 |
 |
Science Vs. Faith
Name: holt
Status: N/A
Age: N/A
Location: N/A
Country: N/A
Date: Around 1993
Question:
What argument would you use to convince a student that has a deep
religious background that the faith they have in G-d and the creation story is
different than the faith that a scientist has in his/her equipment? Is the
theory for the scientific method a more valid way of believing in a topic like
the creation of life, than the biblical version?
Replies:
It is not a matter of faith. The scientist is attempting to
create a consistent explanation of how nature works that allows predictions
and correlations of data that are currently not known. The emphasis is on how
nature works, not on why or who made nature to work the way it does. It is
possible, and indeed the case that several scientists are religious, but the
creation of scientific knowledge does not conflict with religious truth of who
and why unless the religion tries to describe how in a way that conflicts with
reality. Any time that the religious belief attempts to construct a
description of the way in which nature works without testing it, (ie., without
doing science) then it has stopped being religion and tried as science. At
that point it must meet the same standards of testing and assessment and it
stops being religion. Some of the past conflicts between science and religion
were cases where religion tried to extend its description beyond the who and
why, into the how without checking reality. The student should be able to
have any belief about who and why, but any belief about how needs to stand the
test of direct comparison with nature itself.
samb
The previous answer is really great! However, to make any
inroads will take time! I have taught evolution at the high school level in a
parochial school with some fundamentalists pressure from staff and still got
students to think about sound scientific principles. Some are so wrapped into
the dogma you cannot reach them and it is best not to over exert. But here
are a few things that might help: Most biblical scholars believe the first
few chapters in Genesis to be figurative, not literal - up to the time of
Abraham. This is known as "higher criticism" and is fueled in part by the
early discovery of the dead sea scrolls. A super video to study and show
these students is a 1989 NOVA called "G-d, Darwin, and The Dinosaurs" which is
distributed by Coronet/MTI at 800-621-2131
Lou Harnisch
On a very basic semantic level, science and religion are two
different paradigms (ways of thinking about the world) that usually do not
have a lot to do with each other. However having faith in these paradigms is
probably fairly similar. That is not to say that I could agree with the idea
that one can replace one with the other. Having faith is a philosophical
question (believing in something). One way of approaching the question is to
be specific about defining the semantics involved. Religions are paradigms
about things like god, afterlife and what is a better way of living one's
life. Science is a paradigm that deals with how one explores and explains
phenomena in the concrete world. As mentioned, the problems arise when one
attempts to explain the other. In a conflicted area such as evolution it
might help to unfocus from an argument about truth. Instead it might be
better to focus on the evidence for evolution and how the theory of evolution
interprets that evidence, then perhaps to acknowledge how creationism
interprets that evidence. A student, then required to know the facts as
mentioned, but does not necessarily have to choose against what might feel
like one's faith.
Psych
For the last response from psych, the last two sentences: The
problem is that fundamentalist creationism forces their people to make that
decision. "You believe this way or your faith is flawed" approach. Sometimes
evolutionists can be just as forceful and dogmatic too. I like Psych's
approach a lot!
Lou Harnisch
Click here to return to the Biology Archives
| |
Update: June 2012
|
|
