Faith vs. science

 

Editor’s note: This article by a Philosophy professor discusses the mistakes in rejecting faith in the name of science and argues that morality is outside the realm of science. Readers are welcome to leave comments. (You, too, can have your articles published here. Send them through e-mail to OurHappySchool@yahoo.com)

 © 2010-present by Jensen dG. Mañebog

SOME SCIENCE ADVOCATES openly contend that science and religion are locked into a battle to the death. Believing that religion will sooner or later be certainly defeated, some assume that science is necessarily doing service to atheism.

Science does not necessarily imply atheism

However, Harvard University’s popular science professor Stephen Jay Gould rejects any brash equation of scientific excellence with atheism. Aware of the religious views of leading evolutionary biologists, he vocally observed in his Rocks of Ages:

“Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism” [38]. Denying of course the first part of the disjunction, the context of his writing clarifies his point that nature can be interpreted in a theistic or in an atheistic way—but it demands neither of these. In other words, [for him] both are genuine intellectual possibilities for science.

Indeed, the fact that a lot of full-pledged and decorated scientists do believe in God essentially proves that the so-called warfare between science and religion is just a “delusion”.

When The God Delusion of the celebrated scientist-atheist Richard Dawkins was published in 2006, in that same year, three other books were published by leading research scientists:

1) that of a noted Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich, God’s Universe, declaring that the universe has been created with intention and purpose, and that this belief does not interfere with the scientific enterprise; 2) that of cosmologist Paul Davies, Goldilocks Enigma, arguing for the existence of “fine-tuning” in the universe; 3) and the Language of God of evolutionary biologist and head of the famous Human Genome Project Francis Collins which argues that the wonder and ordering of nature points to a Creator or God [40].

This evidently flies in the face of Dawkins’ assumption that real scientists must be atheists and that they simply cannot mean it when they own up to religious beliefs, interests or commitments.

Professor Emeritus of Biology in University of Detroit Paulinus F. Forsthoefel further explains why there is no, and there should not be, war between real science and faith. When each stays in its own territory of competence, the two, he says, do not and should not contradict each other:

“The area of natural science is natural phenomena and its competence is to explain them by natural forces. The primary paradigm of the natural science is that all natural phenomena can be explained by natural forces. To invoke some preternatural or supernatural force to explain some as yet unexplained natural phenomenon is to step outside this paradigm and is not acceptable to natural scientists… But explanations made by natural scientists as scientists cannot and should not go into the ultimate causes and purposes of natural phenomena ….” [42]

Enumerating questions which for him rest outside the domain of science, Forsthoefel continues:

“So scientific explanations cannot give answers to questions like these: “What is the ultimate source or origin or the universe and what it contains?” “What is the ultimate source of the regularities and laws that govern the world and make it a cosmos and not a chaos?” “Why, for what purpose, does the world exist?” “What is man’s ultimate destiny?” Such questions may find partial answers from the efforts of philosophers using their powers of natural reason. These efforts are beyond the intellects of many humans….” [43] (emphasis added)

Former atheist Oxford University professor Alister McGrath connectedly reported that most unbelieving scientists of his acquaintance are atheists on grounds other than their science—“they bring those assumptions to their science rather than basing them on their science” [44].

Faith is even ‘essential to science’

What renders atheists’ science-is-against-faith proposal all the more mistaken is the statement of physicist Charles H. Townes, who won the 1964 Nobel Prize for his work on lasers. Faith, he explains, “is essential to science too, although we do not generally recognize the basic need and nature of faith in science.”

“Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind—in fact, his own mind—has a good chance of understanding this order.” [47]

Writing for London Review of Books, Terry Eagleton shares this view about faith and science. About the author of The God Delusion, he writes, “Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason. We hold many beliefs that have no unimpeachably rational justification, but are nonetheless reasonable to entertain. Only positivists think that ‘rational’ means ‘scientific’.” [48]

Subscribing to “old, so-called ‘Logical Positivism’ which is no longer taken seriously in any quarter,” Dawkins approach is said to be “already being a ‘period piece’ by 1985”. Therefore, “the ‘hot’ anti-religious ire of Dawkinsianism is based on really old, and now widely rejected, philosophy” [49]. And as regards the philosophy that what cannot be explained ‘scientifically’ has no reality, biologist Forsthoefel contends “that the extension of scientific methods to demand the exclusion of other avenues to knowledge is an assumption that cannot be validated on a scientific basis.”

“The methods of science cannot prove or disprove the existence of entities outside of the natural phenomenaaccessible to them. So when scientists proclaim that only material things exist and deny the possibility of non-material entities (e.g., a human soul) existing, they are making unproved assertions. Faith is not in conflict with true science but it is in conflict with the dogmatic materialism of some scientists.” [50] (emphasis added)

The last statement of this quotation clarifies once and for all that the real score in the subject matter is not faith versus science, but faith against materialism!

Concluding Remarks: ‘Morality is outside the realm of science’

Indian philosopher Deepak Chopra enumerates subject matters which, indeed, are outside the domain of science. His list includes our knowledge pertaining to love, honor, social relationships, forgiveness, compassion, and altruism which may not be semantically equated, but are nonetheless closely related, to the study of morality:

“For thousands of years human beings have been obsessed by beauty, truth, love, honor, altruism, courage, social relationships, art, and God. They all go together as subjective experiences, and it’s a straw man to set God up as the delusion. If he is, then so is truth itself or beauty itself. God stands for the perfection of both, and even if you think truth and beauty (along with love, justice, forgiveness, compassion, and other divine qualities) can never be perfect, to say that they are fantasies makes no sense….The world in general has meaning, deep meaning at times. This cannot be dismissed as a delusion, an artifact of chemicals. Beauty and meaning can be known independent of a biochemical analysis.” [51] (emphasis added)

This is admitted by atheist scientist T.J. Nelson who declares, among others, that questions related to morality is not in the territory of science. As if comparing science with religion, he states:

“Religion asks two important questions that are of vital significance to every thinking person: (1) How can we construct a valid universal ethical system in the absence of a higher authority? and (2) How does one deal with death? When you're lying on the cold ground breathing your last breath, you will discover that science has few answers that matter to you; without some religious framework, regardless of whether its factual basis is true or false, you will have no way to understand it. Whether or not the cosmological tenets of any particular religion are factually true, religion also provides a framework for people to think about larger questions beyond the everyday trivia that can relentlessly grind a person into an uncaring, vicious animal.” [52] (emphasis added)

An atheist Nelson thus believes that science “has few answers that matter to us” not only on questions concerning death but also on matters pertaining to “valid universal ethical system”.

Dr. William Clark (Ph. D.) concurs with the point that morality is outside the realm of science. In his article, “The Worldview of Richard Dawkins: from The Selfish Gene to The God Delusion”, he rightly noticed that “one thread that runs throughout Dawkins works is his worship of science; his view that ultimately science can successfully address (almost) every problem.” To this, he nevertheless comments: “One thing science cannot do, however, is determine what is right and wrong, what is moral or immoral.” [53]

Verily, the goodness or badness of a human act cannot, for it is rationally impossible, be determined by any laboratory, method, or equipment of science. Therefore, since atheists’ ethical philosophy, such as that of Dawkins, is based on the science-is-the-only-road-to-knowledge epistemology, it is not any wonder that their ethical philosophy is in no way philosophically sound. (Continue reading: True nature of science)

Related: Science Technology and Society

*Further commentaries, notes, discussions, etc. are available at the Wall/Notes/Discussion Board of the site's Facebook accounts: OurHappySchool.com, Eskwelahan Nating Masaya, and Ourhappyschool Editors
 
Related article/s:
 
Guide Questions:
(Write your answer in the comment section below [add a comment]. Don't forget to click also the 'LIKE' button before writing anything.)
1. Why is faith essential to science?
2. Do you agree with the author that morality is outside the realm of science? Why or why not?
3. Refute: Science and religion are locked into a battle to the death.
 
 

 

Subjects:

Comments

This topic is morally significant.Individuals and organizations have morals, ethics or morality.So, one can hope that scientists have high ethical standards.

Faith is very important, some says in science there is no existence of God and the religion says there is. Whatever we believe morality must exit, because we must do the right thing.

Science tells us that all natural phenomena can be explained by natural forces. Believing in this reason requires Faith in Science. To hold on to a reason means to have faith on it, thus, believing in science is having faith on it.

Science tells us that all natural phenomena can be explained by natural forces. Believing in this reason requires Faith in Science. To hold on to a reason means to have faith on it, thus, believing in science is having faith on it.

Faith is essential to science because believing that you will understand things that you want to know will give a positive result that it will going to happen. Having faith will produce determination and patience to carry our tough tasks.

Faith is essential to science because for a scientist to be able to carryout his tougher tasks, he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind has a good chance of understanding this order.

Faith is essential to science because for a scientist to be able to carryout his tougher tasks, he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind has a good chance of understanding this order.

Faith is essential to science because for a scientist to be able to carryout his tougher tasks, he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind has a good chance of understanding this order.

Faith is essential to science because for a scientist to be able to carryout his tougher tasks, he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind has a good chance of understanding this order.

Science tells us that all natural phenomena can be explained by natural forces. Believing in this reason requires Faith in Science. To hold on to a reason means to have faith on it, thus, believing in science is having faith on it.

I can say that faith is needed to science. Science is fact and we have to dealt with it. and faith is needed so we have to understand that our world did not pop out from nothing, that there is someone who made this world for us, and that is GOD.

Faith is essential to science because science works under the presumption that every problem has a solution and that every phenomena has an explanation. A scientist must have faith that there really are answers and explanations and that his mind is capable of understanding such.

Faith is essential to science because all of sudden having faith to all your doings makes you successful. Even though it is hard, you must have the confidence and power to believe on it.

Faith is essential to science because scientist needs to have confidence and to believe that all what we can see in this world and this existence can be explained by our own knowledge.So scientist needs to have faith in himself so that he can prove his theory.

FAITH is truly essential to science for faith is not in conflict with science but in conflict only with dogmatic materialism. It's not the science who does not need faith, it's the scientist view which is materialism. Hence,science alone cannot survive without the need of faith, for science alone has few answer that matters to us.

It is beyond denial that science is important in our lives, but science itself cannot solve everything. There are things and events that cannot be explained by science alone. Science must be coupled with something for us to understand things which are beyond our realm--faith.

Faith is essential to science because it is necessary not only for human but especially to for the scientist to have faith before they can start to carry out their tasks. scientist must have to believe that God is needed to be able to understand science and to avoid transgressing his gospel.

Even in science, faith is essential specifically in scientists since we ourselves cannot possibly verify all their findings to prove that what they were saying are true.To verify scientists' findings, we will have to believe that what they were saying are true, in other words, we need to have faith in their words.Faith entails patience, struggling, suffering, and change, along with the beauties of comfort, satisfaction, love, and growth. All these things are associated with any scientist’s or philosopher’s quest for Truth; the key is to accept all attributes of Faith and employ them to every step of research. As St. Francis of Assisi wisely said: "Faith is higher than reason. Reason is useless, unless you believe."

Faith is essential to science because without faith, science would also be impossible. Faith is necessary for a scientist to even get started and it is even more necessary in order for them to carry out their tougher tasks. Faith is the reason why scientists go on and try to prove their scientific ideas and it is one of the moving factors why they continue until they have proven or acquire certain knowledge or truth that they seek.

faith is essential to science because people must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind has a good chance of understanding this order.

Faith is essential to science because he must have the confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind has a good chance of understanding this order. It will help him to continue those things.

Having faith will ensure our firmness and purpose to carry our difficult tasks, it simply specify that there is someone Who made this world for us.

Science does not necessarily imply atheism. Some are believing in god and they have no doubts about it. God is absolutely real. Even you have all the things in this world, it not your basis to prove that you do not believe in god. Always remember that all things in this planet we borrowed it from Him.

Faith is not in conflict with true science but it is in conflict with the dogmatic materialism of some scientists.

Faith is something that is believed especially with strong conviction. In Science, one cannot prove something unless they will perform series of experimentations and upon the conduct of this experimentations scientist already possess faith that they will be able to come up with an output, they'll be able to prove their observations. Because faith serves as their driving force to keep them going in their experiments and it is an obvious manifestation of postive viewpoint.

The result of using faith consistently is the complete inability to think. Without any criteria for accepting a statement as true, every random idea, whether true or false, would be just as likely to be accepted. Contradictions would exist. No higher level abstractions could be made. Faith nullifies the mind. To the degree ideas are taken on faith, the process of thinking is subverted.

1) Faith is essential to science because in order for a scientist to be able to carryout his tougher tasks, he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind has a good chance of understanding this order. And because in order for us to understand things that you want to know will give a positive result that it will going to happen. Faith gives us reasons to be determined in handling tougher tasks. 2)I agree with the author the morality is outside the realm of science because as Dr. William Clark (Ph. D.)wrote that "one thread that runs throughout Dawkins works is his worship of science; his view that ultimately science can successfully address (almost) every problem.”To this,“One thing science cannot do, however, is determine what is right and wrong, what is moral or immoral.”So, any human acts whether it is good or bad, it cannot be determined be determined by any laboratory, method, or equipment of science. 3)Religion provides a framework for people to think about larger questions beyond the everyday trivia that can relentlessly grind a person into an uncaring, vicious animal and Science tells us that all natural phenomena can be explained by natural forces but unfortunately has few answers that matter to us” not only on questions concerning death but also on matters pertaining to “valid universal ethical system”.

Answers: 1. Faith essential to science because it can help us to carry our difficulty tasks. And because of faith, the things that we done will become better and good. Faith will clutch us to push your acknowledgment to do right things. 2. Yes, I agree that morality is outside the realm of science, that morality is not fully related to the science. Science cannot classify the goodness or badness of human acts and will be determined only by laboratory or experiments. Unlike Morality is all about which actions is right or wrong and how we interact to the things in our society by thinking and understand the crucial situations. 3. According to atheism science must superior than religion because atheism is non god believers; they are not on Scriptures basis. On their side science is the evolution of all things in this world and only one answer to the problems. But as a Christian I wont accept it, I’m on the side of God basis where as my beliefs constantly fix.

This article says that Science and Faith can coexist because Faith is not in conflict with true science Is there a conflict between Religion and Science?

This is my answer to the question of Cris Steven S. Traya science tends to repel ideas that lacks physical and scientific evidences.... where as religion only requires faith.

This is my answer to the question of Cris Steven Traya yes, science tends to repel ideas that lacks physical and scientific evidences.... where as religion only requires faith

This is my answer to the question of Cris Steven Traya Yes meron, kasi ang Science nagbabased sila sa real things rather than beliefs which magcoconflict sa religion Science = Real and Truth Religion = Faith and Beliefs

For me Faith is Essential to science because in every theory and experiments studied in science there is always faith into it. Like in Filipino Traits and beliefs, Faith is more important because we Believe in God's Creation and His Existence. And some of us used a Statue of God and some Saints for us to praise. Question: Are you agree in using Statue for Praising our God? Why?

This is an answer for Joseph's question, For me i'm not agree because of if you have TRUE Faith in God you don't have to use some statues or relics to Praise Him.

This is an answer for Joseph's question, Para sakin hindi na dapat talaga gumamit ng mga statue para sambahin ng tao, ang panget kasi parang ang statue na ang Diyos nila. Ang iba pa nga pinupunasan ang mga Santo at naniniwala sila sa milagrong dala nito sa kanila..

Answer ko sa tanong ni Joseph Ocenar, Para sakin tama lang na gumamit tau ng mga statue para sambahin natin ang Panginoon natin. Ito lamang ay isang imahe ng Diyos pero ang Tiwala namin Sakanya pa rin. Ginamit lang namin ito upang maslalong mapagtibay ang Faith namin Sakanya.

This is my answer to the question of Cris Steven Traya There must be no conflict with the spiritual and the physical. Religion is supposed to be based on truth earthly and heavenly. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven…”

for me, science is more essential than faith. why? it is because science has a evidence saying about this thing even it is only a theory, while faith is only underlying in the strong stand of the person with or without evidence. Hence, science got a highest percentage for me than faith.

Faith is essential to science because with the will of GOD, He is able to create human beings that as intelligent as him. Are you in faith? or Are you in Science? Why?

This reaction to the comment of Leonard Truno. I'm agree that faith is essential to science.He is able to create human beings that as intellegent as Him. Although science was. base on scientific studies and observation.

FAITH!!! without GOD, wala tayo sa mundong ito. Faith is essential to science talaga1!!! :))

This is reaction to the comment of Leonard Truno. Religion is the fundamental sets of belief and it is generally agreed by a group people while science has its basis or their is scientific explanation about a certain situation but for me God's basis is more important than anything that base on scientific studies.

I agree for both science and faith, because it can explain all of our questions for a certain topic about everything.

Reaction to the comment of Donetello. Faith is essential than science because I do believe in God, I believe that he created us and I believe that he suffer for all of our sins.

Agree with the comment of Donetello because both science and faith is essential. Because we should respect beliefs of every person.

@Donetello, Science is more essential than faith because it explains almost everything thoroughly and always has a basis.

Between Science and Faith i rather believe that faith is more essential than science because I believe in God. He created us and the World.

Faith and Science lies on the extreme ends of a line because of "PROOFS". Well, SCIENCE organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions... (wikipedia.org) It means that this so-called SCIENCE depends on solid proofs -- what we can observe.. We cannot conclude if an idea is not tested.. We cannot verify something unless it does not break the fundamental laws of science. As for this "proofs", we only consider a matter as proof if we can actually study it -- (and we cease to perform experiments if we cannot ) From this point enters the issue between FAITH and SCIENCE. FAITH, on the other hand, can exist without such "SOLID" proofs. Nothing can be and should be tested in order to prove something. It is something personal that no existing law can oppose it. I agree that morality is not within the scope of science -- for science cannot explain everything, meaning it does not have the ability to overpower the essence of faith. In my own view, faith has something to do with how you deal with everyday living, thus, it has also something to do with decision-making. If you believe that good deeds can save you from eternal punishments in hell, of course you'll do good deeds. (It is just an example.) However, if you believe that earth's gravitational pull exist, would it make sense? I mean, does it have a specific effect on you that is strong enough to have a change-of-heart? The answer is simply, NO. No methods and experiments can be conducted in order to rate a man's deeds.There might be laboratories that can test a man's intelligence -- but how about morality? Science is important because it helps us in making works easier. Faith is important because it helps us in developing ourselves and (if I may add) in making a bigger view of life that science cannot paint.

Please allow me to share my own thoughts about this article to you and to also share what I have thought when I read your comment. First of all, I wanted to point out that the Faith we are talking about here is NOT JUST 'believing' per se. As I have read the article, we are opening the issue between FAITH (particularly talking about personal belief, and if I may add, religion) and SCIENCE. Faith in science is not the same as believing in science for faith involves what is not seen (just like worshiping God, praying, and waiting for miracles). To have faith may also mean to have hope for, or to expect even if we are not holding a proof. Science is different from Faith (as how I understood them) because Science is practical. Science does not work in this manner. Verifying something by scientific methods means laying out the evidences. What I meant is -- one can never have faith in science. Science, as what I have said, is practical -- without existing matter to be investigated, the term "science" will never complete its meaning. Science deals with what is seen, heard, or touched. Faith deals with the unseen, unheard, and intangible. In short, I do not know if having faith in science is possible. I think the most proper term to be used is to "accept the rules proven by science". Thank you very much. I would be very pleased if we will discuss this matter here. C:

If we want to know "what", we should ask science. If we want to know "why", we should ask faith. Both are essential to one's understanding because it gives deep explanation to things that are hard to understand. The statement that Science and Religion are locked into a battle to the death depends on one's perception. This depends on strength of his faith and his curiousness in science.

Pages

Sponsored Links