Taking Science on Faith

In a recent op-ed piece in the NY Times, Paul Davies stirs up the long-standing argument that the reliance on "immutable" mathematical laws by physical science is an act of faith, and thus (or in this way) science is no different than religion.

More interesting, perhaps, is this series of rebuttals to this tired assertion by The Reality Club at edge.org. Choice quotes include:

Alas, Davies also brings up the anthropic principle, that tiresome exercise in metaphysical masturbation that always flounders somewhere in the repellent ditch between narcissism and solipsism.

  -- PZ Myers

Science is, indeed, founded on the working hypothesis, one amply borne out by four centuries of scientific practice, that the world, or at least some aspects of it, is ordered in a stable and intelligible way. But that tentative and partly testable working hypothesis is a far cry from religions' reliance on sacred texts and personal revelations. To characterize these radically dissimilar endeavors as both based on "faith" is to point out a superficial commonality while obscuring the fundamental difference. And at a time when humanity is wracked by conflict between incompatible versions of faith, in the genuine sense of the term, to muddy the distinction between religion and science is worse than philosophically misguided: it is irresponsible.

  -- Alan Sokal