On Faith, Science, and Self-Propelled Meat Sacks
This was my recent contribution to a discussion on science and faith.
Those who champion the notion that "pure science" is the source of all knowledge lump religion into the realm of the supernatural. The supernatural, they argue, is by definition outside the realm of what science can even attempt to explain, science being limited to the "natural" universe as it is.
This desire to explain all natural phenomena in terms of natural causes and effects is religion-neutral (that is, neutral to religion as a concept). To say science has no capacity to either confirm or deny the characteristics, capacity, or even existence of supernatural phenomena is understandable and also religion-neutral. To state that there is no physical evidence to support a particular claim of supernatural interaction with the natural world – or to state that there is evidence to dispute such a particular claim – is religion-neutral and within the defined realm of scientific study. We know, for example, that the Earth is not resting atop giant elephants that are standing on giant turtles.
But the science true believers overlook an incredibly important logical fallacy. They make a leap of faith that essentially states that since some claims of supernatural interaction with the physical world can be disproved, all such claims must be false. Apollo is not carrying the sun across the sky in his chariot, therefore Catholicism is invalid.
Faith is the holding as true something that can neither be proved nor disproved. To claim that anything outside the realm of "science" can not exist is nothing more than a statement of faith. Atheism is a religion of its own.
Personally, I think there is a dual nature to man. There is a physical existence, but there is also something that is not quite physical. For convenience, we shall call that a soul. I believe there is interaction between the soul and the physical body, but the soul is something separate. I won’t go into my own faith beyond that; I won’t try to explain how that interaction occurs or what greater meaning this may imply. I just included that tidbit to posit the notion that perhaps there is something within us that can indicate the existence of something “supernatural”. The way I see it, my body is my body, but my soul is “me”.
Then again, maybe I am wrong. The phenomenon that is my consciousness may simply be a byproduct of the electrical fields generated in the central processing unit of a self-propelled meat sack. I don’t think we’ll really know until we know … or we don’t – depending on which side is correct. My point is that even self-identity is a matter of faith.
Incidentally, I do hope my view on duality is correct. I’d hate to think that all this time I’ve been a figment of my own imagination.
3 comments:
Actually, you're wrong on a couple points:
1. Good science recognizes that it can't have an answer one way or the other on the supernatural. Einstein believed in the Judao-Christian god, for instance, and many scientists are also believers in one religion or another, just with a different interpretation of the particular book of faith in question when it comes to miracles and other real-world stories.
2. Technically, atheism is not a religion. This depends on which definition of 'religion' you choose, and I now see that the #1 definition on dictionary.com is actually worded so as to make it a religion, but it not by all the other definitions (especially the common-use definitions). It is a belief set, but not a religion.
3. The biggest difference between the scientific approach and the religious approach is that the person acting on faith isn't supposed to ask questions while the scientist must. The scientist is simply wondering 'is there a way to find out a definitive answer?'. Since having answers typically threatens ideologies (which are based on mythology rather than fact), religious leaders feel the need to create an 'us vs. them' mindset in their followers, lumping those damn scientists into the category of enemy.
THIS is the biggest threat organized religion poses: answers threaten the pedagogical power, so providers of answers (true or otherwise) are the enemy. This mentality is the reason many scientists are atheists... they see that line of thinking as inherently dangerous and don't want to be a part of an organization that supports or promotes it. They reject the religion because of the leaders, not because of the beliefs.
By the nature of your reply, I am going to infer that I failed in part of my argument. I never said that "good science" was at issue. I actually feel that science is religion-neutral or even religion-indifferent. Science is a self-limiting discipline that avoids interaction with the supernatural as a matter of discipline.
I see science's "true believers" (and I use this in the same context used for the faithful true believers), on the other hand, as operating from the premise that if science can't possibly prove it, it cannot be true. In other words, the supernatural cannot exist. This is not religion-neutral, nor is it, in my opinion, good science.
Science, as we've discussed, is uniquely unqualified to speak to the validity (one way or the other) of religion. The scientific method is designed to eliminate uncontrolled variables and the supernatural is by its very nature an uncontrolled variable. The devout atheist uses "science" to support his argument, but forgets that part about science limiting itself to the "natural" universe.
Some of the more prominent skeptic groups have gone to the extent of claiming to have disproved religion. Yet good science is supposed to be neutral on the topic. How is one to reconcile?
I would have to challenge your summary in point 3 in that it suggests that it is only the religious leaders that try to incite an "us vs. them" mindset. You see this from many groups, and the atheist activists are no exception.
I challenge your assertion that religion prevents the asking of questions. Some do, some don't. If, unlike a person of faith, a scientist must ask questions, wouldn't that obligate a scientist to question the very limits of science?
I find it ironic that the pro-science crowd is trending towards the notion you put forth in point 3. The person acting on science isn't supposed to ask questions (if the answer might be "supernatural", that is). A supernatural answer just might threaten an ideology, you know.
I don't doubt that there are atheists using science to justify their position. But I would argue that atheists frequently fall into the category of being "faith-based". I should say that I personally beleive that my def of religion involves faith + practice of some sort. Atheists tend not to have a observable preactice - but I think many of them do have a faith. A faith that there can't be a supreme being that would allow this much suffering to exist.
I think that those that insist on us vs them just have a limited ability to maintain cognitive disonance. Poor them! Life is so much more interesting when you don't have to choose!
Post a Comment