Are christians objective about science?

[ShieldAxe]

Are christians are biased when it comes to science? I believe that their reason for arguing against certain scientific findings and accepted theories is that the science threatens their faith. Their world view is in jeopardy. They want to keep their understanding of the world in tact so as to reinforce their faith. Faith is a comfort for them. It's comfortable to know god is watching over us, there's an afterlife, heaven exists, etc. This is their motivation for fighting evolution, big bang, heliocentrism or whatever.

Christians often accuse scientists of being against the bible. Is it logical that the scientific community would fabricate science that opposes the bible? Why? For research money? That makes no sense. If the earth is only 8000 years old, so be it. The research money would go toward studying that then. What's the difference to the scientist how old it is? Scientists pursue the truth.

So are christians pursuing science objectively or limiting themselves and stifling science to fit with biblical scripture?

[palmera]

In this case you are unlikely to be privy to anything so exceptional as to warrant a conclusion that a divine element was playing a role -- not when the every-day phenomena we all perceive has such a comprehensive practical account.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here in regards to the "every day phenomena we all perceive." What do you mean by "comprehensive practical account?"


First, I never argued that faith would lead someone to science. Though it led me in that direction, and a blessing it was, it depends on the nature of someone's faith. The dynamic nature of faith I am suggesting does not undermine faith of the acceptance of or belief in that which cannot be proven. Most people's understanding of faith begins with the premise that faith is an action which, in the face of unanswerable questions, in the face of the absurd, is a step taken by an individual placing profound belief in the utter truth of that which he/she cannot prove. Unfortunately most don't go beyond this first step. The dynamic nature of faith is that which propels one to explore and to understand more fully that which he/she has faith in. Faith without actions, without questions is indoctrination- it's not faith, but the passive acceptance of one who's lost the childlike ability to question. To have faith, does not mean one cannot ask 'why' or 'how' but rather it should propel one to question. The act of questioning should disrupt one's beliefs in order to bring one closer to that which he/she claims to have faith in. It's been said that the great religious act is the question, and in this light one seeks to broaden one's faith through engaging in/with that which one holds faith. One cannot have faith in scripture without reading. Reading, engageing with scripture is a form of questioning. Further, in regards to leading one toward science: Scientific questions engage one with God's creation.

I guess a difference in our understandings of the realm of faith lies in how we understand what it means to question. Questioning is for me an active part of faith which goes beyond seeing = believing; instead, questioning is that which engages one directly with the world, with scripture, with God. It's the constant questioning which engages us with God- Faith is meaningless unless it's dynamic, unless it propels one to engage. Questioning is one part of that engagement and is not limited to the doubting Thomas skepticism dismissed by many in the church as heretical.

[QED]

The dynamic nature of faith I am suggesting does not undermine faith of the acceptance of or belief in that which cannot be proven. Most people's understanding of faith begins with the premise that faith is an action which, in the face of unanswerable questions, in the face of the absurd, is a step taken by an individual placing profound belief in the utter truth of that which he/she cannot prove.

I would like others to consider that this might be entirely a function of our evolved brain chemistry and not a product of being 'online' with any divine spirit. What this amounts to is a 'gut feeling' that transcends 'making sense' and ends up with you 'simply knowing the utter truth'. This might be a useful processing shortcut that comes in handy whenever humans go about their business. Stopping and asking questions, probing, analysing is a luxury that can't always be afforded. So it becomes more expedient for our brains to be able to bypass certain areas of critical thinking and take leaps of faith instead.

Now because natural selection has permitted this to happen (i.e. we're still here doing this trick) it indicates that it is an effective approach and that, on average, we make a reasonable decision. This is probably because we have a busy subconscious which quietly assimilates information about the 'bigger pictures' and a path has been created to let the 'hunches' through. This might be why we can gain the impression that faith in certain things is as valid, if not more valid a way of instructing us in our conclusions.

It's a complicated explanation and there's a lot more to it (how it can build a overarching philosophical worldview for example) but I personally think it accounts for the suspension of objectivity that is seen in religious beliefs.

[palmera]

Good post. The one thing about it I'd like to explore is your incorporation of natural selection. It's an interesting idea, but a question remains as to if we have been naturally selected for faith. Though this certainly may be seen the case hundreds of thousands of years from now, making the claim that we have been naturally selected for faith is a leap itself. Has faith in the sense of our discussion been around long enough to be selected for as a human characteristic? I'm not sure it has. Faith I think is tied up in humans as a social construct. Left alone, a human being will not formulate an effective way to communicate, will have no social skills, and have no idea what faith is, nor have any "gut" feelings about the existence of something divinely greater. I wonder then just how "personal" faith is. While it is seen as intensely so within communal dialogue, "faith" as we understand it would not exist without the presence of other people. So, like language, religion, politics etc. is faith based more on how we live together, or how we live with God?

[QED]

Good post. The one thing about it I'd like to explore is your incorporation of natural selection. It's an interesting idea, but a question remains as to if we have been naturally selected for faith. Though this certainly may be seen the case hundreds of thousands of years from now, making the claim that we have been naturally selected for faith is a leap itself. Has faith in the sense of our discussion been around long enough to be selected for as a human characteristic? I'm not sure it has. Faith I think is tied up in humans as a social construct. Left alone, a human being will not formulate an effective way to communicate, will have no social skills, and have no idea what faith is, nor have any "gut" feelings about the existence of something divinely greater. I wonder then just how "personal" faith is. While it is seen as intensely so within communal dialogue, "faith" as we understand it would not exist without the presence of other people. So, like language, religion, politics etc. is faith based more on how we live together, or how we live with God?

I quite agree. I don't think religious faith per-se has evolved as a biological function in this way (although I do subscribe to the concept of memes which allow cultural ideas to propagate and evolve in the minds of populations). Rather, I was suggesting that we have evolved a particular brain morphology that allows for the sort of shortcut to 'truths' that faith in general represents. The primary utility of this would have been laid down a long time ago as part of the adaptation of consciousness residing in higher brain functions. This might predisposes us towards philosophical convictions in general. I can well imagine people wandering off in all directions without a propensity to gravitate towards a given mindset and can see how this might put them at a disadvantage compared to those exhibiting greater consistency in outlook.

The essential observations are that we all have some sort of mental mechanism that creates a sense of conviction in us and that expedience dictates processing shortcuts which are able to bypass critical thinking and are allowed to become inputs to conviction. Just a hunch

I've just realized that this is precisely the sort of quality sought in military leadership -- decisions are expected to be made without too much prevarication and they must be adhered to once made. It migth not seem too clever at first blush, but the principle has clearly been battle proven.

[palmera]

I've just realized that this is precisely the sort of quality sought in military leadership -- decisions are expected to be made without too much prevarication and they must be adhered to once made. It migth not seem too clever at first blush, but the principle has clearly been battle proven.

Good point. This reminds me of the recently published book Blink. Though not entirely pertinent to the idea of faith, Blink discusses the capability of the human mind to sift through enormous amounts of information in fractions of a second to arrive at a conclusion/make a decision from those pieces of information. It discusses how our intuition and gut feelings are a part of this human adaptation.

Anyway, in one section of the book it discusses military operations giving an example of a war game (which cost millions of our tax money btw!!) a few years ago used to prepare U.S. military forces for combat against guerilla fighters like terrorists. What was interesting about the outcome lies the way the two army's were run. The American forces followed the strict command procedures which as you rightly stated have been battle proven. The opposing forces were headed by a retired Colonel (I believe he was a Colonel) who, rather than have every order passed on and verified from the top down gave his men objectives which they in turn accomplished without much more supervision- for example, during combat, any question as to protocol was allowed to be made by the men and women or officers in the situation without having to be checked and double checked the way our forces operate today. Interestingly, in the first run the opposing forces won in a landslide victory. I wonder if an analogy can be made here to the human relationship to God as Christians perceive it. While churches as institutions seem to fit the mindset of the American military forces (checks and balances throughout) it seems that the practical, on the ground, Christian seems to follow a more guerilla approach, who, when in the thick of things returns not to the orders passed down and down and down again, but to the original source, the overarching plan to formulate decisions with faith that their actions fit in with God's plan. What might this say about doctrine, about dogma? Eh, perhaps this can be flushed out more, but this post is already long and off topic.

[Cathar1950]

Blind spots in our eyes. The brain fills in things that should be there.
Faith maybe just such a thing.