Science and Faith

[Alien]

Hi everyone!

I have seen that this forum allows also people who are not Believers, and therefore I am here. My only intention is, with your help, to understand more about what I see as a strange phenomenon. I quickly introduce myself, and then I post my topic, in the hope that someone can accept to reply and friendly discuss it.

I am not a Believer. I would label myself as an Agnostic. Arguing about the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic, as I see it, would be so large to necessitate a separate topic, therefore I would leave it at the moment.
I am also a Bright. Again, this would also necessitate a separate topic for detailed discussions, and I would delay it. I now get to my point.

Since centuries, many Christians (and other Believers) insist that Reason and Faith can both be used in approaching and understanding the glory of God. Two examples are Thomas of Aquin and pope John Paul II, but I can bet there are many more.
I understand that the scope of the Reason can be called Science, and the scope of Faith can be called Religion, with some sort of interchangeability.

What puzzles me, and I actually reject it, is the use of Science/Reason in order to justify Religion. The two concepts are diametrically opposite, and therefore cannot be mixed. Faith is subjective by definition, whilst Science is objective. How can therefore Science be used to justify Religion, that is by definition an act of Faith? Even more, how can Science be used as an evidence of Creation or even God's existence? There are scientists who claim to believe in a six-days Creation and yet continue to investigate the world with the scientific methodology. Amazing.

My starting point could be reduced to this simple question, and I would greately appreciate answers:

Would you agree that Science and Faith are two totally separate and different fields, that cannot be mixed in any instance?

Thanks

[McCulloch]

Would you agree that Science and Faith are two totally separate and different fields, that cannot be mixed in any instance?

Yes and no.
I believe that objective truth is objective truth. Reason and logic must be applied to however you seek for objective truth. Some believers hold that faith is subjective and therefore separate from science. But many faithful believe that the tenets of their faith are objective truth. If that is the case, then it should be subject to the same logic, reason and rules of evidence as any other claimant to being objective truth.

[nikolayevich]

Would you agree that Science and Faith are two totally separate and different fields, that cannot be mixed in any instance?

Yes and no.
I believe that objective truth is objective truth. Reason and logic must be applied to however you seek for objective truth. Some believers hold that faith is subjective and therefore separate from science. But many faithful believe that the tenets of their faith are objective truth. If that is the case, then it should be subject to the same logic, reason and rules of evidence as any other claimant to being objective truth.

This is very well said. Thank you for the point.

I am one who believes that tenets of the Christian faith must be objectively observable insofar as Biblical implications touch on reality. For instance, I believe that if man were created by God according to the Bible, man must in actuality be made by God, not just spiritually speaking. If science can investigate cause and effect, it should not be excluded from the discussion.

Alien, I would say you are right that Science is not for "proving" God's existence, but it is different than saying there can be no interaction between religious ideas and scientific ones if they are speaking on the same objects. There are many Biblical statements which are perfectly in keeping with scientific observations. If this can be true, how can it be said that one can never relate to the other? It is a common misunderstanding, but easily dispelled.

[Alien]

Two interesting replies, thanks.

Before commenting in some details your considerations, I would continue a little bit on my own, in "open loop", just expanding my point.

If I believe in something, I do it without taking into any consideration the fact that this something is not scientifically analysed and proven. This means that by definition I have faith in that something. I feel this faith in my mind, in my body, and nobody can affect it in principle. This is subjective, because it is something that belongs to me.

If this something is, coincidentally, explained by Science, then I have to decide between two possibilities (and I have already seen many examples among Believers):

1) I no longer need Faith in that something because I accept the explanation given by Science. The phenomenon is no longer subjective, but it becomes universal, therefore objective.
2) I reject the explanation given by Science. I maintain my Faith, and in parallel I justify my choice by saying that the explanation given by Science is not really scientific, ie it does not fully comply with the epistemological process that self-disciplinates Science. Of course, in this case there might be the possibility that another scientific theory, opposite than the previous one, is considered.

Examples are:

about 1), Newton's Gravitational Law (time ago many "believed" it was the Sun moving around the Earth), Nuclear fusion processes in the Sun (time ago many believed that the Sun was just burning like a piece of wood), etc.
about 2), Evolution Theory (as opposed Faith there is the Creation Theory), the Mechanicist Theory of the Mind (as opposed Faith there is the Soul Theory), etc.

What I am saying is that anything in between is a mixture that increases misunderstandings, fallacies and painful discussions that end towards useless conflicts. And a good example, derived from the others above, is when I claim that the physical laws, like Newton's Gravitational Law, just demonstrate the existence of a Creator who designed them. This is my unacceptable mixing between Science and Faith.

Then, in addition, there are two additional fields. These fields are both non-falsifiable and non-testable, and therefore must remain acts of Faith:

3) Theories non based on any scientific consideration.
4) Theories with some basic scientific argument.

Examples are:

about 3), Intelligent Design (ID) Theory, God's existence, etc.
about 4), the Big Bang Theory, the Multiverse Theory, etc.

My dream is that everyone, Believer or not, agrees with the four categories above. In agreeing to that classification, that avoids confusing mix-ups, we would have a very good platform for further discussions. And, further disagreements or discussions, would only be in the individual categorisation of a particular theory or thought, whether should it in principle be considered as #1, #2, #3 or #4.
A lower level of disagreement.

As a summary, Believers should be prepared to accept that in some cases Science can give more objective explanations to phenomena (Science "overrules" Faith), and non-Believers should be prepared to accept that in some cases Faith is undisputable with Science (Faith "overrules" Science). A sort of starting compromise that allows productive discussions.

Looking forward to hear comments....

[ST88]

As a summary, Believers should be prepared to accept that in some cases Science can give more objective explanations to phenomena (Science "overrules" Faith), and non-Believers should be prepared to accept that in some cases Faith is undisputable with Science (Faith "overrules" Science). A sort of starting compromise that allows productive discussions.

That's an admirable goal, but I don't think it leads anywhere. For those in the exclusive science camp, for example, faith is a psychological term that desrcibes a brain state of non-empirical supposition and suggestion. Faith in a supernatural plane is most likely an obsolete appendage of the evolutionary process of the brain. I realize I'm not helping with that compromise thing. The best compromise I can make is to say that everyone has the right to believe in what they wish.

By the same token, the science that overrules a statement made by the Bible is not likely to be accepted.

[Alien]

ST88,

you are not really contradicting what I said.

What I mean is that

- Faith should not be "validated" by distorted scientific arguments, and
- Science should not be "polluted" with acts of faith.

There are many examples of books about pesudoscience trying to explain that Newton's Gravitational Law is the proof of ID, or, even worse, that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.
There are also many examples of "scientific theories" that are not really fulfilling the requirements to be called in such a way.

I would just be happy if these two cases would be detected and corrected, and I am confident that many people, at least in forums like this, would in principle agree with me. And their agreement, IMO, is implicit in the fact that they have already accepted a dialogue between Believers and non-Believers with open minds.

[otseng]

Would you agree that Science and Faith are two totally separate and different fields, that cannot be mixed in any instance?

Great topic Alien.

First off, it would perhaps be prudent to first discuss what we mean by "science" and "faith". In our definitions subforum, we have threads on this: What is "science"? and What is "faith"?

Here's one definition of science that I picked out to offer as a starting point: "The study of the material universe or physical reality in order to understand it."

For faith, I'll offer my own definition: "A belief that does not have a proof."

From these two definitions, there is not necessarily any mutual exclusivity. One can study the material world and not have any logical proof of the hypothesis. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible to have any logical proof of them. So, in this case, the two definitions can and do mix.

Another definition of faith could be "A belief in the supernatural."

And I do not believe there is any conflict here either and that the two can mix. One can study the natural world and still believe in the supernatural. For instance, I believe that the natural world came from the supernatural. The supernatural world would be undetectable directly from material evidence. But, it could be logically inferred from the natural evidence.

[otseng]

- Faith should not be "validated" by distorted scientific arguments, and
- Science should not be "polluted" with acts of faith.

I would agree with your two points. Though there might be need to discuss what would constitute as "pollution".

Newton's Gravitational Law is the proof of ID

I haven't heard about this one. But, it does smell a bit fishy.

the Earth is at the centre of the universe.

Actually, now I've come to believe this (and I don't think it's because of being "polluted"). My reasoning for believing in this is in the thread Is the universe bounded or unbounded?

[micatala]

Very good thread topic Alien.

I would agree with Otseng that science and faith are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Under Otseng's definition of faith as belief in the supernatural, one could consider belief in God as having faith (if one thinks of GOd as supernatural). As a believer in God, I guess I have this second type of faith.

However, I also believe science gives us our best explanation of how the physical world works, including biological and cosmological evolution. In an admittedly subjective way, I find the explanations given by science as incredibly inspiring, and they increase my faith in God, rather than diminish it. This is obviously contrary to the claim of some who say the logical implication of science, particularly evolutionary science, is to make people atheistic.

We are complex beings, and try as we might to be entirely logically consistent, this may not in the end be possible. I don't think we can neatly put our 'science vs faith' attitudes into 4 neat categories, no matter how ingeneous we may be.

[steen]

Here's one definition of science that I picked out to offer as a starting point: "The study of the material universe or physical reality in order to understand it."

AND, done so through exploration by the application of the Scientific Method.

(yeah, I am a nitpicky stickler)