I think you're using the word faith in two very different meanings.
When I "take it on faith" that other researchers have actually
gathered the data they claim to have gathered and to have analyzed it
properly, etc., that's a very provisional acceptance. I could in
principle check up on that - in other words I don't necessarily have
to take it on faith, it's just a matter of convenience. Religious
faith is another matter altogether. There is in principle no way to
check up on religious beliefs - you must take them on faith (or not)
- because they do not depend on data.
Charles
On May 14, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Adam Sibley wrote:
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
