Whenever faced with the challenge that science is incompatible with faith, theists often point to their faith’s own cadre of accomplished scientists to refute this frequent atheistic claim. And they would not want of examples. Just grabbing from the Roman Catholic Church’s litany of scientists will give you many luminaries of the sciences, many with the honor of being called “father of” such and such science or their name being used as units of measurement.
- Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was an Augustinian friar.
- Antoine Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry, named oxygen and hydrogen.
- Alessandro Volta was a physicist who invented the battery and is the namesake of the measurement for electric potential.
- Louis Pasteur was a chemist and microbiologist who is often regarded as one of the fathers of the germ theory of disease.
- André-Marie Ampère was a physicist and mathematician who helped discover the link between electricity and magnetism and is the namesake of the measurement for current.
- William of Ockham, the namesake of Occam’s razor, was a Franciscan Friar.
- René Descartes, most famous for cogito ergo sum, was a mathematician as well as a philosopher.
- Blaise Pascal, the originator of the Pascal’s Wager, was a mathematician and physicist, who is the namesake of the measurement of pressure, stress, and tensile strength.
- Georges Lemaître was the first person to propose that the universe was expanding, but he is more famous for proposing what we call the “Big Bang” theory of the origin of the universe.
This is but a smattering of all the Catholic scientists who have contributed greatly to the progress of science. Some of them had overtly pious intentions for their work—in order to more perfectly understand their Creator’s work. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church has been one of the biggest patrons of the sciences dating back to the Middle Ages with precisely this purpose of appreciating the design of the Intelligent Designer. With such intellectual giants who profess faith in Catholic dogma and such explicitly religious motives, how then can the atheist even suggest that faith is in conflict with science?
Is pseudoscience compatible with science?
The existence of religious scientists only proves, as Sam Harris observes, that good ideas can live with bad ideas in the same head. The proponents of the compatibility of faith-based religion with science seem to miss the fact that the acceptance of scientific discoveries of religious scientists is because these findings have survived the rigorous testing of the scientific method. Lemaître’s Big Bang theory is accepted by scientists not due to any purported theological consistency but because it is the best explanation for our observations. That he was religious was purely incidental to the value of his scientific insight.
It is also important to point out that many scientists are religious simply because most people are religious. Centuries ago, only those with the power and wealth of their Churches behind them had the luxury of spending their time reading and experimenting. Not to mention, atheists (often lumped by those in power with worshippers of foreign gods) have been persecuted since the name was coined.
When the German chemist Friedrich August Kekulé said that the cyclic structure of benzene came to him in a dream involving a snake biting its own tail, his idea wasn’t accepted for its esoteric merits, it was accepted on the strength of the scientific evidence he presented after this strange epiphany.
One of humanity’s greatest minds, Isaac Newton, was quite the dedicated alchemist. He wrote over a million words on the topic. His work on alchemy was even integral to his work on optics. But, none of this suggests that the pseudoscience of alchemy has no conflict with science.
We find that to the extent that religious scientists are not dogmatic and employ reason and evidence, they are good scientists. That is, we expect religious scientists to cut away all semblance of religiosity from their output before we deem them credible. This does not speak well for the argument that science and faith are compatible.
A brief digression on Galileo
No essay on the conflict between science and faith would be complete without a mention of Galileo Galilei. Apologists dismiss the Galileo affair as a trial of his arrogance rather than of his ideas, which they found erroneous not just based on scripture, but also based on empirical facts.
Galileo published the first scientific work based on observations through a telescope. He saw that, contrary to the Aristotelian idea that all celestial bodies are perfectly smooth spheres, the moon had mountains. He was also able to discover four moons orbiting around Jupiter. From these, he contested the prevailing Aristotelian and Ptolemaic dogma that all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. He further proposed, though none of his observations directly suggested it, that Copernicus was right that the planets, including Earth, orbited around the Sun.
Even scientists such as Tycho Brahe found Galileo’s endorsement of the Copernican heliocentric model to be misplaced, saying that it was not supported by the evidence. And, truly, there was a problem with Galileo’s science. Using circular orbits, Copernicus’ solar system relied even more on ad hoc mathematical corrections called “epicycles” to match observations, suggesting that planets would revolve around separate axes all the while traveling in a larger orbit around the sun. It was even more complex and unintuitive than Ptolemy’s geocentric model.
However, Galileo was censured by the Inquisition not because of his bad science but mainly because he contradicted the geocentrism of the Bible and the documents of his trial attest to this. Apologists tend to parade around his errors and “arrogance” in promoting the Copernican system as the central reasons behind his eventual condemnation and house arrest, but this is clearly not the truth.
The Inquisition in 1616 saw heliocentrism as “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.”
Galileo went on to write Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in 1632, which lampooned geocentrism by writing about an ignorant proponent, named Simplicio, debating with an intelligent heliocentrist, named Sagredo.
His persecutors themselves were clear that Galileo’s crimes were not of arrogance or for faulty science, but of heresy. Upon sentencing in 1633, Galileo was condemned for heresy “of having held and believed a doctrine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.” He would be able to avoid penalty provided that he “abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the manner and form we will prescribe to you.” He eventually did so. Dialogue was banned by the Roman Catholic Church. Galileo spent the last years of his life in house arrest.
The real conflict between science and faith
At the heart of the conflict between faith and science are their contradictory value systems. Science requires evidence for any and all claims looking to be accepted. Faith holds unquestionable belief even when evidence is nonexistent.
Science relies on self-correction. Scientists must admit to their errors and argue only with evidence. This is why science is the best method of knowing the human race has ever produced. No religion has ever come close; no religious explanation has ever replaced a scientific explanation.
Faith is most visibly at odds with science when religions make baseless scientific claims such as those concerning the efficacy of prayer, the origin of man, or the nature of the mind. If science finds that prayer is ineffective, that there never was a “first” man or woman, or that free will is an illusion, someone with an honest scientific mindset can only reject their preconceived notions in favor of a better understanding of the universe. The improvement of knowledge is the hallmark of science—a feature religious faith can never share.
Faith is incompatible with science because science requires freedom of thought. In principle, science has no heresies, blasphemies, or sacred cows; the only limit is reason. Science can only thrive when scientists are not intimidated or forced to shy away from difficult answers that may contradict long-held beliefs.
The example of Galileo is often shrugged off by apologists as anti-Catholic spin or, at best, that it is not representative of the Church’s relationship with science. And, to be fair, it is true that this event is atypical. The Roman Catholic Church is not antagonistic to all science, just the parts problematic to their ideology. In order to soothe the congitive dissonance caused by their enjoyment of the fruits of science, apologists must conveniently gloss over the real conflict between science and faith. Science will always be hostile to the restraints of the religious mindset. In order for faith and science to coexist, science must be neutered, declawed, and defanged.
It is only fortunate for us who live in this day that faith has fallen so far now that it has been forced to ingratiate itself with modern secular society. It no longer holds the power to execute heretics or punish those who dare to think for themselves. We must never forget how the Churches acted when their power was more than just ceremonial.
Galileo may have been wrong (or not completely correct), but so have thousands of other scientists who have never faced the wrath of the Inquisition, whose books have never been denied to the public. It was only because Galileo had the gall to challenge scripture that he faced the consequences. Faith is only chummy with science insofar as it does not challenge core beliefs. In this way, religions are not patrons of science, but of science products. They are open to enjoying the spoils of the critical nature of science without appreciating exactly what makes science worth a damn—its complete lack of dogmatism. It is the very character of the scientific attitude that makes the clash between science and faith only inevitable.
Image credit: Ies Dionisio Aguado
Hi! I agree that science should always be self-critical. it is the pursuit of truth, even if that truth may be contradictory to its present beliefs. I just want to know if you have ever heard about Darwinian scientists censoring fellow scientists due to their scientific findings that actually CONTRADICT the Darwinian dogma within the scientific community? it has raised quite a controversy because some ppl claim that science education only presents a one-sided view of evolution. that is, what is taught are only scientific evidences that SUPPORT it.. what about those that CONTRADICT it? unfortunately, this info has been well-kept because it forces us to reconsider a well-established scientific "doctrine."
anyway.. you might want to see the documentary on this controversy. here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVMRBccbINI
PS. better watch the movie before reading the comments for the purpose of reducing prejudices/biases..just a suggestion 🙂
As I see it, the heart of your case (where you purport to prove that science, or more precisely 'reason', is incompatible with faith) is the supposed contradictory value systems ingrained within the two. Namely,
1. Whereas science is evidence-based, faith is not.
2. Whereas science is open to alternative explanations, faith is not.
All the rest of reasons you outline are basically repetitions of these basic two. The problem with your position is that you don't seem to realize that you are applying a curious double-standard when assessing the two: you don't seem to realize that basic presuppositions (that are neither evidence-based nor open to alternative explanations) permeate the foundations of 'science'.
For example, science relies on the presupposition that what holds true in one portion of the universe also holds true in another (in a sense, that the Laws of Physics are universal). The problem is that this is just that: a presupposition. You can neither arrive at it through evidence (simply because of the impossibility of knowing that for any fact P, that P is true in all parts of the universe) nor is science open to the possibility that that is not true (for example, science makes no countenance of the possibility that the Laws of Gravity are different in different parts of the universe).
Or another, when science presupposes that the material world is a. 'real' and b. 'observable'. Science can't even get off the ground without presupposing these two.
That would have been a problem had I been a strict empiricist or a logical positivist. You would have noticed that neither position was advocated by this piece. Neither did I claim that reason (or rationalism) was incompatible with faith. It is therefore unfair and inaccurate to claim that my piece is more “precisely” about the incompatibility of reason and faith.
This is sufficient to negate your objections, but I will continue.
I find no problem with science requiring values that cannot be proved scientifically as logicians should have no problems with logic that cannot be proved logically. Science is a set of values that is necessarily contradictory to faith. That is the point of the piece.
This would have been a real problem IF it had been an accurate portrayal of my writing:
1. Whereas science is ONLY evidence-based, faith is not.
Should the laws of physics be found to not be universal, then science would necessarily change, by its very nature. This is not shared by faith-based reasoning.
I do not see how science is not, in principle, always open to correction (rather than alternative explanations), given evidence. Even naturalism under science is provisional. The interaction of the supernatural with the natural world, should there ever be evidence for it, would be under the purview of science. That would be a correction that would obviate naturalism. So, even science’s values are tentative, pending evidence. Realism as well could be open to revision given M-theory and model-dependent realism.
Let’s see faith do that.
Sufficient? Far from it. Let's how far you're precious science advances once you no longer presuppose that a. what discoveries can be made here can be extrapolated to be true elsewhere and b. that reality is observable.
In (b) is false, then nothing is observable and anything science discovers is an illusion because it doesn't really describe reality. (a), on the other hand, is really more accurately called the Problem of Induction where " if a situation holds in all observed cases, then the situation holds in all cases".
The problem is that there is no possible deductive formulation of the process. The only possible way to leap from "in all observed cases" to "it holds in all cases" is to presuppose it (i.e. that inductive logic is true).
I made no mention of logical positivism or rationalism. My point was that in denigrating faith for it's basics presupposition (that are taken to be true in a basic way), you fail to realize that science has, in very much the same manner, it's own presuppositions that it takes to be true before any meaningful scientific process occurs. To reiterate, science can't even get off the ground unless you presuppose that reality is observable.
Science, at the very least, is not open to that correction.
No need to be snippy.
For A, this may be assumed by science but it is not beholden to it. It will not die without it. If evidence is found that shows that this is not the case, then science is revised. (As I said before.) If gravity were found to act differently in different regions, then so be it. The theories seem to work so far.
For B, science is not married to this concept either. (As I said before) realism is not necessary for scientific discovery. Model-dependent realism, which is subscribed to by Stephen Hawking, denies that there is an absolutely knowable reality independent of our models. For example, Newtonian physics is not necessarily false given its contradictions with quantum mechanics or general relativity. It is just that they are true at different scales. Now, is this, in fact, the "true" nature of reality? Perhaps, perhaps not. Does it matter? No. Science need not value realism.
Can we have absolute certainty that our theories accurately model reality? No. It's just that it seems to work for now. Science is provisional. (As I said before.)
Even conceding to your challenges A and B, science comes out unscathed as a method of knowledge that functions rather well. Science merely needs to adjust. Its own value for self-correction demands that it adjusts, given evidence.
If you think that this piece was about faith having basic presuppositions and science having none, then you are mistaken. I have claimed none of these.
My basic argument is this:
Faith and science have basic presuppositions (values) that are contradictory.
That is all. Pardon me for spending over a thousand words on the matter.
"Faith and science have basic presuppositions (values) that are contradictory."
— That's if you understand "faith" to mean 'belief without reason', which, at least in the context of Christian theism, isn't how the word is used. In fact the word "faith", as understood by Christian theists (at least the more theologically or philosophically sophisticated ones), is no different from the "faith" with which science fetishists hold their scientism. In the end it boils down to a difference in, I think, each's metaphysical framework of reality –or their presuppositions– which, interestingly, are quite similar in that both hold to a lawful universe. The difference being: in the Christian theist's account, it's attributable to God. And on the atheist's, it's just the way it is ,or, we don't know. Both can be said to be rational in their choice, but neither can be proven, so people will just have to pick a route and take it on "faith".
No. As I clearly explained to XIII, I claimed no such incompatibility between faith and reason and rejected his misrepresentation.
You say you "claimed no such incompatibility", yet you said exactly this: "Science requires evidence for any and all claims looking to be accepted. Faith holds unquestionable belief even when evidence is nonexistent.".
As I said, you clearly are using "faith" to mean how it clearly –like I explained previously– isn't being used in the context of Christian theism. When they say they have "faith", they don't mean they hold something to be true with absolutely no reason to do so.
I'm afraid I don't see how my statement as quoted (or when reduced to "faith and science are incompatible") is the same as "faith and reason are incompatible." You and XIII have consistently misrepresented my case as "faith and reason are incompatible" when it clearly isn't. Unless you and XIII believe that science and reason are one and the same (I do not), I must call out this blatant dishonesty on your and XIII's part.
I think you'll find that the fault is all yours. I never said you said or meant reason when you said science. Neither did I imply you've oscillated between the two as though they meant the same thing.
In any case, nobody is being "dishonest" here, Garrick. Much less, "blatantly dishonest". It is at worst a misunderstanding of what you said on our part. But I don't think it's even that. Needless to say, arguing about what you said or didn't say will, I think, help no one.
Well, now that you've agreed that I did not mean reason when I said science and that I have never claimed that faith is incompatible with reason, do these criticisms still stand?
"That's if you understand "faith" to mean 'belief without reason', which, at least in the context of Christian theism, isn't how the word is used."
"You say you "claimed no such incompatibility", yet you said exactly this: "Science requires evidence for any and all claims looking to be accepted. Faith holds unquestionable belief even when evidence is nonexistent.". "
"When they say they have "faith", they don't mean they hold something to be true with absolutely no reason to do so."
Let's be clear. I didn't accuse you of mistaking reason for science. And while you didn't say faith is incompatible with reason, you did in fact say faith is unreasonable. Or, you at least seem to have implied it; in your post, you've defined the problem with faith as it confronts science thusly:
"Faith holds unquestionable belief even when evidence is nonexistent."
In other words, the "faith" of the theist is sometimes based on zero evidence.
My criticisms (and probably XIII's), when taken in this new light, still stand. Now, would you like me to say a bit more about this, or is it already clear enough?
Understood. While I do claim that faith entails belief even when evidence is nonexistent, I do not assert that this means that faith is necessarily "unreasonable," just unscientific and opposed to scientific values.
P.S. I do not think any of XIII's criticisms stand after my explanation that
1. I do not claim what he thinks I do (contra "where you purport to prove that science, or more precisely 'reason', is incompatible with faith").
2. Science does not dismiss the Problem of Induction.
3. Science does not require realism.