The Invisible Things

Articles in Apologetics

Are Science and Faith Compatible?

with 6 comments

Lately it seems as if some of the most volatile and debated issues of philosophy, religion, politics, and science have become even more polarized then they have ever been. I do recognize my own limited point of view in this regard and accept that such a statement is likely hyperbolic to the extreme. Yet, in recent history, our culture has certainly tended toward partisanship, especially in matters of faith and culture. This may be a small and fleeting moment in the grand scheme of things, but it is one that we are in and must discuss rather than allow the continued fragmentation of society based upon misunderstanding and mischaracterization of so many issues. As the title of this post suggests, my purpose in writing is primarily to discuss the compatibility of science and faith, though I do want to stress that I believe that this issue is only symptomatic of a larger trend of radical polarization of ideas in our culture.

So, again to the question: are the realms of science and faith compatible? Can one be a faithful adherent of religion, acknowledging the supernatural, and still understand or even practice science? The short answer should be an absolute “yes!” However, many do not agree. Some claim that the very basis of faith, that there is what cannot be proven empirically, flies in the face of science. Or, in other words, that what cannot be proven empirically cannot be said to exist! Such a notion is obviously false. One need only question the reality of abstract ideas, numbers, metaphysics, or aesthetics to recognize that many things that our culture (and even science itself) depends upon to be true are not empirically verifiable. (See my series, Science and Faith, for more elaboration on this point.) What is really the problem here is that science, by nature of what it is and how it operates, illegitimately excludes that which cannot be proven empirically from truth as a whole.

Perhaps, then, the realm of science is being inappropriately misunderstood as a comprehensive epistemology rather than a method? Science is not a category of knowledge, nor its primary source. It is a method by which some knowledge is apprehended. Religion, on the other hand, is also not the primary source of knowledge. Religion is a practice which generally attributes its method to the influence of the supernatural (Though a case can be made for non-supernatural or secular religions, my point here is to focus on the relationship between religion of the supernatural kind and science). While the supernatural catalyst of religion, especially in the theistic sense, may have the properties of omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc., no one (that I know of) claims that religion can lead to the apprehension of the same qualities.

However, both science and religion allow for conclusions to be made about reality. This is where the conflict occurs, since the conclusions tend to be characterized as contradictory. D.J. Grothe, in a recent interview with Dr. Michael Shermer on the program ‘Point of Inquiry,’ said:

“Science and religion are incompatible if religion makes any claims about the universe inconsistent with science…but not…if you’re a religionist who’s willing to give up all of the supernatural claims.”

This statement may require some time to register as the falsehood that it actually is. Grothe claims that science and religion only conflict when religion disagrees with science! In other words, science is always correct. But can science always be correct? Surely a look at many incorrect theories should prove otherwise. Yet, what I am more interested in questioning is the characterization of science as something that can even be characterized as “correct” or “incorrect.” Science is a method that should lead to a correct determination provided that steps are taken without error, similar to the mathematic process of addition. However, can it be said that “addition is always correct?” Of course not! The process of addition provides the correct sum when it has been conducted without error. What Grothe is doing, perhaps unwittingly, is establishing science as an inerrant and comprehensive teleological source, rather than using it as a method through which to apprehend knowledge. Moreover, Grothe, most likely wittingly in this case, neuters religion to only that which is non-supernatural. Clearly, this undercuts the very purpose of the religions which he claims contradict science. Again, he has stacked the deck in his favor.

Grothe’s guest, Dr. Michael Shermer, responded by saying:

“There’s no evidence through science [for the effects of faith]. Wherever there have been attempts to prove it, those attempts have failed- most recently with the prayer and healing studies with the 1800 cardiac bypass patients with which there was no effect at all. This is a big mistake that religious people make…trying to use science to prove something. They’re going to fail. They always do.”

What Shermer says may be true, if not for the time being, possibly forever. Perhaps science will never prove the effects of faith, or the existence of the supernatural. However, this is really not the issue at hand. In fact, it seems to be a red herring meant to categorize the faithful as misusing science to somehow prove faith. Surely this is not true of all people of faith, nor is it germane to the compatibility of science and faith. Incidentally, I recall reading an article in the New York Times about the study mentioned by Shermer and wondering just what exactly the parameters were for tracking the relationship between prayer and health. Were the people praying all accounted for? Were they all praying for the same thing or to the same god? Were the patients themselves praying? Was there any relationship at all between the faith or skepticism of the patients and those who prayed for them? It seemed to me that the conclusion was: not enough people got better, therefore prayer doesn’t work. I would ask whether prayer is, in this case, being limited to the act of supplication rather than being understood for the rich, nuanced and multifaceted practice that most who pray believe it to be. Regardless, even the perceived failure of such a study has little to do with the compatibility of faith and science.

Decades ago, when presumably the polarization of science and faith was less severe, atheist George Wald spoke on the relationship between the two in an address to the John XXIII Institute Conference on Theology and Ecology. He said:

“I think the struggle to know is epitomized in science. One could add a word and say an unending struggle to know God. I think the big question is, if one added that word, would one have changed the meaning of the sentence? For me, no.”

While I may disagree with his atheistic position, I do agree with his statement. Wald sees both science and religion as in pursuit of knowledge, yet he has chosen to pursue one over the other. It seems he is content to make that choice, yet in speaking this way he makes no claim that his decision was compelled by a valid restriction of religion by science. In fact, he went on to characterize his own secular scientific position as religious.

Is it possible then, that the question itself of whether science and religion are compatible is actually contributing to the false dichotomy of “science or religion, but not both?” The very birth of scientific practice is rooted in the belief in a teleological universe which should be ordered in such a way as to be studied systematically. Without such a philosophical grounding, one has no basis to believe that the systematic approach of science would be at all effective. In other words, science began with faith. So long as the faithful in this world practice science, in whatever capacity, the notion that one can either be faithful or scientific but not both is a false dichotomy.

About these ads

Written by Christopher Butler

September 28, 2006 at 7:06 am

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. When I went through my college education to receive a Physics degree, one of the first things we learned was classical dynamics (the movement of everyday objects like how a car moves, the movement of a bullet, etc). The equations we used were created a long time ago and were used for several centuries. But they are wrong. Sure they seem to work for figuring out how fast a car can get from point A to point B but that’s just because the statisitical error is so low relative to the size and speeds involved that we accept the answers as “truth”. But when the same equations are used for quantum sized particles moving near light speeds, the error is so great that new equations and understanding of how matter worked had to be created (this is known as Quantum Mechanics).

    But for years, the classical mechanics were taught as the “truth” because scientists’ perceptions did not have in them that objects could be smaller than they could imagine at the time nor move at speeds they couldn’t understand.

    Right now scientists say that there is a gravitational constant in the universe (hence the term “constant”). But what if it wasn’t contstant? What if there was something out there that was beyond the “constant” that could control the “contstant”? This thinking would definitely put us into the realm of religion. So I think scientists who say that religion and science aren’t compatible are limiting their minds.

    The reality is that God works both in the natural and super-natural. So when science discovers something, we as Christians do not need to be so quick to denounce it as heresy (remember the controversy about the Catholic church keeping to the line that the earth was flat and excommunicating, and worse, those that said the earth was round) but understand that it might be revealing something about how God does work.

    Scientists need to understand that something revealed in the Bible as super natural, may just be beyond their understanding of the universe (which I don’t know of any scientist saying they have a full grasp of) and that our current persceptions limit us from fully understanding its nature, hence we have faith.

    Courtney Roes

    October 2, 2006 at 11:41 pm

  2. “The very birth of scientific practice is rooted in the belief in a teleological universe which should be ordered in such a way as to be studied systematically.”

    Well, it may be that a belief in a purposeful universe was common at the Lyceum or in 15th century Florence, but it is pretty uncommon now, at least in scientific circles.

    The observation of order in the universe, to the extent that there is order, is merely an observation, not an article of faith. It is a tentative basis for investigation that certain relationships will apply in the future as they did in the past: it is not dogma, but a tentative basis for proceeding. And sometimes it turns out to be incorrect to one extent or another.

    We use induction because that is the tool that comes to hand (not being provided with the Owners Manual).

    I think Michael Shermer is just saying what any scientist would say about the supernatural, which is that there has been no evidence for it thus far– there might be evidence in the future, as for instance through psychic research– but there has been nothing whatsoever thus far to substantiate any of the claims regarding the supernatural, whether made by religions or otherwise.

    I personally think a belief in magic is essentially incompatible with the scientific outlook. This does not actually establish that magic is impossible– but I think that a belief in magic would be uncomfortable baggage in most sciences.

    SkipChurch

    October 13, 2006 at 12:42 am

  3. SkipChurch,

    Can you give me some examples of how the uniformity of nature principle that I refer to as a grounding principle of scientific practice sometimes “turns out to be incorrect to one extent or another?” With all due respect, I think one could hardly say that belief in a teleological universe was last ‘en vogue’ in 15th century Florence, unless one is completely ignorant of a large amount of serious discussion and work in the areas of biology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, etc. In other words, I am calling your bluff here.

    In regard to your statement that ‘magic is essentially incompatible with the scientific outlook,’ I would agree. I don’t think I mentioned magic anywhere, actually.

    CB

    CB

    October 17, 2006 at 1:35 am

  4. To say that something is “beyond our understanding” in no way proves or even implies the existence of God. It implies

    1. scientific research has not yet revealed insights;
    2. due to matters of observational scale, no means of observation is possible (yet);
    3. our intelligence is not sufficiently evolved to fathom the materialistic complexity of the issue.

    To fill gaps in understanding with “God” is fabrication, and literally glorifies ignorance.

    Wayne

    February 25, 2008 at 6:17 am

    • Yes a God of the gaps is lousy theology – Good theology has no gaps God fills everything

      Rob

      July 25, 2013 at 5:04 pm

  5. I think its absurd for people to say that science is the only way to prove something true. We don’t necessarily use Science to prove Christ’s resurrection, but we use history. Anyway’s Christ resurrection is historical fact.

    Matthew Jenkins

    November 29, 2013 at 4:59 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: