No, Science is not Faith-Based
Ethan Siegel

You are almost entirely correct. Almost. But when we drill down to the most fundamental question, it’s not quite as you say. I’ll explain.

There was a book awhile back discussing all the most fundamental attributes of the nature of our universe — charge to mass ratios of elementary particles, that sort of thing — that had to be exactly what they are, to ten or twenty decimal places, or our universe could not be the life supporting place we know and love. You yourself have added to that list with things such as all the dark matter and energy, necessary for galaxy formation. The odds that all of these could randomly be exactly what they are are statistically impossible.

The scientific explanations I have read for the existence of our life supporting universe fall into three categories. First, our universe erupted from nothing — true “nothing”, not just empty space in spacetime— implying that all the fundamental nature and the laws of physics were unconstrained by anything, just random. That idea demands a statistically infinite number of universes, so that one of them might have exactly the right combination. The Multiverse, and the Anthropogenic Principle.

Second, our universe is simply one part of a larger SuperUniverse, within which our universe erupted. That idea accepts that the nature of our universe conforms to the nature and physical laws of the SuperUniverse. So every other universe that might exist would be identical to ours as far as its fundamental nature goes. And implies that the SuperUniverse had no beginning; it simply always was; and the SuperUniverse itself has a statistically impossible life supporting nature. Curious.

Third, that there is a power that exists outside any existence we can understand, which can and did cause our universe to “erupt” and which constrained it to have exactly the nature that it does have, with its life supporting nature. That idea implies an action with a purpose, a Creator.

Now here’s where faith comes in. Scientists can certainly speculate about these things, and the speculations are highly entertaining. But the science you describe, of measuring and experimentation, cannot apply to any of these three categories. No information survived the Big Bang. No experimentation is possible across “nothing” to detect other universes. No detection is possible of other universes in a SuperUniverse, that lie beyond the limits of our own universe.

Therefore, science has nothing definitive to say about which of the three categories is the right one. And it never will. If you believe it will, you take that belief on faith. If individual scientists firmly believe in one or the other of the three categories, they do so on faith in that belief. And because they like the implications of that choice or dislike the implications of the other choices.

The most fundamental question facing humanity lies beyond science and lies in the realm of faith.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.