A fascinating discussion brewing on Digg.com: is there science without faith?
I just want to highlight a few interesting points that struck me.
It is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers... These are the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called "acts of faith," then almost everything we know must be said to be based on of faith, and the term loses its meaning.
I don't think that makes the term lose its meaning. The very idea that we can know anything requires a certain level of faith. That we exist, that there is continuity in time. That people continue exist even if they leave the room. That my memories actually happened, and weren't just implanted moments ago in my mind. All of these terribly important assumptions are simply assumptions; we have to either accept them or go mad. That's faith, and it doesn't damage our ability to learn and know.
Further, science is based upon verifiability. I can trust the word of a scientist because I can verify his claims. Religions OTOH, rely on the fallacy of appeal to authority, and their claims cannot be independently verified.
Religions ought not appeal to authority, exactly, in the sense of appealing to the authority of a priest or other earthly interpretor of God.
James 1:5 -- "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."
Moroni 10:4 -- "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."
Religion asks you to find out for yourself. Faith based simply on authority -- my parents said so, my priest said so -- isn't the end point.
One fundamental difference between science and religion is that scientific text is constantly updated whereas holy scripture remains constant. Historically many scientists' conjectures have been inaccurate but when there is sufficient evidence to reject them, scientists cease to advocate them. In contrast, the religious community refuse to change any holy text under any circumstances.
...Many of the criticisms of religion stem from the underlying belief that religion is false. Unchangingness is sometimes absolutely the right thing to do, when you're right.(Sometimes even when you're right, the right thing to do is change. But that probably has more to do with relationships than absolute truth.)
Anyway, that's enough for now. Just had to respond somewhere less crazy than a Digg comment thread.