Faith as the foundation of science

The popular media persists on propagating the notion that what we see in the Origins debate is a matter of faith vs science. This is an utterly fallacious claim, but that doesn't seem to matter. As long as this ragged flag continues to fly it's incumbent upon Christians to address it.

Quotes and comments;

A. One of the most notable proponents of the science vs religion idea is our friend Richard Dawkins. He takes great delight in comparing the absurdities of religion with the profundities of science. This stance was paraded in his British TV series 'The Root of all Evil'.

In a summary of the show we read;
"Dawkins continues with a discussion of what he sees as a conflict between faith and science (see conflict thesis). He points out that science involves a process of constantly testing and revising theories in the light of new evidence, while faith makes a virtue out of believing unprovable and often improbable propositions." [1.]

- According to theologian Cornelius Van Til, all knowledge is grounded in faith; and this is as true for the Christian as the non-Christian, as true for the theist as the materialist. According to the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, universal doubt is impossible; to know anything at all we must hold certain concepts to be beyond doubt (i.e. to be undeniably true). Wittgenstein claimed that people hold certain truths not on the basis of evidence or proof but simply because these are what one believes if one grows up in a certain tradition. (i.e. these 'truths' can't be proved, they're just accepted.) Van Til on the other hand believed there were good reasons to hold the basic Christian doctrines.

What kinds of things are we talking about? What is this faith upon which all knowledge depends? All people (no matter in what part of the pie they sit) must believe that the universe is real; that experience is real; that there's a real connection between reality and experience; they must believe in the basic truthfulness of their senses; they must believe in the validity of human language, that words have a real connection with reality; they must believe in the basic rationality of thought; they must believe in the possibility of truth, of the possibility of knowing truth; they must believe in other minds; they must believe true communication is possible; they must believe in existence of basic laws; they must believe in the uniformity of laws and of the universe; they must (if they want to do certain kinds of science) believe in the validity of numbers and of mathematics; they must believe there's a connection between numbers (math) and the universe. Whether this exhausts the list of things people must believe to have knowledge I'm not sure, but it's enough to make the point.

No one can prove these things (this necessary foundation for knowledge) they're just accepted on faith. This being the case it's absurd for materialists and atheists to claim that Christians (etc) take things on faith, and that the scientist doesn't require faith. At best this is naive claim that fails to comprehend the human situation and the basis of knowledge; at worst it's a case of deliberate deceit on the part of people who make the claim.

The difference between the faith of the Christian and the faith of the Materialist is that the faith of the Christian is founded upon good reason, while the faith of the materialism is founded on nothing. The materialist must believe that some kind of an explosion led to the 'emergence' of the universe; that somehow in a chance universe laws came into being, that matter came from nothing, and that all we see somehow emerged without a cause. He must believe that all the requirements for knowledge happen to exist by accident... by some kind of process of random chance. He must believe that some grand series of cosmic flukes are what make knowledge possible. In short; he has faith, but he has no reasons for his faith.

The Christian believes that it is god who makes all these things possible; that knowledge is rooted in the fact that the same God who created the universe, created man, and that this is what gives the connection between man's thinking and the universe. Van Til claimed that knowledge depends upon all of the basic Christian doctrines being true; that they are the only possible basis for human knowledge and human experience. It is thus God who is the ground of both moral and physical law; it is god who is provides the possibility of human freedom; it is god who is the source of human personality and intelligence; it is God who is the source of information and intelligence; it is God who is the ground of human language and logic.

Summary;
The idea there is a conflict between 'science' and 'faith' is a mistaken notion based on a deep ignorance of epistemology. Knowledge in general, and science in particular depend upon a belief in certain unproven presuppositions. Without this belief no knowledge is possible.

- Michael Johnson

Notes;
1. 'Dawkins continues with a discussion of what he sees as a conflict between faith and science (see conflict thesis). He points out that science involves a process of constantly testing and revising theories in the light of new evidence, while faith makes a virtue out of believing unprovable and often improbable propositions. - Wikipedia/2010 (about the TV show 'The Root of all Evil')