Balancing Faith and Science

excerpt from interview writes:Where do science and religion meet?
I think of God as the greatest scientist. We human scientists have an opportunity to understand the elegance and wisdom of God's creation in a way that is truly exhilarating. When a scientist discovers something that no human knew before, but God didthat is both an occasion for scientific excitement and, for a believer, also an occasion for worship. It makes me sad that we have slipped into a polarized stance between science and religion that implies that a thinking human being could not believe in the value of both. There is no rational basis for that polarization. I find it completely comfortable to be both a rigorous scientist, who demands to see the data before accepting anybody's conclusions about the natural world, and also a believer whose life is profoundly influenced by the relationship I have with God. Science is our most powerful tool for studying the natural world, but science doesn't necessarily help us so much in trying to understand God; that's where faith comes in.

Collins on PBS writes:Now, I was still pretty sure that faith traditions were all superstition and something that would not apply to me, and something that I wouldn't be interested in. But I did feel compelled to find out a bit more about what it was that I had rejected. So with an intention of shooting this all down, I went to speak to a Methodist minister in Chapel Hill, which is where I was at the time. I sat in his office and made all sorts of accusations, and probably said blasphemous things about the faith that he stood for, but sincerely asked him to help me find out what it was all about. And he was very tolerant and patient and listened and suggested that, for starters, it might be good if I read a little bit more about what these faiths stood for. And perhaps the Bible would be a good place to start. I wasn't so interested in that at that point. But he also said, "You know, your story reminds me a little bit of somebody else who has written about his experience that Oxford scholar, C.S. Lewis."I had no idea, really, who Lewis was. The idea that he was a scholar, though, that appealed to my intellectual pride. Maybe somebody with that kind of a title would be able to write something that I could understand and appreciate.So this wonderful minister gave me his own copy of Mere Christianity, Lewis's slim tome that outlines the arguments leading to his conclusion that God is not only a possibility, but a plausibility. That the rational man would be more likely, upon studying the facts, to conclude that choosing to believe is the appropriate choice, as opposed to choosing not to believe.That was a concept I was really unprepared to hear. Until then, I don't think anyone had ever suggested to me that faith was a conclusion that one could arrive at on the basis of rational thought. I, and I suspect, many other scientists who've never really looked at the evidence, had kind of assumed that faith was something that you arrived at, either because it was drummed into your head when you were a little kid or by some emotional experience, or some sort of cultural pressure. The idea that you would arrive at faith because it made sense, because it was rational, because it was the most appropriate choice when presented with the data, that was a new concept. And yet, reading through the pages of Lewis's book, I came to that conclusion over the course of several very painful weeks.

GAW-Snow writes:While it may be true that ordinary people tend to think in such black and white term, that you have to accept one or the other, the quote does not accurately describe the actual case of the matter.

GAW-Snow writes:Quite simply put, there is only ONE math language. Ideally speaking, there is only ONE science language. There are MANY religions.

GAW-Snow writes:I can't say that I know a lot about Collins or the interview, but I definitely know that it is impossible for science and religion to complement each other without one yielding to the other one.

GAW-Snow writes: Remember Galileo? Remember Copernicus? Remember the 800 years period when science was plasphemy (AKA Dark Ages)?

GAW-Snow writes:Even in modern times we face the danger of science giving way to religion. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any creo-vs-evo debate.

GAW-Snow writes:Here is a scenario. What if through emperical evidence science is able to prove without doubt that there was never a Jesus? Should christianity change its doctrine or should the scientists be burned alive?

GAW-Snow writes: No, but "goddunit" is never an option.

GAW-Snow writes: You can't just go around burning people and then say sorry 500 years later.

GAW-Snow writes: They did not accept the BBT at the time not because it implied a creator but because the theory was at its infancy at the time so there weren't overwhelming evidence to support it.
Just so you know, the steady state theory (which implied that there was never a creator) never gain any popularity. If scientists were that unobjective, wouldn't you think that they would have rallied in support of the steady state?

GAW-Snow writes: Oh, so you are ignoring the genesis account all together? Remember what I said about the relationship between science and religion and that one must yield to the other? This is a perfect example of one (religion) yielding to the other (science).

GAW-Snow writes:I like Ra, Apophis, Anubis, and the other Egyptian gods better. Perhaps science should be the study of what's under Ra's influence?

GAW-Snow writes: Name 10 discoveries that religion has contributed that has helped humanity. Actually, just name 1.
Personally, I don't see what religion can contribute to further bettering humanity as a whole.
If anything, every scientific leap forward or social progress for the better have always been resisted, or even halted, by religion.

GAW-Snow writes: How about this, to be fair, what if there is emperical evidence that Jesus was gay, or that he was a prostitute, or that he was a murderer, or that he was anything but what christianity would define as a good person?

DHA writes:Faith is not rational by definition. Evidence of things not seen and all that

jar writes:Speaking as a Christian, probably only 4-6 Billion years old. That's pretty well accepted as is the 14-20 Billion year estimate for the universe.

dsv writes:I don't think you can say that is the consensus of organized Christianity.

dsv writes:I think the vast majority of your everyday Christians never think about it and have never given it any kind of thought. They don't know or care about the age of the Earth.

dsv writes:Furthermore, they don't know all that much about their religion except that it's a routine and it's "just what good people do."

dsv writes:There seems to be a consensus that is passed down through the ranks and is expressed from the more prominent religious leaders that does disagree with science on various issues, including in some cases the age of the Earth.I feel they represent the religion and if you're participating and paying, you're supporting and endorsing, just like with any organization.

robinrohan writes:The argument you are referring to by Lewis? He has several, but here is his most basic (discussed extensively in Lewis' book "Miracles").It has to do with the nature of reason. The idea is that our ability to perceive truths, such as mathematical truths, could not have arisen from natural selection except by a fluke. It is true, of course, that the ability to perceive logical truths is useful for survival, but its usefulness has nothing to do with its validity as a logical procedure. Usefulness has to do with cause/effect, not ground/consequent. And if it arose by a fluke, then Reason has no logical ground. And Reason must have a logical ground, for if not we we have no reason to trust our inferences that lead us to a belief in the theory of evolution. Reason itself cannot be doubted, for we would be using Reason to try to doubt it.The ability to perceive truths, therefore, does not fit into the scheme of Naturalism, for to fit it in destroys the logical ground for Naturalism.

PBS Interview writes: To my surprise, I found myself fairly easily compelled by his arguments about the existence of some sort of a God, because even as a scientist, I had to admit that we had no idea how the universe got started. The hard part for me was the idea of a personal God, who has an interest in humankind. And the argument that Lewis made there the one that I think was most surprising, most earth-shattering, and most life-changing is the argument about the existence of the moral law. How is it that we, and all other members of our species, unique in the animal kingdom, know what's right and what's wrong? In every culture one looks at, that knowledge is there.Where did that come from? I reject the idea that that is an evolutionary consequence, because that moral law sometimes tells us that the right thing to do is very self-destructive. If I'm walking down the riverbank, and a man is drowning, even if I don't know how to swim very well, I feel this urge that the right thing to do is to try to save that person. Evolution would tell me exactly the opposite: preserve your DNA. Who cares about the guy who's drowning? He's one of the weaker ones, let him go. It's your DNA that needs to survive. And yet that's not what's written within me.Lewis argues that if you are looking for evidence of a God who cares about us as individuals, where could you more likely look than within your own heart at this very simple concept of what's right and what's wrong. And there it is. Not only does it tell you something about the fact that there is a spiritual nature that is somehow written within our hearts, but it also tells you something about the nature of God himself, which is that he is a good and holy God. What we have there is a glimpse of what he stands for.

GAW-Snow writes:Again, anything beside the literal reading of the bible is religion yielding to science.

GAW-Snow writes:No, it really seems like you are suggesting the opposite, that religion is a determining factor in what we conclude in science.

GDR writes:You will disagree, but I believe that from God we have in us the concept of right and wrong, altruism, generosity, love etc and that we have also been given free will so that we can accept or reject those attributes. Christianity and other religions suggest that we should choose the positive attributes and reject the negatives.

GAW-Snow in reference to Francis Collins writes:Oh, so since he knows so much about science we should just throw out all the other opinions of other scientists that disagree with him?For a scientist to make a credulous claim on religious belief is like a desdamona-like person making a credulous claim on science, or what stars are made of... or how people "share" DNA.... Sure, they may know a thing or two, or they may even know a lot about it, but that doesn't mean it's absolute truth.

robinrohan writes:What you have cited is the argument about morality, but the argument about Reason must logically precede that, for the validity of reason is taken for granted in the argument about morality.

Gaw-Snow writes:So, are you saying that true christianity is about picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe out of the bible? If this is so, by what key or ledgend do we use?

Paulk writes:Now, how reasoning evolved is certainly a difficult - and interesting - problem. And one that is not solved yet (although we have some useful evidence).But that does not make Lewis' argument valid, useful or interesting.