An Unfair Comparison: Faith vs. Science

A few weeks back we had a speaker at our church discussing our narrative interpretation of the Creation story in Genesis. It was then during the Q&A section at the end that an interesting question about faith vs. science was asked, to which he answered that such a question was an unfair comparison.

But what exactly does this mean, it being an unfair comparison? Well first off it assumes that there lies a deep division between the two, that they are both distinct from one another, which of course isn’t true. These days many Atheist tend to assume that faith is sinuous with religion and while it is a deeply important factor of any sort of religion, it is equally as important for another school of thought we are all familiar with: science

With Science, regardless of what field anyone studies, it core principle in how it is practiced and studied all comes back to the Scientific Method. That’s pretty basic stuff, its so basic that we all understand it without us really having to think about the Scientific Method when considering empirical evidence.

So then how does faith relate to science then, when the two couldn’t any further apart in our modern culture? Well, at the bare basics, the first step of the Scientific Method requires you to make an observation followed by a question as to why it happens. From there hypothesizes and theories are developed, based on what is already known and what has just been observed. But then comes the first question of faith: how do you know what is already known is in fact true and how do you also know what you observe to be accurate?

And there lies truth of the comparison, that any belief no matter how logical or illogical it may seem, is in fact based on the most simplest faith that we believe what we know to be true. But can we actually know that what we observe or what science tells us is absolute truth? No, for all we know we could all be delusional and if that was the case any understanding we thought we had of the universe would in fact be deeply flawed.

So then what about the other way around, with Atheists treating science like a religion that has all the answers to the universe? Again this line of thought requires faith, that as a scientist your biased view of what science has presented to you, is in fact true. But if you look at the Scientific Method, it really comes down to the statistical average and consistency of the “if… then…” question.

And I’m sure people will bring up the question that statement not revolving around concepts like math and such, to which I say that math is a language of logic that proves the significance of science and the logic that exists within creation’s design. However presuming that theories about how the universe was formed or trying to predict how humans will react is still an act of extreme faith in science’s capacity.

For decades Atheists have tried to win a pointless fight against religion as a faulty belief while not considering what exists at the core at that belief and their own. A belief that if you are a scientist, someone who studies the rules and laws of nature, that you can’t have faith in anything. But when you really look at it that belief condones the very notion of scientific discovery, that their biased scientific view and observation of the universe are absolute with no possibly of error (there’s a reason we have error analysis in science) or misinterpretation. For no human can know or be certain of any absolutes, the can only assert their belief in what they think is absolute and hope that they are in fact right.

Originally published at on October 16, 2017.