Jan 20 2009
Joining in the worm toss…
So, Brian on The Secret of Newton has decided that a can of worms isn’t enough for him . He’s going for the whole semi. And why not? Controversy’s fun.
It’s even more fun, of course, since I’m on the opposite side of the controversy from Brian. See Brian was thrown, apparently by Dr. Lawrence Krauss called Science and Religion: Two Ships in the Night where Dr. Krauss apparently says “Science may enrich faith, but not vice versa.”
Brian seemed to feel strongly that that wasn’t true , that, in fact, faith had done much to further science. As he put it:
I think that faith has served as a tug which pulled science out of the harbor into the deep waters. Yes science started before the foundation of America, but the connection of faith and science has a rich history.
He also said that, to him, “from faith springs freedom.”
There is an excellent discussion going in his comments and I urge anyone interested to join in. I did, of course, but it got me thinking, and, although I put an article length comment in his discussion (and will likely put more), I wanted to talk about it here, too. Because it’s a big discussion, not just about science, but also about how we argue the topic, and what the distinction is between faith, religion, and adherence to an ideology (which may or may not religious). Truth is, this topic is probably too big for one blog, so I’ll likely be hitting it some more over the next week or two.
Let me add a couple of things. First, I’m not trying to pick on Brian by arguing some of his points here. Brian is not only funny and brilliant, he also appears to be quite open-minded and more than willing to discuss things in a reasonable manner - which has not always been my experience with others. Secondly, I’m not in any way trying to argue against people having a religion or a faith. Far from it. In fact, I see no reason why they would be mutually exclusive; in my opinion, religion and science are not inherently in conflict. But I also don’t see one having much effect on the other, much like Dr. Krauss. To me (as I said on Brian’s blog), science requires data and evidence or it is speculation, not science. Faith, by it’s very definition, does not. In fact, one can make an argument that, if one has evidence to support something, it’s not really faith.
And I have to question the assertion that faith somehow leads to freedom. I guess I don’t understand this. What does faith free one from? What’s oppressive or enslaving about not having faith? As much as I don’t have any issues with faith, I’m at a loss to understand why one is at a disadvantage without it. I know any number of wonderful, thoughtful, caring, generous people, with high moral values and intelligent probing minds that are comfortably atheist. I don’t see a problem with that either.
As to faith fostering science (especially since the Dark Ages), I can think of a great deal of evidence to the faith (and/or religion) working against science, but it’s harder for me to make the connection that faith in some way has fostered science in the past few centuries. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I am not familiar with any evidence to support such and assertion (and much to contest it).
But, since I’m joining in to the can of worms work, feel free to chime in with your own views. I don’t corner the market on ideas and, just because I couldn’t think of strong arguments to support the friendly codependence of science and faith, it doesn’t mean it’s impossible. I’d love to hear what you think.
“from faith springs freedom”
You’re right. This is a huge can of worms…something I could discuss endlessly. I don’t know how to form a short answer.
There are so many different kinds and levels of faith. There is religious faith in a higher power. There is faith in the laws of science. There is faith in human kind based on previous interactions. Etc…
Thing is–I think everyone has some faith. Atheists, as well. Even if it’s not in a god, they still exercise faith whether it be in themselves or others. They just choose not to practice a religious faith.
Some people feel having religious faith frees them because they accept that a spiritual being is in control. Accepting that sometimes things just happen and there was nothing that could have been done about it in the natural realm, is liberating. Believing that an almighty spiritual being will reward you in your new life (in heaven, or earth, or animal) gives people the freedom to die with grace or handle the death of a loved one. Religious faith is necessary for some to survive…and helps others to die.
But other faiths are necessary for survival too. 1. We ride down the highway daily with only a thin line on the highway separating us from on-coming traffic. 2. We have faith that the chair will hold us off the floor once we relieve our feet and rest our bottoms on it. 3. We throw a ball in the air with the expectation it is going to come back down.
In these scenarios, we all exercise faith. 1. We have faith in the other driver to stay on his side of the street (sometimes mistakenly). 2. We have faith in the mathematical formula that says 4 sturdy legs should hold the average person who sits in the center. 3. We have faith in the law of gravity. So, sometimes our faith is in a scientific principle that has been tested and proven true over time.
Why is this freedom? Well, it would probably be difficult to drive without allowing ourselves to do so without constant fear of getting hit head-on. I will imagine we would be very tired of standing because of not relying on a chair to sit. And, people would just lose their minds if there was no basketball, football, or tennis because we couldn’t enjoy sports without having faith the ball would eventually come back.
As for the levels of faith, I’m sure it’s easier to have faith that advil will take the pain away than that the surgeon is gong to cut all the cancer out and heal the body. Exercising faith, and letting these things do their jobs may prove to be what is necessary for the situation. Getting pain relief or physical healing is freeing. We wouldn’t know unless we took the initial step of faith and tried it. Once you’ve tried advil and it worked, you wouldn’t need the same amount of faith to use it the next time.
Even more faith would be required for someone to accept that even if the body doesn’t heal, he or she will go to a better place…Maybe even religious faith.
Whew…I’m tired. I can comment some more tomorrow. Good night, Sephanie.
Davida
I think we should draw lines between faith and religion. Religious institutions are responsible for much of the closed thinking and resistance to science you are discussing, not faith itself.
For me, and for many like me, faith is a belief in something beyond one’s experience. Martin Luther King, Jr., for instance, didn’t see equality for minorities while he was alive, but his faith led him to strive and hope for a change in what was the reality. Had he no faith, he would never have led a resistance to the situation as it stood. In the same way, faith convinces me that there is more to my life–and to my purpose–than merely my own will. I sense a movement in the cosmos than is more than physical, that is more than mere fact. Yet it is this same faith that causes scientists to resist accepting the easiest answer and investigate to find the true cause of things. I could argue that it is faith which caused scientists to invent the microscope. Even though they could not SEE something, they believed, or had faith, that there was more to see if they could find a way to see it.
There’s my two cents.
No, Stephanie. I don’t feel like you’re attacking me. That’s what a debate is—openly, and hopefully, intelligently, discussing opposing views. So, even if you were attacking me with a secret grin on your face and a pitchfork next to your computer, it wouldn’t matter. I’m just here to state my point.
“My point”—that’s what’s funny. I really hadn’t thought about this concept of freedom and faith at all until I read your post. So, forgive me if my answers seem a bit disjointed. I’m making this up as I go along. Now that I’ve already dared to step in the worm can, I have to defend my points. Besides, I’m hoping to earn more of Brian’s bonus points. Here goes…
These are the things we agree on: faith pretty much ends with knowledge of evidence, faith can be restrictive, and our operating definition of faith. I think the rest calls for further explanation.
I stand firm on all my other points, including my examples where faith is commonly used (driving on a highway, sitting on a chair, throwing a ball, taking medicine, and undergoing surgery). I refute your points by the same logic. This is mostly because of my assertions that: 1. Faith is an individual thing that depends on that individual and where he or she stands on an issue, 2. Freedom is a state of mind, 3. The initial step requires faith even if subsequent steps do not, and 4. Faith and science can coexist.
For the first one—Faith is an individual thing. For instance, people believe a man has walked on the moon. This requires faith in science to believe we are actually capable of doing something like that. It requires faith in those who have reported this story as evidence. It requires faith in the pictures that are shown as evidence of this phenomenon…and accurate recording of the events in books. Why faith? Well, most have not actually been to the moon, but because the history books say it is so, we believe it. There are pictures of someone putting a flag there, but the pictures could have been taken in NASA’s backyard. The few who have actually been to the moon do not have to have faith in the fact that they’ve been to the moon. Those of us relying on secondhand information and textbooks do.
It was once believed that the earth was flat. Because someone else said it was flat, we accepted that was true. This evidence was later refuted when the earth’s roundness was discovered. Laypeople still do not know whether that is true because we have no firsthand knowledge of such. We have relied on the experts, who wrote books and took pictures from the earth’s atmosphere in order to believe the earth is round. You NASA people, who study this sort of thing all the time, probably no longer have to have faith in it. You see “evidence” all the time that you have accepted as truth. Others are still exercising faith in order to believe what we have been told and possibly, shown (I say “possibly” because I’m allowing, for the sake of argument, an opening that the pictures that have been claimed to be evidence could have been doctored with computer graphics).
In one situation, you may have 2 different people. One requires faith in order to be free, the other doesn’t. Faith is for the person needing it because they are choosing to accept something they can’t see. It’s not necessary for the one who has already discovered the evidence.
Secondly, freedom is a state of mind. In your 3 examples, I will argue that faith is still at work. One may have faith that the afterlife doesn’t matter (and find out too late that it does) or that what they are resolving to do is actually the right thing (because it could be the wrong thing that they think is right) or that the direction they are on for their lives is the correct direction (because they could have a false understanding of what life’s direction should be). In either of these cases, because they are free in spirit, they are capable of moving forward because they are mentally free.
Thirdly—and I’m getting really tired now, so there’s no telling how this is coming together. My examples were perfect for showing how initial steps require faith, but subsequent steps do not. If you’re driving, sitting in a chair, taking medicine, etc… for the first time, you are exercising faith. All other times, because you have proven evidence, faith is not required. Just watch your young children do things for the first time. Watch how they are skeptical and nervous. After you demonstrate that you did it and no harm came of you, they are able to attempt with less trepidation.
Advil has been proven to work for other people so you have faith that it will work for you (back to my faith per individual argument). Just because it works for others is not evidence that it will work for you, but it helps your faith in it to try it for the first time. After you see that they were right, faith is no longer required for you to take advil again (I need to be paid by advil for this advertisement).
Successful placebos are also proof that faith works in even the most common ways to foster freedom. Someone says take this medicine because there’s scientific evidence that it works. You take it and get better only to find there’s no medicine in it. It was your individual faith in the placebo that made you better and not the actual meds. There really was no evidence of medication, just someone saying there was.
Lastly, faith and science can coexist. This is where my question to you about the Big Bang Theory and Creationism came from. I don’t understand why more people don’t see how faith and science can work together. Why isn’t it possible for a supreme being to have put the big bang in motion and spurred evolution? It takes faith to believe in a supreme being AND it takes faith to believe in the scientific theories. Now, I know what you’re thinking, scientist—no, no. If it’s science, it’s supported by evidence and not requiring faith. Well, I’ll refer you back to my first argument. Outside of a few experts, the rest of us are accepting what we can’t see on faith. We’re accepting the so-called evidence, but we can’t REALLY know if it is evidence.
I think proven scientific evidence and faith coinciding is the absolute best way to show something is true. People tell the stories of Jesus changing water in to wine and that one of the Egyptian plagues involved water turning in to blood. Modern people have faith in the bible and they have faith in these stories even though they were not around to witness any of it. They accept it on faith. The people at the wedding who witnessed the water to wine transformation didn’t need faith. And, the Egyptians who lived through the plagues didn’t need faith to believe what was happening to them. Modern people, on the other hand, can have faith in the story…OR they can do some archaeology research (watch the history channel) and learn all the scientific evidence that explains what could have happened to make these stories possible. Some people will have faith, some will trust science, but the truth will still remain. Faith and freedom is an individual state of mind.
Let me just add that everything isn’t faith. Purchasing lottery tickets and staying with an abusive spouse may be more attributable to naivety, stupidity, ambivalence, or ignorance, but not faith.
After all this, I done forgot what the heck I was debating about…
Davida
Let’s define proof then (dictionary.com):
“1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8. Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.
9. a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.”
So, no. Firsthand knowledge is not the only way to establish proof, but it can certainly make something compelling. I was only using that as an example, not an exclusive one. Even in this definition, you can see that proof has to come from some establishment of it or test or calculation. And there are numerous ways of doing so.
It’s easy to have doubts when someone is analyzing an assertion of truth. The stronger the test or calculation or establishment of “proof”, such as with firsthand knowledge, the more one can accept something as proof and the less faith is necessary.
Since you brought up a court of law– if it isn’t compelling, it is still arguable on whether it is actually “proof”. Whether it is sufficient enough, whether its probative value outweighs prejudice, whether it is most convincing, whether it leads to a valid conclusion– in a court of law– would be determined by a judge or jury. In that case, we would both bring arguments and someone unbiased would decide “truth”. Even in court, someone has to decide what is “proof” or “evidence”. We don’t have that here. We just have opposing assertions.
“I decide what to do, how does faith come into it, because I believe it is the right thing to do?”
If I were someone who believed it HAD to be faith, I would apply your statement to the definition of faith: “b (1): fidelity to one’s promises (2): sincerity of intentions” and “something that is believed especially with strong conviction” (it doesn’t have to be in religion). Arguably, your statement does fit, provided you have sincere intentions and strong conviction in doing what is right. And, the point I was making, is that some level of faith is applicable. I am not someone who has exclusionary views. I don’t think there are many absolutes, so I don’t usually assert that something is the ONLY way and I’m not doing so here.
I guess it is possible for the abused spouse to have faith in her husband, if we are applying the same definition. I can’t apply the definition to your statement without doing so in this case also. So, yes. It COULD be faith.
Yes. Faith has some ugly downsides. I didn’t argue with you on the misuse of faith because I don’t disagree. As someone who believes in spiritual principles, I have seen enough misuse of religious faith to have unfavorable opinions about it…but, not all unfavorable.
Thanks for helping me to think about something other than Elmo and preparing salmon patties. Good times…
Davida
The only real way I can think that faith has fostered science is that historically the only people with enough free time to really work out the way the world works were monks. Conversely, many dogmas have greatly hindered the figuring out of truth.
As for freedom, I am having a bit of a crises of faith myself but I do feel like having some kind of faith frees a person in a way that’s hard to explain… It’s like having a compass and a feeling of being taken care of, but I don’t feel like faith combined with intellectual rigor tends to be the norm.
I like traditions that allow me to match my experience of reality to the dogma. Dogma with no reference to, or with direct contradiction of reality seems supremely silly.
You want controversy? Life begins at conception… huh? Define life. Wasn’t the egg alive before conception?
Here is my opinion on the subject: http://hedonistadventure.today.com/about/
Enjoy.
This was a great post!