The 3 Aspects of Scientific Faith

For there are three that bear record in Science, the IF, the THEN, and the THEREFORE: and these three are one.

– The Scientific Trinity

The traditional battle line of science vs. faith is a false dichotomy because what people call “science” is actually popular science (SciPop) which requires 3 aspects of faith: ignorance, motivational and developmental.

Ignorance

The ignorance of SciPop is the belief that scientific knowledge is absolute, even though you don’t know what that knowledge actually is. The vast majority of people are in this category because they have no idea why they believe what they do.

Heliocentricity is a great example. Heliocentricity is theoretical, yet everybody’s convinced that basic observation proves it. The problem is that we’re on the Earth, we observe the cosmos from the Earth, and our frame of reference is inherently and empirically Geocentrospheric.

Most people are perfectly content to believe that someone understands it, even if they themselves don’t. As a result, the vast majority of people can be said to have faith in something that they don’t understand and can’t explain. When you point out that this is the definition of religion, don’t expect to make any friends. Scientism is a word used to describe this phenomenon.

No one can prove that the solar system is heliocentric but that doesn’t stop people trying. Folk who Google “proof of heliocentricity” and post the links to the articles that they found generated the resource which we call Science is the New Ignorance.

Motivational

The motivational faith of SciPop is, in part, the genuine search for knowledge manifested as the belief that the scientific pursuit is valid and worthwhile. A major factor in this type of scientific faith is the human ego. The drive to discover new knowledge is linked to the desire to receive recognition, status and advancement.

Developmental

The developmental faith of SciPop is the real rubber-meets-the-road of logical reasoning. A choice has to be made about the significance of an observation, such as the apparent redshift of stars, the cause of which can’t be seen and so it is hoped for, and then with this choice a theoretical explanation can be developed. It’s an inductive process.

Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.

– Inductive Reasoning, definition (Wikipedia)

All evidence has to be induced to fit the SciPop narrative of godless existence. This faith-based induced narrative is then presented as being the evidence of its own validity. In case you weren’t sure, this is also known as circular reasoning.

The problem with the example, redshift, is that in Matty’s Paradigm it has two possible causes which are both consistent with the primary source of evidence: the empirical observation of redshifted wavelengths.

1. Gravitational time dilation,
2. stars are fragments of red colored crystalline firmament material (CFM).

---

---