Over at The Frontal Cortex, Jonah Lehrer wrote a nice piece in response to Paul Davies' NY Times Op-Ed. PD argues that

... both religion and science are founded on faith ? namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence....[U]ntil science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

In a tidy exposition, JL introduces Quine's holistic account of knowledge to support Davies, concluding that

a little faith in science isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, one might even say that faith is an essential part of the scientific process.

The introduction of Quine is helpful, but I'm forced to reflect on whether "faith" is used univocally in both contexts. On Quine's account of science (aimed at knowledge of the world), the periphery of our belief system (theories) bumps up against our experiences continually (and intentionally), possibly causing reverberations that eventuate in changes to the core. Nothing is irrevisable and there is no foundation from which we can ultimately evaluate the results. We are, as the metaphor goes, adrift on a raft at sea, changing planks as necessary.

Religious epistemologies tend to be quite different. Religious belief held in faith is held in spite of new experience, not in lieu of it. There is no expectation that bumping up against the world will bring about changes in core beliefs held on faith; in fact, if anything the expectation is that faith will trump recalcitrant experience (though that has not always happened in history). These approaches are often more authoritarian and hierarchical; revelatory and foundational in just the way that Quine opposes (though his target was Logical Positivism).

"Faith" might appear in both contexts, but apart from the fact that there is a commitment to an unobservable object, its role in the acquisition of knowledge is very different. In science, as JL points out, "We accept our starting premises on faith (the invisible yet inviolable laws of science) simply because they help us make sense of totally separate layers of experience." Faith, in a religious context, may be used to make sense of some experience, but its' objects are eternally resistant to revision. So if we are going to talk about the "faith" of scientists alongside religious faith, we need to be careful.

The metaphor of the raft and the pyramid (to borrow from Ernie Sosa) should capture the difference I'm highlighting. But somehow it feels more like the difference between drifting on a raft and flying on a magic carpet.

The Frontal Cortex : The Faith of Scientists

TrackBack