"whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue."

I dispute this statement.  Belief is never without some kind of evidence--generally testimony of some sort.  Thomas was rebuked for relying solely on his own senses for evidence.

"Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith"

Science is founded on metaphysical assumptions.  It progresses by experimentation, testimony from other scientists, and theorizing.

@darkwolfofvoid - "We have every good reason to base the objectivity off the consistency that we find in our shared experiences."

What do you mean by "shared experiences?"

"We didn't just say "the universe is ordered, lets test some stuff.""

Actually, we did.  See Whitehead or Pearcy and Thaxton.

"In fact, quantum mechanics is not that elegant"

???  I found it to be very elegant.

"There need be no conscious or thoughtful entity behind every process and relation in the universe, so why posit one at the back of all of it?!"

Your restatement of Davies argument is lacking an important element.  Let me rephrase your restatement to make the issue more plain: "There need be no conscious or thoughtful entity behind every process and relation in the universe which are governed by fixed and immutable laws, so why posit a lawgiver at the back of all of it?!"

The answer seems to me to involve our humanity.  We form laws; formation of laws requires thought and understanding.  Discovery of natural laws by scientists likewise requires thought and understanding.  Natural laws are more complex in their functioning than our man-made laws; their formation would require greater thought and understanding than we possess.

@soccerdadforlife - 

soccerdad:

[I dispute this statement.  Belief is never without some kind of evidence--generally testimony of some sort.]

Agreed. And I think Davies disputes this statement too, which is why he precedes it with the phrase "we are told" to indicate that this isn't his stance. I think Davies just wants to point out that both science and religion rest on alot of unproven assumptions that require a "leap of faith" to accept and that the hitherto "neat seperation" between the two is illusory. Science doesn't rest on evidence while religion rests completely on faith. They both have degrees of evidence in their favor, but they both require that we first accept their initial assumptions on faith.

Wolf:

[It was through the experimentation and testing, etc. that we discover the universe is well ordered.]

Agreed. But I think the more important question that Davies is trying to get at here is, from whence comes the order? From whence comes the natural laws that we all just accept as axiomatic? To account for them we must either speculate the existence of a lawgiver (i.e. where there are laws there is a lawgiver), or we must speculate that the natural laws are eternal and have always existed. But we have no proof of either, so both require a "leap of faith" if you will.

[There need be no conscious or thoughtful entity behind every process and relation in the universe, so why posit one at the back of all of it?!]

Well, its either that or just assume that the natural laws are eternal and have alway existed. What is the evidence for that? All the evidence to date suggests that the natural laws came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. Which is why Davies says that whatever created the universe must have both preceded and transcended it. Theists argue that this was a designer while most atheists argue that the universe itself is eternal and doesn't need a reason for existing...it just always has. But as Davies says: "The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that...there are reasons things are as they are." Just saying that the natural laws exist without reason is anti-rational and anti-scientific because science always seeks to discover cause-effect relationships. It doesn't throw its hands up and say: "Well thats just the way it is!"

@comenowtisI - "If you find random probability elegant."

Just choose a large sample and the probabilities sort themselves out among the quantized states.  I found this quite elegant.

"Quantum entanglement?"

Magic!  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

"I agree with darkwolfofvoid, our observations are indeed based upon consistent results."

But philosophically, we presupposed an ordered universe in Christian Europe due to theological presuppositions.  This ordered universe meant that there were fixed laws (as oppose to randomly-varying properties which some religions believe).  This gave science a basis for its method.  There's no denying that fact.

"It takes many years for scientists to formulate their theories (based upon their observations, not faith) and it takes many more for them to submit their findings to the community as a whole, where it is rigorously scrutinized, and eventually (if they're lucky) become accepted."

Surely, it can take eons, like a meeting of the Ents.  Sometimes theories are accepted and rejected several times.  A lot of times it ends up being an argument between philosophies as Nancy Pearcey pointed out.

"Goodgreypoet makes the process sound like a town hall meeting on a Wednesday night."

Well, sometimes those meetings may seem like they take eons.    Old business has a way of coming up at those town hall meetings when people don't like the original decision.  Tenacity can be a virtue if it is applied with good reason.

I'd like to ask Paul Davies what the laws of astrobiology are.

@soccerdadforlife - 

Those shared experiences we all have that help us shape our objective reality. The couple people you mention do not constitute the universe of "we." That is not how science operates. I am sure you've listened to, or watched, Dawkin's speech about the queerness of the quantum world (I do believe it is on ted dot com). The only elegance in it comes from the limited theories we have. It is still quite queer. As for your restating my argument, the point has nothing to do about law making. The natural laws are in no way analogous to man-made laws. They're not even laws in that sense. That comparison is horrible!

@GOODGREYPOET - 

The order comes part in parcel with what constitutes the universe. Whether there is some intelligence or natural phenomena behind that may be something we will never know, but you seem to not understand what an axiom is. These "laws" are not primitive terms of some system we just take for granted to define everything else. We have proven the confidence in these things we have discovered. We don't look at them as having been caused nor eternal because that's like saying "was electro-magnitism created or just existed forever?" That is nonsensical. We have proven that electro-magnitism is the by-product of complex interactions with subatomic particles as shown by the Standard Model. If the ultimate concern is "what started or created the universe?" then that is not a question of physics since our tools to measure are governed by the universe we have to use them in. If we could transcend the universe, then it would not be a problem, possibly, to evaluate the universe with transcended tools. Nevertheless, there is no reason to suppose a creator or such since what could have constituted the Big Bang could just as well been a natural phenomena itself, or "thought-less" if you will. We can't say. Our universe could be the result of a transcended elephant fart for all we know. It bears very little weight on what we're doing here in our trivial little existence.

@darkwolfofvoid - "Dawkin's speech about the queerness of the quantum world"

Well, his understanding of it is probably at the pop-science level.    He's out of field.

"The only elegance in it comes from the limited theories we have. It is still quite queer."

Counter-intuitive maybe, but mathematically elegant.  For those who appreciate mathematics, there is a beauty in it.

"The natural laws are in no way analogous to man-made laws. They're not even laws in that sense. That comparison is horrible!"

Although you may not like it, the concept of natural law that we can understand forms the basis of modern science which itself came out of the Christian worldview.  This is a simple matter of history.

The article has some good points.

Thx for visiting my site.

@soccerdadforlife - 

That sounds like a skewed history! Natural does does not form the basis of modern science. In fact, the history of science shows God only showed up to fill the Gaps. Every scientist explained nature without God, and only introduced Him to solve the problems of their limited theories. This is why the God of the Gaps is shrinking these days.

And how do you suppose quantum mechanics is mathematically elegant??

@darkwolfofvoid - "That sounds like a skewed history! Natural does does not form the basis of modern science. In fact, the history of science shows God only showed up to fill the Gaps."

You are weak in history, grasshopper.

"I consider The Soul of Science [by Nancy Pearcey] to be a most significant book which, in our scientific age, should be required reading for all thinking Christians and all practicing scientists. The authors demonstrate how the flowering of modern science depended upon the Judeo-Christian worldview of the existence of a real physical contingent universe, created and held in being by an omnipotent personal God, with man having the capabilities of rationality and creativity, and thus being capable of investigating it. Pearcey and Thaxton make excellent use of analogies to elucidate difficult concepts, and the clarity of their explanations for the nonspecialist, for example, of Einstein's relativity theories or of the informational content of DNA and its consequences for theories of prebiotic evolution, are quite exceptional, alone making the volume worth purchasing." --Dr. David Shotton, Lecturer in Cell Biology, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford

All reviews but one at Amazon were positive and the one negative review had a 1 out of 6 supporting votes.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0891077669

In addition, I recommend reading Rose-Mary Sargent's book about Robert Boyle, who founded the Royal Society; Boyle's practice of and influence on the experimental method was foundational to experimental science.  Boyle was able to attract several important assistants, including Robert Hooke, to work with him.

I found both books to be excellent reads.

"And how do you suppose quantum mechanics is mathematically elegant??"

That's my recollection of my impression when I took it back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

@soccerdadforlife - 

I don't believe you. Lets see these transcripts ;)

@darkwolfofvoid - By the way, the knucklehead who thought my understanding of amino acid chemistry was lacking has apparently forgotten that all amino acids have an acidic character due to the carboxylic acid group, which means that a reducing environment such as in Stanley Miller's experiment will play havoc with their yields.  (Amino acids also have a basic character due to the amine group.  The R-group also plays a major role in amino acid chemistry and may be acidic, neutral, or basic in character.)  As I recall, Miller got yields in the low single-digit percentages in his trap which was well away from his reducing environment in the spark chamber.  Mixed in with the amino acids was a substance described as "tar." These things collected on the sides of the tubing and didn't remain in solution long.

@soccerdadforlife - 

@comenowtisI - 

"How about Astronomy? I do believe astronomy dates back far beyond the times of Christianity. Babylon, ancient China, work by Aristotle. Was it not the Christian church that actually opposed the theories of growing science? Poor Galileo and Copernicus. If not for their defiance of the church's understanding of nature, modern astronomy would be very far behind indeed!"

Good questions.

Ancient astronomy was not modern science.  Modern science didn't really begin until Robert Boyle founded the Royal Society.  Boyle founded English science squarely on a philosophy of science which relied on scriptural principles.  He came up with the Book of Nature idea.

Galileo's troubles were caused by his fellow astronomers, none of whom believed in a ptolemaic system.  They instigated accusations against Galileo with the church--the church didn't go hunting astronomical heresies on its own.  Just some early toxic politics in science.  We have plenty of that today as well.

I'm unaware of any problems Copernicus had with the church.  Perhaps you will enlighten me.

"You are weak in history, grasshopper. :)"

Tag, you're it.

@soccerdadforlife - 

@comenowtisI - 

"To dismiss ancient science as having an influence on modern science is silly."

I agree, but I didn't do that.

"Scientists still observe and theorize and hypothesize just the way they have always been."

Boyle's experimental philosophy refined the experimental procedures for modern science and introduced several new concepts, including forming a society of scientists which produced a regular journal and experimental verification by other scientists.

"Also, would you mind telling me where you found the information about the toxic politics in science?"

I am preparing a post about that.  My sources are eclectic.

"If perhaps you are referring to the Jesuits instigating his arrest, you must remember that they are still part of the church."

The point is that they were his fellow scientists.  Their intrigue was due to jealousy and anger over Galileo's caustic communication, not due to theological issues.

More info on Copernicus's major work:

"After that, De revolutionibus was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books along with two less important works (but none of Galileo's, at that time). It was not formally banned but merely withdrawn from circulation pending "corrections" which would clarify the status of the theory as hypothesis (nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed). Such corrections were prepared by Francesco Ingoli and others, and were formally approved in 1620; the reading of the book was then allowed.[3] But the book was never reprinted with these changes, and was available in Catholic jurisdictions only by special request of suitably qualified scholars.[citation needed] It remained on the Index until 1758, when Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58) removed the uncorrected book from his revised Index.[" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium

Nah, David Hume already pointed that problem out centuries ago, and probably many others before him.  According to the no-God theory, sure, existence of perceived laws cannot be explained, but one is still open to the possibility that they may change since there exists no explanation for them.  It would just major majorly suck if they did!

Only God then makes sense of the laws.  Making sense of God is a whole other issue of course. ;)