Being Christain And Liking Science

[deb1]

I have a blog and I also like to read other people’s blog. Recently a blogging friend posted a article on the fact that Louis Pasteur was a Christian. One of the comments that was left about her article was from a sceptic. I know that he is incorrect in his thinking but I am curious how to answer him. Here are his comments:

***same time says nothing about whether the two are compatible or one contradicts the other. This is a common logical fallacy.
It is quite possible for a human being to believe two contradictory things, this does not mean that the two are inherently compatible when examined closely.

The scientific method can be turned to any aspect of life, the universe and everything, it’s just that many choose not to apply it to those “faith” areas of life.

However, the scientific method accepts only that which can be observed. God, the soul and the afterlife cannot be observed. One may have hypotheses about these but they are fundamentally unscientific concepts as they are untestable and non-falsifiable.
The concept of faith is anathema to science as it requires the believer to make conclusions based on insufficient or non-existent evidence***.

 

[deb1]

I forgot, here is the link to the blog article I mentioned above. The quote is found in the comment section and is by Steve.
thewalledgarden.blogspot.com/2007/11/science-and-faith-are-they-opposed.html

I want to discuss this on the Catholic forum but I realize that most people like to see where information is coming from.

 

[serrlorca]

Scientific knowledge rely on several dogmas. Yes, I said dogmas. You can believe on them, or not.

Right now I can only recall some of them:

1. Objective knowledge is possible;

Science can not demostrate that.

1. Being two theories equal, the simplest one MUST be chosen;

Science can not demostrate that.

1. Observation does not alter what it is observed;

On quantum physics, if you try to know the electrical charge of an electron then you change its non deterministic trajectory and you are unable to know where is it. On the other hand, if you try to know the non deterministic trajectory of an electron then you change its charge and your are unable to know what charge had before the observation.

1. Scientific method, if really scientific, it is basically right.

4.1. Inductivism says that just a finite amount A of observations amongst infinite possible ones is enough to demonstrate a fact. However, A/infinite=0. Demonstration level=0.

See David Hume: “Treatise on Human Nature.”

4.2. By that very reason Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos devised the falsationist hypothetic-deductive method. However that method can be spoilt by buildind an “hypothetical belt” of adjacent assumptions that can be falsified but, at the same time, be used to protect from falsation the main body of theory that remains intact and unfalsifiable.

That’s the case of mentalist linguistics and psychology (Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker), Freud’s psychoanalitic theory, most of theoretical economics, and most of what’s being called today pedagogy.

See:

Paul K. Feyerabend: “Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of knowledge.”

A. F. Chalmers: “What’s that thing called Science?”

I’m not saying that objective knowledge is impossible. My point is that science is only a useful way of thinking about our physical world. No les, but no more.

So it has nothig to teach to faith.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I am not seeing where he says faith and science “contradict”. I just see him applying different standards…the observable and un-observable.

 

[puzzleannie]

there is no conflict between religion and science. read the encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) for a thorough grounding of the Catholic viewpoint before entering into debate on this topic, that is my advice. A scientific community from which Christians absent themselves is a scientific community severely handicapped in its logic, its initial assumptions and therefore in applying the scientific method.

 

[deb1]

I am not seeing where he says faith and science “contradict”. I just see him applying different standards…the observable and un-observable.

I think that you have to look at the history of this one article and I was wrong not to go into that. There had been a comment on this lady’s blog stating(I am paraphrasing) that Christians are afraid of science and technology. The blogger responded by writing an article saying that there are Christian scientist like Louis Pasteur.

That is where Steve’s comment came from.I am pretty certain that he is saying that Science and Christianity aren’t compatible because science deals with the observable.

Granted science is not set up to prove or disprove God. This is something that many people both Christian and nonChrisitans get confused about.

But I have never read anything from science that contradicted my belief in God(granted I don’t have a die hard belief against evolution either) On the contrary I see much of what I read to further deepen my wonder about God.

 

[deb1]

there is no conflict between religion and science. read the encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) for a thorough grounding of the Catholic viewpoint before entering into debate on this topic, that is my advice. A scientific community from which Christians absent themselves is a scientific community severely handicapped in its logic, its initial assumptions and therefore in applying the scientific method.

I agree with you and sometimes I am very annoyed at the fear some Christians express about science.

My favoritie courses in college where the biology and chemistry courses that I took. Far from hurting my faith in God, these courses were partially responsible for me deciding that there was at least something bigger then myself in the universe.

 

[ribozyme]

there is no conflict between religion and science. read the encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) for a thorough grounding of the Catholic viewpoint before entering into debate on this topic, that is my advice. A scientific community from which Christians absent themselves is a scientific community severely handicapped in its logic, its initial assumptions and therefore in applying the scientific method.

Well, at least the scientific community wouldn’t have any young earth creationists.

 

[deb1]

Well, at least the scientific community wouldn’t have any young earth creationists.

I am not so certain. Some people with a scientific background might believe in a rigid form of creationism also. I am not saying that I agree with them of course. But as most of this country believe in some form of religion, I think that it is likely that some scientist allow their beliefs to bias their work. That doesn’t mean that I think that science is anti God at all, just that it is meant to be neutral.

As long as scientist don’t let their bias’ influence their work, nothing will ever be discovered that disproves God. This is because it was God who invented all the laws of physics etc.

 

[edwest2]

I built a radio from component parts. I always enjoyed chemistry. I think Christians are more concerned about the uses of technology than the technology itself.

On this forum, people use the term evolution and science as if one automatically means the other. This is false.

I don’t think Christians have any problem with chemistry or physics or electronics. What they have a problem with is seeing how certain sciences are being used to promote anti-God belief systems. Notice, I’m not blaming the science just the use to which it is being put by atheists, brights, free thinkers, Communists, Leftists, and anarchists. Christians do know that there are groups of people who are against the Church and who will use every method and resource to harm it, including science.

So fear is not the issue, the issue is we see how science is being used to promote a worldview, a worldview that wants to exclude God by any means necessary or available.

God bless,
Ed

 

[deb1]

I built a radio from component parts. I always enjoyed chemistry. I think Christians are more concerned about the uses of technology than the technology itself.

On this forum, people use the term evolution and science as if one automatically means the other. This is false.

I don’t think Christians have any problem with chemistry or physics or electronics. What they have a problem with is seeing how certain sciences are being used to promote anti-God belief systems. Notice, I’m not blaming the science just the use to which it is being put by atheists, brights, free thinkers, Communists, Leftists, and anarchists. Christians do know that there are groups of people who are against the Church and who will use every method and resource to harm it, including science.

So fear is not the issue, the issue is we see how science is being used to promote a worldview, a worldview that wants to exclude God by any means necessary or available.

God bless,
Ed

Much of what you said I agree with. You just said it much better then I did.

 

[Cristiano]

I am a catholic and a scientist. I do not see any conflict that is not due to my own intellectual limitations.

Just to quote my thesis advisor (physicist and possibly atheist) when I used to question everything about our methodologies and data: “Cristiano, at one point you have to believe in something!”

 

[deb1]

I asked the original person who I quoted to come on this site. Hopefully he will. It would be nice to have him further the discussion.

 

[deb1]

I am a catholic and a scientist. I do not see any conflict that is not due to my own intellectual limitations.

Just to quote my thesis advisor (physicist and possibly atheist) when I used to question everything about our methodologies and data: “Cristiano, at one point you have to believe in something!”

 

[Stephen_Bain]

Hi! I am he of the posting in blogs. I’ve just had my account activated and it’s the middle of the night so I’ll be brief.

Edit: And hi to Deb1, thanks for pointing me to this discussion.

To serrlorca:
I don’t really consider the bases of the scientific method to be dogmatic. Science works upon the basis that the universe is rationally testable (methodological naturalism) because it has no choice. It is a methodology that does not demand the universe actually operate in this way.

Science is effectively agnostic to those things it cannot test. Since the basic assumptions of science cannot ultimately be tested it is also agnostic towards these.

Basically the point is not about absolute truth but about the models and the method. Theoretical models are generated and then tested with science accepting those that work. Faith is not required as the scientist acknowledges that thes methods are all we have.

The most widely accepted theories would be nothing more than empty words if not for the accumulated data that both confirms their assumptions and tests their predictions. In a way it a little like evolutionary theory. Over time scientists select for those theories that are fittest, or in this case those theories that fit the best.

However, science also requires that evidence for a theory be able to stand up sufficiently to the nature of the theory. For the supernatural to be accepted within the scientific method its claims woul dneed to be empirically tested.

Finally, (sorry for the long post!) whilst I would say that being strictly scientific one cannot accept faith, it is clear that many do accept both to some level. I do wonder though if this is because many give faith the benefit of the doubt more than they would a theory they held within the sphere of science.

Steve

 

[deb1]

.

Finally, (sorry for the long post!) whilst I would say that being strictly scientific one cannot accept faith, it is clear that many do accept both to some level. I do wonder though if this is because many give faith the benefit of the doubt more than they would a theory they held within the sphere of science.

Steve

I agree with you up to this point. Science, itself, is not set up to prove or disprove God. Not only can it not do that but that is not its purpose.

But I have major problems with your conclusion-and a bit of confusion-over the first line of this statement. What exactly do you mean by being strictly scientific? Do you mean that to be consistent that a person who uses the scientific method should apply that to their own life and would be unable to have faith?

So, are you saying that anyone who has faith in God but appreciates science is not being intellectually honest with themselves?

I am trying to clarify your position.

Of course I think that while a scientist is working he/she should attempt to lay aside their biases toward the existence or nonexistence of God. But I have yet to find anything in science that contradicts the existence of God.

I really don’t see how faith in God and an appreciation for science contradicts one another. I think that they compliment one another.

Hopefully, the awkward title of my thread will not keep other posters away. I know that some of the folk here work in the science field.

I also hope that you stick around. We have interesting debates here.

 

[deb1]

I think that one has to keep in mind also that Catholics look at the bible differently then a lot of our Protestant brothers and sisters. I know some Protestants whose faith would be shattered if they accepted evolution as fact.

That Catholic Church’s stance on this issue is that Catholics are free to believe in evolution. We can not believe that the soul evolves and we must believe that there was a fall.Someone else can further add to this. I am a convert to Catholicism and sometimes it is more difficult for me to express what I believe because it is so new.

The most vocal Christian groups oddly enough happen to be those who are highly suspicious of science but they certainly aren’t in the majority of Christians, even though they seem to be the most prevalent in the news.

If most of your experience with Christians have been with these types of groups then yes, I could see why that would lead you to deduce that having faith is contradictory to an appreciation of science.

 

[Ender]

Science works upon the basis that the universe is rationally testable (methodological naturalism) because it has no choice. It is a methodology that does not demand the universe actually operate in this way. … Since the basic assumptions of science cannot ultimately be tested it is also agnostic towards these.

Science is not agnostic towards its basic assumptions; it believes them to be true. Another way to say this is that science takes certain unprovable assertions on faith.

Finally, whilst I would say that being strictly scientific one cannot accept faith

Haven’t you just said that the basic assumptions of science are not testable? There is no conflict between religious faith and science but science holds self-contradictory positions when it claims to believe only what is testable while admitting that its underlying assumptions are themselves not testable. Faith does not require science but science does require faith.

Ender

 

[Stephen_Bain]

To Deb1:
Generally, a scientist shouldn’t apply faith propositions to scientific theories. Doing so would not be likely to produce useful results. However, whether a person applies the scientific approach to their personal beliefs is up to them. Looking at the claims of the major religions from a scientific perspective though, it is hard to accept any of them.

Science has no direct evidence to disprove the existence of god. It also has no evidence to prove the claim either. One could argue that the strict approach is, therefore, to be agnostic towards the notion of god. However, what we have is a fundamentally untestable claim. So science can take the position of assuming no god until proven otherwise. The burden of proof here rests upon the god theory.

I might make any number of claims and demand that you prove them wrong. I could believe in the Loch Ness monster or that there was a flourishing civilisation on Mars. However, the burden would rest with me to test my theories and they could not be accepted until I found sufficient evidence for them.

Also, I’m aware that the Catholic Church is rather more accepting of science than some of the more fundamentalist Protestant Churches and also some Muslim organisations too. Evolution was the example that sprang to mind as a well tested theory, I didn’t mean to suggest that Catholics don’t accept it.

To Ender:
I don’t believe that science does take certain assertions on faith. Science claims that its assertions are the best model we have for understanding the universe. This is not a faith claim, since these assertiosn could change in the face of sufficient evidence to the contrary. Science is basically saying “these ways of examining phenomena appear to work well and have not been superceded by any clearly superior method, so I shall use them for the time being.”

The fact that the scientific method has yielded such a wealth of information about how our universe seems to work, and continues to reveal more every day, is solid evidence for its validity.

I guess science accepts only what is testable within its current method, acknowledging that the method is only what appears to be the best available. I don’t think this is a faith claim. There are certainly no absolutes here.

 

[SeekerJen]

I am a catholic and a scientist. I do not see any conflict that is not due to my own intellectual limitations.

Just to quote my thesis advisor (physicist and possibly atheist) when I used to question everything about our methodologies and data: “Cristiano, at one point you have to believe in something!”

Hi, I’m a fellow Catholic scientist (immunologist) who doesn’t see any conflicts between my faith and my work.

My dissertation advisor is a self-declared atheist but he knows and respects that I am a Christian and doesn’t treat me as any less of a scientist. Your advisor sounds like he is also a decent guy.