no one thinks faith == proof. faith is belief without proof.
I do. But this way:
Faith is belief based on internal, personal proof.
Science is belief based on external, impersonal proof.
The fundamental problem is that internal proof cannot be made external and vice-versa.
herefore: science and religion are not incompatible because a scientist can be religious without compromising his/her ability to reject a theory when it is soundly disproven.
Bingo! A true scientists is exactly as Julz describes... since we have no evidence FOR or AGAINST most religions, a scientist can choose which to follow. Thus a scientist can follow any religious belief that doesn't contradict their scientific belief. Jesus died on the cross for our sins? Fine, no problem. The Earth is 4000 years old? Problem.
the first two are choosing science OR religion, the third is choosing science AND religion, but there is no room to choose both AND not change your religious view.
Why can't it be a change in your scientific outlook? The Jesuits are perfect examples of this. But honestly, I'm having trouble understanding this third option anyways...
a scientist doesn't need proof for everything they're told.
Hmmmm... I dont' think so. Everything that I know, I have seen derived, proven, or exposed sometime in my career. I think you mean though that when someone from the COBE experiment comes to me and says "Omega is close to one thus the universe is flat" it is true that I have not worked out the Omega... nor do I know how to go from Omega to Flat. But I trust (yes, have faith) that my fellow scientists have used the same base knowledge I was exposed to, use the same methods I have been exposed to, and thus I'm confident that if I DID understand, I would likely reach the same conclusion. Note that this is not always the case. It is very common for a scietist to say, for example, "Omega is less than one and thus the universe will expand forever"... but when others check his work, follow his proof, and is found to be wrong... that's it... point dropped. I personally don't have to do this; but my colleagues will and thus science progresses.
As well, consider that by design, scientists are skeptics. Thus just because Stephen Hawking says "black holes evaporate", it's not until several other people independently check the "proof" that it's believed. And when that proof changes, so do our believes.
So it's not accurate to say that scientists don't need proof... we don't need to SEE all the proof EVERY TIME but we do have to trust that our fellow scientists are doing exactly what we would do (follow the scientific method), that their proof is valid (measurable in standard units), and that anyone around the world can follow the same proof and get the same results (repeatable experiments).
And when that trust is broken, it's found out and the guilty parties punished! How can you not love a system like this?
