{"id":240,"date":"2009-03-21T01:23:05","date_gmt":"2009-03-21T01:23:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/2009\/03\/21\/on_the_nature_of_faith_part_2\/"},"modified":"2009-03-21T01:23:05","modified_gmt":"2009-03-21T01:23:05","slug":"on_the_nature_of_faith_part_2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/2009\/03\/21\/on_the_nature_of_faith_part_2\/","title":{"rendered":"On the Nature of faith: Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

It seems odd to me that the issue of faith versus science still gets so many people excited. Maybe there’s a deficit in my understanding of human nature, or maybe my optimism does, despite all my efforts, transcend my legendary cynicism. It’s been over ten years since Stephen Jay Gould talked about non-overlapping magisteria<\/a> (a super read, actually; you’ve got an agnostic Jew and and a bunch of monks going what?<\/em>) and still we have muppets claiming that science disproves faith, or that the Bible is a scientific textbook, or whatever.<\/p>\n

\nBut it’s still a problem. A scientist’s faith becomes known and people ask ‘But hasn’t evolution disproved God?’ or ‘Hasn’t science disproved the Bible?’ (they’re the polite versions) or something equally fatuous. And on the other side we get retards like the Canadian science minister thinking that evolution is a religion<\/a>, and wastes of money like the Creation Museum (and before you say anything, such madness is not limited to North America. There’s a farm in Somerset which is dedicated to proving that the account in Genesis is literal fact).<\/p>\n

\nNo ‘side’ can entirely take the blame. As I said in Part 1<\/a> I’m not at all hopeful I can change minds but I think it might be useful to think about the causes of the conflict.<\/p>\n

\nLet’s pick on the scientists first.<\/p>\n

Scientists don’t understand science<\/h3>\n

\nScience is the study of the natural world. By definition it makes no comment on the supernatural. It’s not, pace<\/em> Gould, even a case of ‘non-overlapping magisteria’: science doesn’t say that the supernatural doesn’t exist; rather it doesn’t even know that such a thing is possible. So to say in any way that science disproves God is nonsensical. The only even vaguely sensible question science can ask is “If there is a God and they interact with the tangible world as you claim, how<\/em>?”.<\/p>\n

\nBut the thing that really bugs me is the supreme arrogance of biologists (and I write as one). It’s the least quantitative of all the real sciences, the squishiest of subjects and yet it’s biologists, primarily, who claim disproof of God\/faith\/the supernatural. Because, hey, we can explain life. As if any God worthy of the name couldn’t figure it out.<\/p>\n

\nCosmology, surely, is far more of a threat to faith than evolution, but we hear precious little about it (links, as ever, are welcome in the comments). Atheists and theists alike fall into the same trap: wanting to see (or not) the finger of God, to prove or otherwise. But this is little more than the ‘god of the gaps’ fallacy\u2014the idea that we invoke a supernatural being to explain things that we can’t. The Large Hadron Collider, for example, will not show us where God moved to change, or to create\u2014and if it did I would be suddenly uninterested in such a small god.<\/p>\n

\nThe thing is, people often make the mistake of assuming that the faithful invent a religion because they need to explain something\u2014usually the natural world. And while it’s true that religions have and do spring up for this reason, it is not why people are christians. Scientists think that by showing how things happen they disprove a need for (a) God, and in doing so not only misunderstand human nature (the need for meaning which science can never give) but also an alarming lack of theological training. But that, really, is excusable: the blame really lies with the faithful. Scientists are pretty straightforward after all, and have only the evidence before them to go on.<\/p>\n

The religious don’t understand theology<\/h3>\n

\nCreationism does not pit science against religion […], for no such conflict exists. Creationism does not raise any unsettled intellectual issues about the nature of biology or the history of life. Creationism is a local and parochial movement, powerful only in the United States among Western nations, and prevalent only among the few sectors of American Protestantism that choose to read the Bible as an inerrant document, literally true in every jot and tittle.
\n\u2014 SJG<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nCreationists (and I include proponents of so-called ‘Intelligent Design’ in that) don’t understand science, obviously: but they also fail to understand faith. Creationism is used as a proof<\/em>, as evidence for the existence of (a) God. (This is not the same as the ‘evidence’ I alluded to previously. There, and I got into trouble as I thought I might\u2014but that’s probably my fault for not being totally clear\u2014, I was saying that there is sufficient evidence to make faith a reasonable response, but I am certainly not claiming ‘proof’. That’s crazy talk.) <\/p>\n

\nThis is not a philosophical objection: I’m not saying that faith fails to be faith if there’s proof. I’m saying that if your ‘proof’ is shown to be false then you’re utterly screwed. So if you tie your faith to a ‘proof’ you actually end up trying to prove that your proof is true, rather than seeking out ‘truth’. Which is the cleft stick Creationists find themselves in.<\/p>\n

\nBecause, really, there is no reason to take the first few chapters of Genesis as anything other than a story about why<\/em> rather than how<\/em>. Was the author trying to make an astrophysical point? Or a biological one? Is there anywhere else in scripture where natural mechanisms<\/em> are important to the theology, or indeed discussed? Is there anything about it that would make you think it is a scientific text? And if you are reading it to gain an understanding of the physical world (it does tell you a lot about human nature, though), then you are looking for a god of the gaps, one who will eventually be squeezed out, one who is too small<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\nIt gets worse.<\/p>\n

\nCath made a point in the comments last time about trust, and the people you trust in. What happens when those you trust are shown not just to be wrong, but deceitful? Those people who told you that the creation story in Genesis is literally true, that there really was a global flood that killed every living being, that the Revelation is a literal account of the end of the world\u2014 and who make those things necessary items of faith<\/em> \u2014what do you do when you realize they were lying to you (intentionally or otherwise)?<\/p>\n

\nMost people lose their<\/a> faith. <\/p>\n

\nAh-ha, says the Creationist, then your faith wasn’t worth much anyway. And, doctrine is important! You have to believe the right<\/em> things! <\/p>\n

\nNow, doctrine is important, but it’s not (within limits) a deal-breaker. It’s something you learn as a believer: it’s not a prerequisite. And to be frank, Creationists seem to be more intent on forcing people to accept a theologically shaky set of beliefs than, say, loving them. Offering them forgiveness and a reason for living.<\/p>\n

\nLet’s be clear here. These are people who tend to believe that you will suffer eternal torment if you’re not saved. Yet rather than offering acceptance and forgiveness of sins they’re insisting on a very narrow and theologically suspect interpretation of peripheral texts. This is a dangerous game, and if you’re going to play it you have to be damned sure of your ground, because the consequences<\/a> are dire<\/a>. <\/p>\n

\nI’m certainly not attracted to the christian faith by people who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Creationism is intellectually and spiritually bankrupt and I want no part of it. But, you know, there’s no harm in saying, ‘Yeah. I was wrong about that. Can you forgive me?’ Perhaps a little humility is required all round; and I’ll be first in the queue (because I could, after all, be wrong about everything<\/em>).<\/p>\n

So can faith and science co-exist?<\/h3>\n

\nWell, sure. But it will take people to think, which is hard, and realize exactly what each one says about itself. And what they don’t<\/em> say about each other. Science explains the natural world. It tells us what we’re made of and how we, squishy biologicals that we are, fit together. Faith doesn’t. It can’t<\/em>, just as science can’t tell us how to behave.<\/p>\n


\nFurther reading:
\nQuintessence of Dust<\/a>
\nThe Creation of an Evolutionist<\/a>
\nAn Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It seems odd to me that the issue of faith versus science still gets so many people excited. Maybe there’s a deficit in my understanding of human nature, or maybe my optimism does, despite all my efforts, transcend my legendary … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=240"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}