Last week I wrote about Cobb & Coyne's assertion that "the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism," which appeared in the correspondence section of Nature. This week there is yet another letter on the science v. religion debate, this time by Jonathan Cowie. and it unfortunately manages to conflate "faith" and "science." Cowie writes;
Scientists' use of the scientific method pragmatically includes faith. A scientist must first conceive the idea for an experiment, and then -- on the basis merely of the hopeful presumption of its possible outcome -- invest time and resources in funding and executing it in the anticipation of a meaningful result.
In a ploy that is all too popular, Cowie attempts to inject the concept of faith into science in order to bring it into reconciliation with religion. Not only do I think such attempts will be ineffective, but it also does little but obfuscate the arguments at the intersection of science & religion.
Faith can have many definitions, but generally I take it to mean a confidence or trust that is not based upon any evidence or proof. Indeed, the trust aspect is a major part of what faith is in religious terms, but a scientist should not make any obligation to trust in a hypothesis the way the devout trust in a deity.
Although we're all taught that "observation" comes after "hypothesis" when taught the scientific method in elementary school, hypotheses are based upon observations and evidence already in existence. Using what is already known as a springboard, the hypothesis then requires testing or observation that will either confirm or refute it; there is no deeply held trust that there will be a particular outcome (even if confirmation of the hypothesis might be desirable!).
I do not see the advantage of trying to inject faith into science to reconcile scientific discovery and revelation; it will not quell the objections of those who object to reality because of their trust in religious doctrine. As far as I can tell, such attempts only confuse what science and faith are (definitions are rarely, if ever, included in such opinion pieces), and the tactics serve neither concept well.
- Log in to post comments
Cobb and Coyne missed the point and failed to make a substantive critique. Cowie is just trowelling on Teh Burning Stupid to the point that it can be used as an alternative energy source.
(Yes, revising a paper makes me grumpy.)
One of the useful concepts I've come across on Scienceblogs is the difference between some of the definitions of faith. Particularly relevant here are:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. a system of belief not based on proof
It is a common ploy to conflate these but they are in fact different categories of behavior. The presence of of one, including the confidence and hope a scientist has in a theory s/he proceeds to test, dose not require, imply, or endorse the second.
Now, on to the subject of whether it's useful to try to reconcile science with a supernatural belief system. Science remains naturalistic in approach, and any attempt to reassure the believer that they can have both faith and science contributes nothing to science. However, to an individual believer or an organization, yes, it can be important, although that is their concern, not science's. As for those scientists, like Ken Miller, who choose to address believers in order to reconcile science and faith, it does not lessen that scientist's contributions to science if they are already based on sound, naturalistic reasoning and methods.
If only Cowie would be honest and out with the central tenet of his faith:
When the evidence doesn't support his hypothesis, he throws away the evidence.
That is the OPPOSITE of science.
Cowie needs to check in a dictionary the difference between the words "expect" and "believe". He is clearly having difficulties with this oh so difficult point.
A senior Mexican colleague of mine said that being raised Catholic prepared him well for a career in molecular biology; as he held up a tube with an alleged pellet of DNA he said, "You have to believe in a lot of things you can't see."
Abel;
I actually thought of something like that while writing this. While we might refer to "faith in things we can't see" in science, there are ways of detecting those things are there, subjecting them to tests and verifying hypotheses. We might trust that the DNA is there (or that our planet will keep revolving around the sun or whatever you like) based upon evidence, but I wouldn't call it "faith." The distinction in terms of faith, I think, is that there isn't really anything to support your view; you are trusting in spite of the lack of tangible evidence.
I think part of the problem is that we often don't define our terms well in these discussions. What do we mean when we talk about "faith" or "belief" outside of a religious context? It's not that the words are anathema to me because of that association, but because I don't think they can be applied to both science and religion without simultaneously confusing both.
I think of belief and faith as tightly connected. Faith is the unshakable belief that something is true, no matter what evidence is presented to support or reject its truthfulness. The bible abounds with stories of true believers who keep the faith in spite of massive evidence that they are wrong. So there are many role models for a creationist to keep the faith regardless of opposing evidence.
It thus distressses me to hear "Scentists believe . . . " Thinking, on the other hand, respects evidence, and present thought represents the best truth we know at the moment. It is provisional, and shifts to reflect increased understanding based on more and better evidence. So it is correct (well, it better be) to say "Scientists think . . . " but not to say "Scientists believe . . . "
zy is quite right about the conflation of two different concepts of "faith". And yes, science is dependent on "faith", but in the first of the two senses given by zy. When I read a scientific paper, I generally have "faith" that the authors are presenting their data accurately and not just completely fabricating their results.
The same variation in sense applies to the word "believe". There is an enormous difference between "I believe in fairies" and "My sister says that she doesn't have my pencil, and I believe here". The first is probably a statement made without evidence, but the second is not - I've known my sister for a long time, she has demonstrated her trustworthiness in the past, etc.
The problem, of course, is the problem that has been called the root of all suffering by some religions (um...not Christianity): ignorance.
All the distinctions of meaning and differences in definitions are lost on a public that is not only largely ignorant of science, but uneducated in the humanities as well.
A fundamental frustration with trying to clarify these seemingly obvious issues in the sphere of public debate is that we do not educate our children to the level where they are able, as adults, to debate these things with any facility. So people fall back on the platitudes and social conditioning instilled in their minds.
The difference between an opinion, a hypothesis, a theory, and a religious assertion is completely lost on far too large a segment of the population. You can see their eyes glaze over in fogged confusion when you attempt to clarify. They cling to the back-and-white, childlike simple memes of their preachers and televangelists (and, sadly, all too often their own parents) as a defense against that which confused minds are unprepared to debate with any depth of thought at all.
The creationist/IDer/woo-doctor therefore, is not concerned with countering your arguments, because he understands he is not in an argument with you. You are educated, able to reason, and are committed to thinking for yourself. This puts you beyond their reach, so they write you off as lost souls.
No, their audience is not you, so they don't need sound, logically constructed refutations.
Their audience is the vulnerable, the uneducated, the superstitious, the magical thinkers, and to get the approval of those folks they need short, memorable memes, and endless blasting of the willing propaganda machine to drill the memes into the public's malleable mindset.
In my view, arguing with the creationists is necessary, but it is not the main front of the culture war.
The main battle is the battle to get our children, and our people in general, good and proper educations so they are functioning at the level where they can think these issues through for themselves.
Then they can believe whatever they want, but the level from which they make their choice is much higher. I think we have to up the ante by making the target audience, the general public, more educated and more informed.
There are a lot of people who profit handsomely off an ignorant populace, and they are going to fight against doing anything for the public good.
I say we sneak around behind the front lines, and attack their supply lines. Their supply line is a steady stream of ignorant children growing up to become functionally illiterate adults (at least as far as science, civics, and the humanities are concerned).
You can look around at the countries in the world where faith vs science is not such a bitter struggle. There you will see a higher level of public education standards.
You still have sciences and religions, and even people who are involved in both. But they aren't mixing up their definitions of science and religion, and therefore do not need to engage in a war designed to wipe out one or the other.
How we got to that place in America is by letting our standards slip. A lack of civics education about government, church and state, is to blame. Lowered standards in our public schools are to blame.
And an irresponsible press, who has abdicated its responsibility to help educate the public, and become simply profit driven dis-infotainment (if not outright propaganda).
That's the real battle field of the culture war as I see it.
Re your comment "In a ploy that is all too popular, Cowie attempts to inject the concept of faith into science in order to bring it into reconciliation with religion. Not only do I think such attempts will be ineffective, but it also does little but obfuscate the arguments at the intersection of science & religion."
Wooahhh!! No - I was not saying that. Read the Templeton piece I referred to. The read the book I referred to and then you will understand what I was saying. You have taken me right out of context!
Bad person, you.
Jonathan Cowie