I disagree with the statement 'If you've ever said "I don't know why this
works but I trust it does," that is faith.' In my posting I wrote 'The
underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the
word "beliefs") on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical
foundation.' Adam confuses matters by using the word "trust", but the key
point is that scientists rely on the balance of evidence, and if the balance
shifts, they may change their opinions. When it comes to faith, that tends
not to change on the basis of evidence. Examples of how scientists form and
then change their opinions abound, especially in the medical sciences where
fraud is most common, although still rare. When a credible paper appears
with promising results, other scientists often respond by redirecting their
research. If further studies cast doubt on the original paper, scientific
attitudes shift.
When people ask me questions like "Do you believe in evolution?" my answer
is that I don't "believe" in anything, but I do think that the evidence in
support of evolution is overwhelming. That is not faith.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Sibley" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 19:42
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I've jumped into this conversation late, so I apologize if this has
already been mentioned, but Annie Dillard addresses the dilemma of meshing
the concept of a creator with modern science quite eloquently in her book
Pilgrim at Tinker Creek.
Something to think about: scientists have endeavored to explain just about
every phenomenon in the natural world. Some of these explanations are easy
to understand and are easily testable, but some are not. Some aspects of
quantum physics, space-time distortion, etc... are not easily testable and
are only fully understood by a few brilliant minds. They cannot convey the
explanation of these phenomena to me because I would not understand it: I
take it on faith that their calculations are correct and that those who
conduct a peer review on their work are able to catch every error.
A few more examples:
- I am looking to solve a problem in my micrometeorology class, and I come
across an equation in a textbook which will give me the answer I need. I
don't know who came up with the equation, how they tested it, how many
times it has been validated (especially newer equations), and how
rigorously the reviewer who allowed it into "the literature" thought about
it. As I'll be using dozens of equations throughout the semester, I'm not
going to gather any of this information myself. I take it on faith that
the peer review process has produced a quality product.
- The East Anglia Climate Research Unit recently took a lot of heat for
not being able to produce the original data by which their global
climatologies were produced. Now think of all the data products out there
for which people have not asked for the original data. Could every
scientist retrace every step they took to come to their final conclusions?
Can every scientist point to the data they used to make every graph in
every paper they have written? No: nor does every reviewer ask for the
data, nor can they catch every error. The scientific method and peer
review are the best things we have for validating scientific observations
and discoveries, but there is room for errors to slip through the cracks.
Or even worse: no scientist likes to think this, but the scientific method
and peer review are not impervious to purposely falsified data, especially
in studies that involve direct environmental observation. Sure,
experiments are supposed to be
reproducible, but how long do ecology and environmental science
experiments go before a second group of researchers tries to replicate
them? Sometimes years, if ever.
The basic point I'm trying to make here is that unless you yourself
understand on a fundamental level every scientific concept you have used,
you are involved in a faith based process of discovery. If you've ever
said "I don't know why this works but I trust it does," that is faith.
Conclusions based on non-laboratory observation of the natural world also
require faith in the integrity of the research group conducting the study.
Thank you,
Adam Sibley
________________________________
From: William Silvert <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 12:24:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of
interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist
could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would
be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible.
James writes that "Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the
view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then
that bit of scripture is not literally true." Certainly not all, and I
doubt the "most". And of course not all science is universally accepted as
fact. The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately
avoid the word "beliefs") on rational evidence or on beliefs with no
logical foundation.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Crants" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re:
[ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres <
[email protected]> wrote:
Science is based on fact.
Religion is based on faith.
They don't mix.
These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly
religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America,
particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all
religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in
specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even
believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g.,
that
species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many
people
who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith.
Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible
supermen
who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven
to
be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the
Jesuits
have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good
Hindu
and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three
growing
seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant
Christian
ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole
period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious
beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist.
Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if
scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of
scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible
partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for
religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political
influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve
only
to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue.
Jim Crants
