"Yeah, well like they say, it takes as much faith to believe in science as religion."
I had just been suckerpunched. After spending the last several minutes explaining evolution and its relevance to the history of our species I was hit between the eyes with that old one-liner. Even worse, there was no time to respond. Given that I was a guest in an evangelical home on Christmas and dinner had just been set I simply replied "I don't think that's true at all."
Asserting that science is just as much a religion as Christianity must be one of those things that Christians like. It is a comment lobbed into a conversation that is meant to neutralize the opponent by shifting the conversation away from actual evidence. If science requires faith then it is a religion in competition with Christianity and, therefore, false.
The science that is being compared to religion, of course, is anything that threatens cherished Christian interpretations of the universe. The science of evolution cuts to the heart of these beliefs because it specifically undermines traditional ideas about our place in the nature. Given all this baggage it is not surprising that some people like to pick and choose, buffet style, what scientific ideas they find acceptable and which are better left under the heating lamps.
But my scientifically-rooted understanding of nature has nothing to do with faith. Instead it is based upon observations, comparisons, and intertwining lines of evidence that are open to revision as new discoveries are made. In other words, tangible things that others can also examine. I am not going to argue that I am entirely objective, I am not a robot, but the method of making arguments based upon scientific evidence is just about as far from faith-based assertions as you can get.
I don't regard evolution as true because it is what I would like to be true or because I believe I have had a personal experience with a transcendent force. No, I am so fascinated by evolution because of the overwhelming evidence for it. There is solid proof, from prehistoric bones to the intricacies of genes, and these natural facts fuel our ongoing discussions of evolutionary theory.
I don't want to believe in evolution. That concept makes no sense to me. The only reason it even comes up is because the idea of evolution threatens religious sensibilities to the point where science becomes cast as a rival faith to undermine its credibility. Having someone tell you that it takes faith to "believe in evolution" is akin to being patted on the head and told "It's ok, you can believe in something that's wrong if that's what you really want." Once an evangelical has regurgitated the argument there is almost no talking to them. It is a put down meant to shut down communication, and it often does.
- Log in to post comments
I think the assertion is incorrect as well. I will admit there's areas of science where I just have to believe what scientists are telling me - but that's in part because I a) don't understand physics and b) don't try to understand physics. But I think the important difference here is that I don't need to believe in physics or not believe it in - it works regardless of how well we can understand it, and there ARE people who understand it and go about proving how it works or doesn't. I suppose you could make a similar statement about god (god exists whether or not I believe in it), but there's no one about who can put god through a scientific tests and then show me the results. (Would be interesting though...). So I'd have to say you're right, you don't have to believe in science the same way as religion. And why should they require the same mental approach? They are not the same thing. They don't need the same sort of treatment, and it shouldn't really be an issue, since there are lots of religious scientists who reconcile their work and their personal beliefs just fine.
Where does this line of argument come from?
Jared, I think it boils down to some fundamentals of philosophy, particularly whether or not what we (or any individual) perceives is actually reality, or whether or not reality is separate from perception. If we can't necessarily trust what we see or perceive as "real," then there's no reason to presume that anything empirical (e.g., science) represents reality, either, and therefore science has just about as much "factual" backing as religion. However, this is a red herring argument: regardless of whether or not perception=reality or not, all the principles of science that have been arrived at empirically have, and continue to, predict the outcomes of events in nature, whereas absolutely nothing in any religion can make this claim. This is why the two are not on equal footing. Note that this says absolutely nothing about the veracity of any religious tenet (e.g., an afterlife, the existence of a soul, etc.) -- just that those things aren't subject to empiricism...they're beliefs, and not scientific.
I'm not sure why you'd waste your time talking about this kind of thing with an evangelical at all. They're not going to change their minds, and at least for me, my opinion of them as an individual will crash through the floor. I respect a person's right to believe in what they want, but that does not mean I respect what they believe in (or think it's anything other than utter nonsense).
Jerry - I would argue that much the time the people using this argument are not objecting on the grounds of whether perception corresponds to reality because they don't have a grasp on such a fine epistemological distinction. Instead, I think they don't have any desire to look at the evidence or even to admit that the evidence might show anything. It's a staunch resistance to applying their minds to scientific reasoning. Anytime I see this argument being used, or have it used on me, I know that no amount of patient explanation of the scientific method, evidence or anything else rational will get me anywhere because the interlocutor has already decided not to accept any of it. It's really disheartening.
I'd say: "You obviously don't know the meaning of the word faith."
Actually I'd splutter and fume and then think of it after I'd left. :(
It is ought to be puzzling that Christians would use this argument. For a Christian, faith is a gift from God.
Asserting that science is just as much a religion as Christianity must be one of those things that Christians like.
Asserting that all Christians share this benighted, simplistic, sound-bite-based view of reality must be one of those things that anti-Christianity zealots like.
Doesn't feel so good when it's your beliefs getting spit on, does it? Just remember that it's not all Christians who say such things, nor all Christians who reject evolution, and you'll do a lot better on this subject.
(And for the record, I'm not a Christian. I've just met some damn fine people in my life who happen to be Christians, and I don't like it when they get unfairly tarred with the same brush as the likes of Duane Gish and Jack Chick.)
wolf; Touchy much? Yes, it was a snarky comment, but it points to a trend in modern Christianity. I did not say that all Christians think like this or believe this or what have you. The trend simply is something that is popular and, I think, would merit a listing on the "stuff Christians like" website (hence the link). And I am not an "anti-Christianity zealot", either. Since when is being critical of a trend in modern Christianity being, by itself, an "anti-Christianity zealot"? I'll thank you not to leave any more knee-jerk comments.
Cunning; Like I said, it was a holiday gathering during which someone I just met asked about what I did. I told them, and they came back with that comment. I probably would have discussed it a bit if I had the chance, but if that is there position maybe it is better I didn't!
As laughable as that statement is, isn't it also an admission that religion is about believing something with no real evidence at all? The "so's your old man" argument doesn't wash, but claiming that science is all about faith just like their religious doctrines is about all they have.
I agree entirely -- actually, this argument could be used as a reason for the existence of religion as a whole. I'm not saying that religious people are incapable of thinking (on the contrary, I've known some extremely thoughtful and smart religious people), but that, as you say, far too many people prefer to be told what to believe and do rather than gather their own data and decide for themselves...i.e., to think about it.
I've seen this claim come up; somebody clearly is saying that it takes as much faith to believe in science as to believe in religion. I've never been sure exactly what the people making the claim mean by it; most of the time it seems to be simply an argument from personal incredulity made by somebody who's never looked at the evidence and has no intention of doing so. However--
I do take issue with the statement that evangelicals never change their minds; some do. I've seen it happen. This is why I think such discussions are worth having, so long as they don't take up too much time or take you away from more important activities.
I cringe whenever I hear some one say, "Scientists believe . . ." We scientists do not believe, we think. As a colleague remarked, "I do not believe in evolution. I have studied the matter, and I am convinced of it." Faith, as I understand it, having been raised a Southern Baptist, means holding a belief no matter what arguments or evidence show it to be false. Nothing could be more different from how we do science.
It comes down to two words often used interchangeably but in reality their meanings could not be more vitally different: Faith and Trust.
Faith is something you give away (or often, something that is demanded for free).
Trust is something that can only be earned.
I do not believe or have faith in science, I have trust. Trust earned by evidence, earned by methodology, earned by the expertise of scientists who leave open their theories and experiments to public scrutiny, earned by peer review. Earned by the inescapable, demonstrable fact that it works. That it is real.
Religion can never earn trust, all it can do is demand faith. Those are very different things and if anybody ever whips out the faith in science fallacy I'll let them know what these words mean.
I do take issue with the statement that evangelicals never change their minds; some do.
You might enjoy this cartoon: http://i.imgur.com/Bxrj9.jpg
My rejoinder is that the only faith needed to accept the findings of science is faith that evidence means something.
There is a more robust form of the argument in question, though few who identify as evangelilcals would be able to articulate it. The claim would be that scientific activity is grounded in faith that at least parts of the world are intelligible. And, since the notion of 'intelligibility' is logically prior to the notion of 'evidence', there is no hope of establishing the intelligibility of the world as an evidence-based fact about the world. So, from this perspective, it's true that science is based on faith, but not in a way that is similar to how faith grounds religious beliefs. Faith in the intelligibility of the world is equivalent to faith that rigorous application of critical thinking about the world can yield factual knowledge. That's not like any flavor of religious faith I've encountered.
It's always galling to spend a hefty length of time or quantity of words explaining a subject, only to find oneself brushed off with an irrelevant quip. I mean, couldn't they respond with an actual thought instead of some copy-and-paste drivel?
So much so that "faith" is a bad word for it; "pragmatism" might be better. Otherwise we ought to say that one must have faith in empirical methodology in order to conclude from previous experience that, should we take the cat into a running shower, it will be displeased.
Because of its association with religious belief, 'faith' might, indeed, be a "bad" word to describe the implicit beliefs underlying scientific endeavors. But 'pragmatism' probably isn't an improvement. In fact, as an intellectual stance, pragmatism is pretty friendly to religious belief, and not at all friendly to a robust notion of 'truth' -- just check out William James "The Will to Believe" if you need a reminder.
The claim would be that scientific activity is grounded in faith that at least parts of the world are intelligible. And, since the notion of 'intelligibility' is logically prior to the notion of 'evidence', there is no hope of establishing the intelligibility of the world as an evidence-based fact about the world.
This is quite true but it is not the end of the argument. This can be characterized as "methodological naturalism" (MN), the concept that there is a real world outside ourselves, that our senses report accurately to us (though, as in the case of mirages, we can misinterpret the import of), that operates, at the very least, for the vast majority of the time, by law-like regularities. Each and every person, including evangelicals, are methodological naturalists. It is a basic fact of human psychology that we all accept this ... a fact that is easy enough to demonstrate. Ask the "science is faith" person: "If you are crossing a country lane and see a car a half mile away approaching you, do you sprint for your life on the possibility that the car will cross that half mile in a second?" Conversely, "If you are crossing a busy city street and see a bus 25 feet from you bearing down on you, do you stop and contemplate the possibility that the bus will suddenly shift 30 feet to the left and miss you, or do you run like hell?" There are nearly inexhaustable examples of this. "When you go to make a breakfast of eggs in the morning, do you stop to get a hammer first, just in case the eggs have shells as hard as concrete, or do you assume that the eggs you want to cook today will be very like the eggs you prepared yesterday?" Science is simply the formalized study of the world that we all assume exists while living our daily lives.
Religion can never earn trust, all it can do is demand faith. Those are very different things and if anybody ever whips out the faith in science fallacy I'll let them know what these words mean.
I'm not sure why you'd waste your time talking about this kind of thing with an evangelical at all.
It is ought to be puzzling that Christians would use this argument. For a Christian, faith is a gift from God.
faith schmaith
There is a more robust form of the argument in question, though few who identify as evangelilcals would be able to articulate it.Thanks.