Have you ever wondered why the basic laws in science always start with assumptions?
In science everything is experimentally proved. There is no question of dogmatic faith in scientific methodology. Scientists attempt to understand the origin and function of universe and life in purely physical terms which is based on 3 assumptions:
- All phenomena can be completely explained by natural laws expressed in language of mathematics.
- That these physical laws apply everywhere at all times.
- That the fundamental natural laws are simple.
These are assumptions, these haven’t been proven yet, nor is it easy to prove them. Scientists have wholehearted faith that these principles are correct. Through these assumptions they try to explain everything by simple physical laws. One of the reason that scientists feel to adopt this strategy of simplification is that the underlying universe can be described by simple quantitative laws then they can understand the universe and manipulate it considering the limitations of human mind. They believe that physical laws discovered in the lab experiments on the earth apply everywhere at all time and space. Thus believing in an empirical scientific theory requires faith just as much as believing that a personal God creates and maintains the universe. But when this point is vocalized many people will raise loud objections that in scientific method nothing is accepted without proper experimental verification. But has any experiment been performed to prove that the physical laws are valid at all time and space? In the absence of its verification we can say that the faith has only been given a new guise and not abolished.
How do we know what scientists are saying are even true? Do they even truly portray their findings? We don’t really understand the complex experimental or analytical process they use to verify their theorems. Common people neither understand the hypothesis nor the experiment chosen to prove it, but they have unquestionable faith that scientists get to the bottom of things through pure empirical methods and present them honestly. Is it because they are respectable authorities in our society?
Anything that we have not experienced personally, but are accepting as facts must involve some faith.
Man landing on Moon in 1969, we all believed it, but why? Because NASA showed us a video of Neil Armstrong landing on the Moon? Or was it because we heard the famous words “One small step …” through the radio? We don’t know about it for sure, do we? We believed it because we had faith in the people who presented this incident to us. There was a lot of questions raised by many American scientists themselves about this incident where the flag of U.S.A. was fluttering on the Moon, a place we know has no atmosphere. This is just one of many reasons why it is a hoax in the mind of many people including scientists, yet we read in our primary school text books that the Apollo 11 landed on the Moon.
Faith is same whether you accept the standards of anti materialistic scientist or materialistic scientist. The methods put forward by anti materialist scientist can be followed even by a child and appropriate results realized by him, but in order to understand modern scientific thought one has to pursue high level degrees and understand great deal of jargon terminology. This makes it accessible only to a few chosen “elite” members.
The empirical method of realizing the truth as advocated by modern scientists precludes any possibility of perceiving the ultimate truth in case it is not materialistic. Because we can’t perceive something non material with material senses or extensions of material senses. By accepting the authority of material scientists we can never access the absolute truth.