Nature of Science and Faith

“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.” Francis Bacon.

I believe there are very few easy answers to life. Things have a tendency to get convoluted and mixed up. This is perhaps never truer than in matters of Faith and Science. Some, who misunderstand science, claim that it negates all forms of faith as silly, superstitious, and unreasonable. Others, who misunderstand faith, claim that science is a bold affront to all things spiritual. Neither position is true.

Clarity is possible. It comes when we let down our emotional attachments and reasonably assay the situation.

The following are my personal views on Faith and Science. I will certainly alter them over time, but let me start with a few directions then I will move to a discussion.

Directions:

• I categorically reject the viewpoint that scripture and the scientific method are equal and mutually exclusive (independence position of science and religion).
• Science has a definition. It is not nebulous. 
  • There is such a thing as incorrect science.
• Faith has a definition. It is not nebulous.
  • There is such a thing as incorrect faith.

Directions two and three probably sound obvious to you (hopefully), but if all literature, discussions, blogs, etc. followed them then our search would be much more fruitful.

Let’s start with some simple definitions of science. According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary science is,

“Knowledge attained through study or practice¹,” or

“Knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world¹“

These are both simplified definitions, perhaps overly so. In order to understand what science is then the knowledge itself must be defined. The knowledge understood in these definitions is brought about through the scientific method. The process of using the scientific method, for simplicity I will simply use science as a verb from now on (i.e. to do science, to use the scientific method), is hinged up falsification. Hypotheses are tested and tentatively accepted or rejected based on experimental observations. If they are rejected then new ideas take their place. If they are accepted then they are further scrutinized until they enter into a category of ‘reasonably certain.’

A comprehensive definition of science must be at least twofold:

1. Process oriented
2. Knowledge base

The process definition is the verb form, doing science. I take issue with some definitions that state that science “makes use of” the scientific method. In truth, science is the scientific method.

The knowledge base aspect of science should then be satisfactorily exact (yet not burdensomely so). Several excellent definitions exists, but personally I would just say, “a systematized, growing body of knowledge subject to revision and falsification” Some might argue here about established foundations of science-are they really subject to falsification and revision? One example in geology might be the theory plate tectonics. Is it really subject to revision? Certainly so.

Is it really subject to falsification? Indeed yes. 

A historical example would be Newton’s Law of Gravity: F = G (m1•m2)/r² where F is the gravitational force, G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are masses of two objects, and r is the distance between them. The ‘theory’ of gravity was considered fact for a very long time although really it was a “reasonably certain.” When Einstein published his theory of relativity he better described the attraction force in such a way as spacetime curvature rather than a force. It was latter seen that his theory better described the orbits of our planets than did Newton’s theory.

This is the nature of science. Science is not dogma. It can never be dogma. This is the great strength of science…its flexibility. 

An interesting aside to this discussion is the idea of scientific determinism. One of the modes (without getting into types such as: incompatabalists, libertarians, etc.) of determinism said that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature⁶. Basically this view said that there was no such thing as free will. All events both natural and human are predetermined based on earlier events. Furthermore, many scientists claimed that when all information was known about the system then all future events of our system could be predicted. Therefore, one day man would be able to know all the events of his life before they happen (admittedly we are stepping on fatalists toes more then determinists). This view was shattered in 1926 when Heisenberg formulated his Uncertainty Principle which stated that one can not know both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time. As one more accurately knows the position the momentum becomes less known, and vice versa as one calculates the momentum the position become less accurate. This showed that it is not possible to gain knowledge about the exact conditions of a system at a given moment in time. Thus, it is not possible to predict the future based on knowledge of the past. Whether or not such a thing as free will exists we will leave to a latter discussion. Enough of that rabbit trail back to the main discussion.

Then, what is the definition of faith? Well, that is a much more difficult problem to tackle. First, I will narrow the playing field by only discussing supernatural faith. Certainly, there are other types of faith (such as wife’s faith in her husband’s fidelity), but this discussion will not purposely encapsulate them. Some definitions include:

“The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and trusting acceptance of God’s will²”

“Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another testifies is the truth³”

I have a preference to “the assent of the mind to the truth,” but  ”without other evidence” is not accurate. Faith is not a mindless emotional desire. Faith is based on evidence. It is not, however, based solely on observable or reproducible evidence.

The bible defines faith as,

“Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen^4″

This passage brings the idea of faith to life. It places faith into the realm of the concrete…the stable. It is not a nebulous abstract fussy feeling. It says that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for” What does this mean? Simply put, when the faith that God gives us becomes real we recognize it is truth. It is not irrational. It is simply spiritual.

This is juxtaposed to science which we stated never comes to dogmatic ends. It retains its flexibility if you will. Faith, however, can KNOW things. With faith facts can be truth.

Let me state now that all men and women of the world have faith. It is not a choice whether or not one has faith. It is a choice what faith you have, but the existence of faith necessarily is in all of us whether we like it or not. This is because we all have to believe certain things that are beyond us. Not one person knows everything. Therefore, everyone must take certain things as faith. I know this infuriates some, but it is true.

Some even place their faith in science. They believe that science will eventually understand everything. There is no problem that faith will not ultimately unravel. Of course, this supposition has to believe that humans have the capacity to eventually figure everything out. There is nothing that is beyond our capacity. For the present moment at least…this is a faith…a belief.  

What then is the relationship of Science to Faith and Faith to Science in the natural world? I am aware of only 4 general positions. I will use Warren A. Nord’s descriptions⁵. These are:

1. Religion trumps science⁵: ‘When science and religion conflict, only religion provides reliable knowledge. It is through inerrant scripture or religious tradition that we come to know the ultimate truth about nature. No doubt good science would always agree with scripture or religious tradition, but, unhappily not all science is good science.’
2.  Science trumps religion⁵: ‘When science and religion conflict, only science provides reliable knowledge. It is through the methods of science that we learn the ultimate truth about nature. If the scientific net doesn’t catch something, it’s because it doesn’t exist. Consequently, scientists need not take religious claims into account in constructing their picture of nature. Sometimes this position is called scientism or naturalism or scientific materialism.’
3.  Independence⁵: ‘Properly understood, science and religion can’t conflict because they are incommensurable: each has its own methods; each has its own domain. (This is sometimes called the “two worlds” approach.) One common expression of this view is that science asks objective, “how” questions, while religions asks personal “why” questions. The conceptual nets of science and religion capture aspects of reality so different that they stand in no logical relationship; they can be true or false in their own terms only. Theology and science can be compartmentalized.’ 
4.  Integration⁵: ‘Science and religion can conflict and can reinforce each other, for they make claims about the same world. Neither can ignore the other, and neither automatically trumps the other. Because science and religion are each competent to illuminate aspects of the same reality, a fully adequate picture of reality must draw on and integrate both.’

The great strength to science is its flexibility. The great weakness to science is its amorality (not immorality). Science is directionless. Science makes no value judgments on datum. The fact that arsenic is deadly when consumed in [insert dose] is not bad. It is a fact. The fact that greenhouse gases cause the earth to heat is not bad. It is just a fact.

Science left by itself would not aid mankind in any way. Science would be useless.

In addition to this there are many questions science can not answer. There are many things that are out of the purview of science. Some examples are: “What is life all about?”, “Why are we here?”, “What is the value of a human being?”. The astronomer Arthur Eddington told a parable once to explain this. In his parable a fisherman used a three-inch meshed net to catch fish for his entire life. At the end of his career he concluded that there were no fish in the ocean smaller than three inches. Eddington’s moral was that one’s conceptual net determines what one ‘catches.’

To illustrate this again think about what type of information science gathers. It gathers observable information. Anything that isn’t observable can’t be evaluated by science. That is a very big caveat. My view is that anything that is unobservable falls out of the scope of science. It is silly to say that science will one day discover all of life’s secrets. That view demands that humans are capable of observing all things. Even if one takes all metaphysical aspects out of the equation one still can not observe many natural phenomena.

This also debunks viewpoint 2 that science trumps religion. This view states that when science and religion conflict then science wins. This view is forced to believe that: A. science is somehow capable of establishing facts beyond falsification, and B. the science has gathered all the data pertinent. Neither of these conditions can be met by science.  

Some then take the position that science and faith (religion) are incommensurable. They can not be compared by their very nature. I believe this view is somewhat silly however and a little like throwing in the towel during a fight you don’t think you can win. Science does have things to say about faith. Sometimes, for example faith is observable. I remember when lots of people believed that Jesus was coming back at the turn of the millennium. Was it not observable whether or not this was correct?

Faith likewise has lots to say about science. Faith is the backbone to science (such as man should fight to preserve and improve quality of life) without which science would languish into insignificance.

What then is my final position? Well, I would say that the reality is somewhere between viewpoints 1 and 4. I believe the bible is truth. It is infallible and inerrant. Before you take this statement as remarkable (although it is remarkable) I would encourage you to take a look for yourself before you make a decision, and do not take others word for what the bible says. There are many mischaracterizations and some flat out lies on the internet about scripture.

Also, I say that Jesus is God. He is the king. This something which science can’t tell you. You are going to have to search this one yourself…

2. http://www.allaboutreligion.org/definition-of-faith-faq.htm

3.  American Dictionary of the English Language

4. New American Standard Bible (©1995)

5. Science, Religion, and Education; Warren A. Nord; Gale Group, Phi Delta Kappan, 1999 v81 i1 p28; Copywrite 1999 Phi Delta Kappa, Inc.