I?ve heard this argument before, that faith in science is like faith in religion, and to me, it just doesn?t withstand any scrutiny. This is an example of being overly influenced by a word. The context of science and the context of religion are very different contexts and the word ?faith? is being used as a label for two very different states of mind. And we must agree that we are talking about ?states of mind?, not the word ?faith".
In science we deduce and derive the laws and theory of how things work. Using those laws and theories, we are able then to predict outcome with 100% accuracy, within the bounds of what we know. This is our faith in science. It just works. That is our state of mind.
In religion, the traditional sense of the word, we just have faith. Faith in the existence of a supreme being who is deeply involved in our lives. We have no evidence of this supreme being or of their involvement in our lives. We can?t even predict outcome. The supreme being moves in mysterious ways. All we have is faith. This is a very different state of mind.
Contemplating or even believing that there is some supreme reason for science, is not science, and that I agree is akin to religion. However, when scientists use the word ?god? or ?nature?, it is a reference to the faith I described in the first case, in science, not a reference to a faith in god or some god of science. It is a reference to the fact we can deduce and accurately predict outcome based on those deductions. Why would our faith in science need anything more than the evidence it already has? Does it need a supreme reason? Even though it is our nature to ponder such things.
I think the author pulls a fast one when he claims that science operates on a belief in a supreme reason like religion operates on a belief in a supreme being. I say ?pulls a fast one? because I spend a lot of time researching language and its relationship to context (my AI interests). I can tell when an author is pivoting around a word meaning or pivoting around a contextual (actual) case. I guess in philosophy, pivoting around word meanings is popular. It just seems so cheap when people do that.