do we know science/materialism does not rejecting supernaturalism on faith? To be clear about the question. I am not asking whether supernaturalism is true or false. The question is about the strength of the methodology and logic of material science. To put the question another way: How much faith does the rejection of the supernatural require? None, some or heaps.

To kick off I say none. (And I'll try to back that up if/as the topic advances).

[QED]

im still not seeing the equation of science religion, ESPECIALLY if you are referencing sciences constant evolution.

"No comparison" might be the instinctive feeling of a practicing scientist when comparing his or her discipline with the practices of the World's Religions. And this is a very reasonable feeling given the enormous flexibility of science to change with the times. And what marks out time for science is the testing and re-testing of old theories. That's why any theory that is in principle untestable cannot be regarded as a truly scientific theory -- as it makes time stand still. This is why Popular Religion is so manifestly stuck in the past as it's mostly founded upon things which are in principle untestable.

But there's a hitch when we bring faith into the equation.

Last year's 2005 Edge Question — "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" — generated many eye-opening responses from a "who's who" of third culture scientists and science-minded thinkers. The 120 contributions comprised a document of 60,000 words. The New York Times ("Science Times") and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ("Feuilliton") published excepts in their print and online editions simultaneously with Edge publication.

I don't know if you're aware of the annual Edge Question, or of the Edge Foundation but the list of Founding contributors should contain some names that are familiar to you:

Paul Davies
Richard Dawkins
Daniel C. Dennett
Niles Eldredge
J. Doyne Farmer
Murray Gell-Mann
Brian Goodwin
Stephen Jay Gould
Alan Guth
W. Daniel Hillis
Nicholas Humphrey
Steve Jones
Stuart Kauffman
Christopher Langton
Lynn Margulis
Marvin Minsky
Roger Penrose
Steven Pinker
Martin Rees
Roger Schank
Lee Smolin
Francisco Varela
George C. Williams


The point that I think shouldn't be lost on us is that there are issues of faith even in pure science. I would recommend that you read Ian McEwan's book What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty to see how successfully issues of faith can be handled in science.