Science and religion use the word faith in two very different ways. Speaking of faith as it relates to the expectation that the earth will rotate around to face the sun again tomorrow is quite different than the faith praised in Hebrews 11 ("Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"). To suggest that science is also based on faith, because some of the foundational laws of physics are not experimentally demonstrated but treated as "givens," is misleading.
True, Carl Popper (the influential philosopher of science) noted that the financial disclaimer "Past performance is no guarantee of future returns" is also true of inductive reasoning. But, just like investors view past performance as an indicator of future returns, many regard Popper's critique of induction as a kind of reductio ad absurdum argument - we have good reason to expect natural laws to remain in effect. Just because we can't be absolutely certain does not mean that we have no certainty at all. We go with successful investment funds because we expect the future to look like the past. Unlike funds, however, we so far have found no exceptions to the rule that the present continues to look like the past, as far as the laws of physics go - and so it is reasonable to expect the future to look like the past as well. This is a far cry from the Biblical notion of faith.
The Bible commends faith that holds firm in the absence of evidence. Good science encourage faith (if that is the right world at all) only in the face of compelling (even if not irrefutable) evidence.
Science is just an extension of careful observation and reasoning. We've been doing science for thousands of years. What enabled what we think of as modern science to transform the world's culture in a few hundred years seems to be a combination of the right political climate and a rejection of traditional explanations ("As above, so below"). That, and methodological naturalism.
Taken from this perspective, science and faith don't present any more of a conflict than did faith and the natural world for the author of Hebrews. The attempt to make science just another faith (and a religion on top of that) looks to me to be an attempt at undercutting the demand for faith. The author of Hebrews argues not that science is just as uncertain as religion, but that we have faith in the face of uncertainty. Rather than tear down science, Hebrews urges, build up faith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Perhaps you should be able to answer the question if the first post of the last thread before you try to excuse the uncertainty of science and the mysteries of faith.
Still waiting for your answer.
I answered your question (but I guess not to your satisfaction). I've answered FL, FTK and others - but suffice it to say that I do not seem to view faith in the same way you do.
FL was the one who said he would respond to my post demonstrating how Genesis 1 and 2 are two separate stories. On the other hand, I've never offered to discuss my faith with you. I would be interested in your response to the actual points I make, but of course, how you respond is up to you.
The question was not about faith, per se.
The question was whether or not you believe in the Christian God?
Please see my previous comment.
Please see the original question.
And of course you have faith...you have demonstrated your faith in science many times.
I think science tells us real things about the natural world. Our confidence in what we learn via science should be in proportion to the evidence offered, and the amount of critical thinking applied to the ideas. I like that creationists have been trying to debunk evolution and modern cosmology for years. That they have not been even remotely successful is underscored by their new tactics, which is simply to declare science unfriendly to their faith.
I do think that your religious faith should be informed by science. The Bible, at least, is firmly rooted in this world. For example, the test of a prophet is accuracy - the things they predict happen. Since creation did not occur as described in either Genesis 1, or the alternate creation story of Genesis 2, since making the sun stand still (Joshua) would not lengthen the day, and since there was no global flood (all things we would be ingnorant aobut if not for modern science), it does not make sense to read the Bible as if those things were true. Some people don't like the implications of that, but there you have it. The alternative is to live under an illusion.
Post a Comment