In January/February edition of Humanist (1997) Richard Dawkins said:
Given the dangers of faith — and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science — I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, “Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn’t it?” Well, science is not religion and it doesn’t just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion’s virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence.
One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can’t examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can’t reach you.
Dawkins goes on to say,
Science is actually one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines around — because science would completely collapse if it weren’t for a scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence.
Is this really an accurate statement? “Science” is derived from the Latin word “scientia,” meaning knowledge. Science in practice refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. I find it ironic that Richard Dawkins in his waxing on about the “dangers of faith” does not realize that his own intellectual house is on fire by reclassifying and redefining what science is or isn’t. “Fact of evolution?” “…scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence?” “…retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can’t reach you?”
What are some ways in which you might approach Mr. Dawkins clear prejudice toward people of faith? Is science void of any reliance on faith? Is faith a clear sign of weakness that scientific people have overcome?
One of the evidential mysteries that the theory of evolution must solve if it is to be believed according to the guidelines of true science is the whereabouts of transitional forms. If the theory of evolution is true, we should be able to scientifically examine the fossil record and find millions, if not billions, of transitional forms (the period of time in which one species becomes another species, e.g. a horse becoming a giraffe by stretching its neck to reach food in higher trees) for every species.
However, I have yet to see any transitional form for just one species (man) that is accepted within even the scientific community. Mr. Dawkins claims that faith and science don’t mix and yet his brand of “science” demands the dynamic of faith in order to work.
What am I missing here?
“Science is actually one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines around — because science would completely collapse if it weren’t for a scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence.”
Given that Dawkins is an atheist, he cannot use words like morality, much less claim that ‘being honest’ is a moral quality. If there is no God there is no more virtue in honesty than in dishonesty.
The truth is it is evolutionary theory that would collapse in the face of scrupulous honesty, which is why evolutionists are so adamant about allowing no dissent from the party line in universities, etc.
I think the first thing to remember here is that this guy is the sentiment of Romans 1:20-25. And, since he is a professional biologist there is probably no attack on evolution that will be compelling to him. But you can see that in pursuing the question of evolution he presupposes logic but can give no answer to why we have logic. He presupposes morality but gives not basis for morality. Also, he appeals to truth as moral. Why? I thought the strong survive, not the truthful. In the construction of his argument he equivocates on his use of the word faith and his argument is built on an ad hominid argument. Namely “Look how smart I am, I must be right.”
One thing that really strikes me is his appeal to science being moral. There are no moral choices science can make. He ascribes human attributes to a discipline. I think he does so because he so wants to worship something, to have a personal god that he substitutes science for the creator.
One more thing, Dawkins is assuming believing anything without evidence that you can hold in your hand is irrational or immoral. That is logically self defeating. You can not give evidence for that everything you believe must have evidence for that belief. That is not to say evidence does not exist but, that providing evidence is not necessary for belief to be rational.
The title of this blog is Faith and Science, do they mix. I would have to say youbetcha. Throughout history, almost all great scientists and mathematicians were theists. Not just theists, but Christians. These were Christians who lived during times when you had to know your theology. These were people who passionately pursued science because they saw it as exploring the world God created for us and exists as a reflection of his glory. They wanted to know God better.
I agree with Larry and O’Ryan. I would also add that the problem is that ‘science’ has been redefined in modern times from the search for truth to a search for naturalistic answers. This new definition of science defines theism out of the realm of science. The irony is that the redefinition is philosophical–not scientific.
Eric, nice distinction! The redefining of science seems to fit a more philosophical premise than a scientific discipline. So, would we say that at its core the theory of evolution is more related to faith than it is to science?
What do you mean by faith?
In this context, I am using faith in regard to something that cannot be known for certain but is nevertheless something a person believes. “Faith” then, could be defined as a proposition a person believes with certainty although not able to be verified through scientific means (the five senses).
More agreement again from all? Can we get an atheist or evolutionist on here or someone to play the role of one? We need some back and forth to stimulate our minds. Where it Guiro with his “Hezbollah” approach? I am not gifted in this area of playing reverse roles.
With that said I must digress and answer the question if faith and science mix? I go with O’Ryan’s youbetcha on that one. So yes, I agree too. 😉
Not sure if any of GF’s uber-intellectual, deep thinkers, are fans of the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) but they are one group trying to show how science and the bible can go hand in hand, and disprove evolution. They are seen by many in the world as nuts, and constantly attacked as Jesus promised, but there is some good stuff there IMO.
If anyone is at all interested here is the description of the group……
Description of ICR
Here is the site but I am disappointed that they now require a “free” subscription as this information should be freely shared without having to share info with them.
ICR Main Page
In the end as always it comes down to the hearts of those people that needs a supernatural change. We should be standing firm on our beliefs and always know what to tell others that may question us. In the end it will be Jesus that softens that person’s heart through us and not us. This is obvious, but just wanted to make sure it as said for those around the world reading this blog.
Did not like my / on the end…Try this one…
Description of ICR
The one thing I’d caution against with any group — whether it’s ICR or anybody else — is to consider their starting point.
ICR starts with the Bible, and, unsurprisingly, concludes that the biblical account of creation is correct.
Science (as practiced by Dawkins et al) starts with the assumption that all there is is matter, energy, time, and chance, and, unsurprisingly, concludes that there is no God.
The problem comes in when you have evidence that runs against the ideas you’ve started with.
When a young-earth, six-day creationist looks at a star whose light has traveled for fifty million years to get to his eyes, what does he do?
When an atheistic Darwinist is faced with the irreducible complexity of the most primitive organisms, the lack of evidence for life coming from non-life, the lack of evidence of intermediate forms in the supposed evolutionary roadmap, and the abundance of evidence for an intelligent designer, what does he do?
If such a person is willing to revisit his initial assumptions and follow the evidence where it leads, then I’d say that person can be called a “scientist.”
On the other hand, if a person clings to his beliefs even when there is no good evidence in support of them, then I’d say that person is a fideist.
A solidly biblical faith reconciles the two: a person is justified in holding his beliefs even though he may not have investigated every article of faith that he holds, because the work of the Holy Spirit transcends what we do on our own. But a person would not be rational to hold to his beliefs if he looks into them and finds the evidence either goes against him, or is simply absent no matter how hard he looks.
So yes — faith and science certainly mix.
“When a young-earth, six-day creationist looks at a star whose light has traveled for fifty million years to get to his eyes, what does he do?”
If he’s a good scientist he looks for a solution to the dilemma just as any good scientist does. Russell Humphreys, PhD in Physics is one such scientist. He’s put forth his theory of a possible way to reconcile this apparent contradiction between what we observe and what is stated in Genesis in a book called “Starlight and Time”.
One of the things he points out is that people who want to use the distance of the stars to negate a young earth are themselves making several up-front assumptions such as that light has always traveled at the same speed and that light acts the same in our current widely dispersed universe as it did in the far more compact universe present moments after creation.
Here’s an interesting article from AiG discussing this very topic.
In the end, if we’ve done good exegesis and have a good understanding of what the original inspired author intended his original audience to understand in Genesis yet current science cannot explain how the thing is so, I think we have to humbly submit to the scriptures. How many other things in scripture have been doubted in the past only to be confirmed later by scientific, archaeological or historical discoveries?
Vern Poythress has written a helpful book on this subject called Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach which you can download as a free PDF.
(As Dan would say, Poythress is a “hitter,” with one bachelor’s degree, three masters, and two doctorates: B.S. Mathematics, CalTech; Ph.D. Mathematics, Harvard; M.Div, Westminster; Th.M. Apologetics, Westminster; M.Litt., Cambridge; Th.D. New Testament, Stellenbosch.)
Anyway, he cautions against Humphreys’ approach (see also Conner and Ross for why Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed) and remarks on a healthy view of natural theology:
Do I understand all the details of these theories? Not remotely. But I think it’s clear that there are abundantly competent people addressing these issues from all kinds of contradictory points of view — which indicates that many, if not most, of these abundantly competent people are wrong.
If they can be wrong, so can I… which means I owe everyone a great debt of charity in assessing all these things. At the end of the day, all I’m likely to come down firmly resolved on is that (1) God created everything, and (2) in the end, his word will be seen to perfectly communicate what he wants us to know about his work in creation.
That leaves a lot of important questions open for debate and discussion, and they’re worth pursuing. But our commitment to the authority of scripture must be accompanied by intellectual honesty and a prevailing, irenic sense of charity and humility. With that foundation laid, the spirit of “faith seeking understanding” can carry the day for the glory of God and the building up of Christ’s church.
While its true there are scientists who disagree with Humphreys on this, there are also those who see holes in the arguments of his detractors. We could probably swap expert witnesses all day like lawyers in court if we wanted to.
I think, though, that its important to do what Hugh suggested earlier and that is to consider the starting point of each position.
Humphrey’s begins from the position that the scriptures are the standard and that the natural world is to be seen through the lens of scripture, sort of the ‘thinking God’s thoughts after Him’ approach taken by many of the early scientists who were Christians.
Many of those on the other side of the age issue, such as Hugh Ross, see the natural world as the standard and view scripture through the lens of the natural world and prevailing scientific beliefs. Ross has called nature the “67th book of the Bible.”
Personally I see several problems with this second approach. For one thing, prevailing scientific beliefs are shifting sands. At one point it was believed by most scientists that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat and that the sun revolved around the earth.
Secondly, this approach requires us to read things into scripture that are not there. Hugh Ross for example teaches that there was a race of spiritless men who existed prior to Adam and Eve and that the flood of Genesis was a localized event in the Middle East rather than a world-wide calamity. He believes these things primarily because he must in order for his models to work, not because there are good reasons to believe them from the text of scripture itself (despite what he claims).
Finally, using current knowledge about the natural world as the starting point means that for hundreds of years, the Word God gave to His people could not be properly understood by them. Not having a Hubble telescope or radio-carbon dating, the Apostle Paul could not have had a correct understanding of Genesis. Even today,in fact, this approach prevents lay people having the correct understanding of scripture apart from the magisterium of scientists to show them the way.
I don’t personally see taking the first approach to be a commitment to scripture that is apart from intellectual honesty. The Source of all knowledge has given us His account of the creation of the universe and I think intellectual honesty requires that everything we believe about it jibe with that account. Noted Hebrew scholar (not a believer, BTW), Dr. James Barr of Oxford University has said:
If that is what the Holy Spirit has in fact communicated through Moses, I believe honesty requires that we begin with that as our starting point, following the scripture where it leads.
Obviously at the end of the day, I come down firmly resolved on a couple more things than Hugh (Williams) with regard to this topic! 🙂
Thanks for the clarification! FWIW, I think Hugh Ross, like you, comes down more firmly resolved on things than I do too.
I wouldn’t say the 6-day literalist position is necessarily intellectually dishonest. The dishonesty comes in when inconvenient evidence is dismissed solely on account of presuppositions. (As an aside, I think that’s much more common among atheists than it is among Christians.)
Here’s the rub for me when it comes to natural theology:
1. I believe the Bible is inerrant.
2. If something is inerrant, it contains nothing false.
3. To be “false” is to be at odds with the way things really are.
4. Therefore, “the way things really are” is the standard by which the Bible is judged to be inerrant.
5. Therefore, “the way things really are” comes before the Bible.
To use the philosophical terms, the Bible is a “truth-bearer,” not a “truth-maker.” The fact that something is in the Bible does not make it true. If something in the Bible is true, it is because the way things really are lines up with what the Bible says.
Just as people have been mistaken about nature (the “general revelation”) they have also been mistaken about what the Bible says (“special revelation”). So we have to do our best and use everything God has given us to understand the creation.
And while I would never say that “starting with the Bible” is a bad idea, in these matters I think it may be fruitful to start by saying, “I’m going to give the Bible the last word instead of the first word.” In other words, Look at the world and see what God has “written” there (cf. Psalm 19) — bearing in mind that the creation itself is not the kind of propositional self-revelation of God that we have in scripture and only has power to convict, not to save.
My point is, as long as you reserve the last word for God’s Word, I think you’re on solid ground.
Gotta run. This is serious stuff… but rather than sit on it and perfect it, I’ll just post it as-is and reserve the right to withdraw any heresies later… :s
Given the definition of faith given, most everything you know is based on faith. That is not a bad thing. You can’t know evidentially your ancestors exist. You can’t know evidentially Canada exists. You cant know evidentially other minds exist. This is why evidentialism is not rational. Dawkins steals from the christian world view not only his morality but his rationality and colors his world view with it.
This is why it is not valid for an atheist to demand proof of God before a discussion. Don’t fall into the trap. Evidentialists want to argue that you are irrational for not having evidence but the fact is evidence is not necessary for rationality.
Very good point O’Ryan (as Larry gets back on topic 🙂 ) I mean if the only things we can truly believe are things we have seen and heard, we can’t even with certainty believe the sun will come up tomorrow morning. We know it’s come up on past mornings of course but we’ve never actually seen it come up tomorrow.
Our belief that the sun will come up tomorrow is based on faith. Some may say that that faith is based on evidence, the evidence of what’s happened in the past. While that may be true, its also based on our belief that what’s happened in the past with regard to the sun will continue to happen in the future and that is not something we can prove evidentially.
Well, since I’m a member now, and I even play in the band, I think I’ll take that final step (before the secret handshake, that is) and comment on this blog.
I think O’Ryan and Larry have hit upon some excellent points. Atheists (such as Dawkins) appealing to morality is contradictory of their worldview, and begs the question. In addition, Dawkins, or any atheist that is a materialist cannot appeal to reason, as reason itself is immaterial. Dawkins uses reason, but given his worldview, he cannot account for reason or rationality. You can’t taste, touch, see, hear, or smell reason and rationality. So the atheist presupposes our worldview to get an idea of reason (or other universal abstract entities) then argues against it. Materialism is self-refuting.
To quote a paraphrase a favorite pastor of mine, we need to do away with the old conundrum that goes something like this – “Faith is believing what you know ain’t true . . .or . . .Faith takes over, where reason leaves off” I believe that faith engages man’s reason.
Speaking of science, I would confront atheistic scientists with the problem of induction, and ask how they can account for things in the future being like things in the past, or how they can account for the uniformity of nature. Plus, when it comes to evolution, and you get down to the bottom line, evolutionists believe that life arose from non-life. Talk about primitive thinking! That’s like going back to the days of alchemey! And yet today, all science proceeds on the asumption that spontaneous regeneration is impossible.
Anyway, those were my thoughts. Excellent topic
Allan, you are always welcome here. Thanks for your input and welcome aboard!
I find John 20:24-31 helpful for thinking through these issues. Thomas believed in the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of first-hand empirical evidence (v. 24-29a).
On the other hand, there are many people who must believe in the resurrection of Jesus without first-hand empirical evidence: “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed” (v. 29b).
Even though these people do not have first-hand evidence for their belief, they do have second-hand evidence in the form of the Scriptures: “these [signs performed in the presence of the disciples] have been written so that you may believe…” (v. 30-31).
In this passage, John presents Christian faith as something based on solid, verified evidence. That evidence was verified by those who walked and talked with Jesus himself, and witnessed his resurrection. We have access to that first-hand evidence through the written record which we now call the Bible.
My point is this: The definition of “faith” as belief in something for which there is no verifiable evidence is foreign to the biblical understanding of the term “faith.” Dawkins’ attack on religion assumes a modern definition of “faith,” not a biblical definition.
I look forward to the Parousia, when we will again have first-hand evidence for our faith. Come, Lord Jesus!
Jason, very good distinction! In building on your thought, what served for Thomas as empirical evidence now stands for us a evidence that needs to be accepted by faith since we were not there. Isn’t this the nature of knowing? We move in and out of situations that require a different level of “faith” depending on the time in which we are encountering them.
The debate as to who is right (in any and all topics) will be settled by God at the final Judgment. This is one more reason to personally seek out truth and to be confident that one day the record will be set straight by the one who created the universe.
Reading this again something else popped out. Dawkins science my not be a faith based as he understands faith. However it is still a religion in that acceptance is based on what you do, namely trust in the validity of his truth claim.
Those that do agree are in, those that don’t are out and are subject to rejection and ridicule. This is religion because acceptance and deliverance based on what you do. This has caused all the trouble in this world and will continue to as long as what you do leads to acceptance. As soon as a standard is adopted, it can be worked for and ultimately achieved in degree and others can be judged.
Christianity is not a religion in that you are not accepted because on what you do. You are accepted because you are loved. Which leads to your acceptance of those who have differing views than you. It leads you to love those who are un-lovely, because you yourself are not lovely. There is not a standard to live up to.
Which is more moral? Dawkins is teaching us that the truth is important but truth alone is not moral. What are the consequences of his truth? The very things he claims to be against. I think religion is not moral. However, his religion is no more moral than Islam, Mormonism, Zoraastrianism, Paganism, etc. The only truth that is moral is the Truth was with God and the Truth was God. The Truth gave up true freedom, put on humanity, suffered, died, and rose again. The Truth that accepted those who are his, based on his own goodness. The realization of this truth is the only one that is moral.