Is Faith (or belief in God) incompatible with reason/science/critical thinking? Why or why not? How do you think people might try to reconcile these two very different ways of "knowing" the world?
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” 1 This is a famous quote from the Jewish born scientist Albert Einstein. Although he did not adhere to a “personal God”, he was opposed to atheism. He stated; “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in this spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”2 Albert Einstein, as well as Galileo, Isaac Newton, Gregory Mendel and many other scientist throughout world history found that faith, or a belief in God, is compatible with reason, science and critical thinking.
Isaac Newton, an innovative genius in optics, mechanics and mathematics was deeply religious; “His system of physics was where God was considered essential to the nature and absoluteness of space.”3 “In his work, Principia he stated; ‘The most beautiful system of the sun, planet, and comets could only proceed from the counsel of dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.”4
Gregory Mendel (1822-1884), the great pioneer in genetics, was an Austrian priest that “did not accept many of Darwin’s theories, believing that God had created the world and blind chance could not be responsible for the outcome”.5
A contemporary of Gregory Mendel, James Clerk Maxwell (1831- 1879), known as the father of modern physics, stated to his wife in a letter: “The scientist in union with Christ has an obligation to do such work as will benefit the body of Christ”.6 Some of these scientists, while holding to a faith in God developed their disciplines, using reason and critical thinking in their perspective fields of science, and are known today for their great contributions.
In the post Darwinian age is it possible to reconcile the two different ways of viewing the world? Clinton Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion, says: “God almost certainly does not exist.”7 His argument is based on the assumption that since God does not exist, the design hypothesis must be false, therefore begging the question; “who designed the designer?”.8
In opposition of Dawkin’s theory, is the great botanist, inventor and educator, George Washington Carver (1864- 1943). His work was inspired by his faith in the “Great Creator”, he wrote; “I indulge in very little lip service but ask the Great Creator silently, daily, and often many time a day to permit me to speak to Him through the three great kingdoms of the world which He created – the animal, mineral, and vegetable kingdoms – to understand their relations to each other and our relations to them and to the Great God who made all of us.”9 Carver admired the complexity of God and it inspired him in his work. Dawkins cannot reconcile the complexity of God in contrast to the theories held by his worldview. Dawkins stated; “however little we know about God, the one thing we can be sure of is that he would have to be very complex and presumably irreducibly so.” 10
Nobel prize recipient in Chemistry (1996) and the ‘Father of Nanotechnology’, Dr. Richard Smalley, is another example that great disciplines in science and deeply held faith in God is reconciled by humbly realizing that God’s creation is a reflection of His vastness and we have the privilege of daily discovering His greatness. Through Smalley’s research he came to the conclusion that; “The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose…”11
Sources: 1), I. Paul, Science and Theology in Einstein's Perspective (1986), J. Goldernstein, Albert Einstein: Physicist and Genius http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html; viewed 5 October 2005 2) Ibid 3) From: Rich Deem, "Famous Scientists Who Believed in God", last modified 19 May 2005, on "Evidence for God from Science" website (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html; viewed 5 October 2005): 4) Ibid 5) Dan Graves, Scientists of Faith (Kregel Resources: Grand Rapids, MI; 1996) 6) http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html#Christian 7) http://www.allaboutscience.org/Richard-dawkins.htm 8) Ibid 9) Rosa Parks by Douglas Brinkley, New York: Lipper – Viking, 2000 10) http://www.allaboutscience.org/Richard-dawkins.htm 11) Chapter 27 of Tihomir Dimitrov's book 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God (2007), (http://nobelists.net/; viewed 19 April 2007):
IS FAITH (OR BELIEF IN GOD) INCOMPATIBLE WITH REASON/SCIENCE/CRITICAL THINKING? WHY OR WHY NOT?
It is interesting to see how the theorists were in some way being politically correct by making sure that they gave a theory and included God in some way so that their theory could still be considered and they would not be considered heathens. Spinoza was interesting as he went into his theory of how he had a belief in God and believed that all things existed because of God. His theory goes into how all things exist because of God which I take to mean that he believes that science was created because of God not in spite of him. Even in religion such as Christianity it is said that “God transcends the universe.” In other words God is bigger than all things. I believe the definition of God transcending the universe as meaning that God is also the creator of the universe which incorporates all things in the universe to include Man. Intelligent Design I believe was created to find a “happy medium” between people that believed in God and those that didn’t. This is part of the Immanuel Kant’s teleological argument that things could not be what they are without some great designer making them what they are. This great designer could be God. My thought is that because there have been so many different theories that incorporate God and science that they can exist together. Is it reasonable to say that they can exist together? I think this is a personal judgment call. In truth these different belief systems have operated together for hundreds of years. They have not been in harmony but they have both existed together. Each person and their beliefs really do believe that what their faith is is what is most important to them. With each change in theory and arguments to each theory some thought of criticism has also existed. My thought of reconciliation to the two, faith and science, I believe is being rectified through “intelligent design.” So as in what is quoted by William James “better risk loss of truth than a chance of error.” My thought is that intelligent design is doing exactly that, coming up with a theory that satisfies both sides of the argument.
I think that religion is incompatible with reasonable science. As stated by Richard Dawksin in his documentary there is no evidence to support religion. Religion is about faith and believing even if there is no support or even if there is evidence against it. For example some religious people believe that the world was created in seven days, which to a scientist that would seem ridiculous. As stated by John William Draper in his conflict thesis “… relationship between religion and science according to which interaction between religion and science almost inevitably leads to open hostility, usually as a result of religion's aggressive challenges against new scientific ideas.” The strongly religious people will disagree with how the world was created even with empirical evidence. In my opinion religion and reasonable science are not compatible. The conflict between the two has been going on for very long time. The each person must decide what parts of each side they want to believe. The only way in which a person can reconcile the two is by picking and choosing which parts of the bible and science they want to believe. They may believe that God is the creator of world and do not agree with evolution. I think it is mostly up to the individual and their level of commitment to that religion. People can have both appreciation for the world and all the scientific facts put forward and even agree with some of it like evolution, but still believe in a higher being. Many scientist today believe in god and state that "In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God." I think like anything in this world, it can be interpreted differently by each individual. So although the two are still not in agreement with each other people try to find a medium between what they know and what they have faith in.
Can Faith or belief in God and science/reason be compatible theories with one another? I have to say yes, I think they can. Many of our world’s great scientists have been faithful, religious, yet reasonable critical thinking people. One of those scientists includes Charles Darwin, who postulated the theory of evolution by natural selection. He was not trying to disprove the existence of God as many believe, instead it was more to get a better understanding of why there would be so many similar species with the slightest variations between them. These slight differences he found to be natural adaptations and modifications provided to help a species survive in various habitats. Darwin‘s advances in science did not cause him to abandon his Faith in God and religion. He was trying to see how God helped the world progress through evolution, or natural selection. He believed that God gave us the tools needed to change WITH the changing world in order for us to thrive in it. Charles Darwin was trying to find a way to combine Faith, Science, the Creation of animals and man, through the process of evolution. 1 Another man, John Polkinghorne (former professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University), has found a way to blend his faith with his scientific beliefs of how the universe came to be and why it still exists today. He feels that one of the greatest achievements of science today has been the ability to peer back in time to the creation of the world through the Big Bang theory, which he feels to be a “mostly correct” explanation for how the universe was created. Polkinghorne states that, “if God is related to the world, he is related to it at all times and all places. I don’t look for a God who keeps popping up to fill the holes that science hasn’t yet found an explanation for.” Polkinghorne also implies that he sees God as not only the causation of the Big Bang, but also the sustainer of the world we live in today. He also feels that the world only exists because of God’s will and this is how he is able to reconcile his devoted faith with his unwavering scientific beliefs. 2 Personally, I believe in Intelligent Design which incorporates both evolution theory and the hand of God in bringing us into being. I admit that I don’t know much about the religious beliefs and/or the different rules imposed by various denominations out there, but I do have faith that there is a higher power that guides our existence. I don’t think that one can exist without the other, as I have expressed before, I feel that the human animal is way to complex a creature to have shown up on this great Earth completely by accident!
Sources: 1. Lecture: Stones, Bones, and Human Evolution. Instructor Vince Huffman. Video: Evolution and the Tree of Life. 2.Documentary: The Creation: Science vs. Religion Part 2, 5:20
Belief in GOD is incompatible with reason, science, and critical thinking. According to wikipedia, "incompatible argument is the idea that no description of GOD is consistent with reality." We tend to know reality through intuition. Believing in GOD explains itself. Science and Critical thinking have nothing to do with believing in a GOD. Everything that happens is because of GOD. In the other hand, science has its own explanation of why things happen.
Many people think that belief in God is incompatible with science and critical thinking. Recently I watched the documentaries, The Root of All Evil parts 1 and 2. Richard Dawkins from the University of Oxford is quite confident and compelling in the programs as he tries to convince the audience that there is, “a profound contradiction between science and Faith.” He calls Faith, “a process of non-thinking.” I believe Faith is different from critical thinking but that they are not exclusive. I believe that one can be rational and accept science and still believe in a higher power or God. There are many mysteries in the world and I think that some scientists are being arrogant and closed-minded when they deny the existence of anything that cannot be tested with the scientific method. I think everyone that has Faith would agree that God transcends our everyday lives and that makes God scientifically unverifiable. Richard Dawkins not only believes that science and Faith are not compatible he also believes religious belief is dangerous. He says religious belief leads to religious extremism. I believe that an inability to except anything outside of ones belief system as acceptable or possible is what leads to extremism. Scientists like Richard Dawkins are involved in a sort of scientific extremism. They cannot conceive that it is possible that anything exists that is not scientifically testable. At one point in the documentary they talk about the placebo effect yet they never discuss the power of belief. Some people feel better just because they believe they should feel better. To deny the spiritual is to deny the power of hope to help someone win his or her fight against cancer, the power of meditation to alleviate stress or the power of prayer to comfort. In order to reconcile these two belief systems one must first believe that God is possible. Then one must realize that men wrote all the religious texts in the world not God. Since men are not perfect, religious texts written by men may not be perfect. Maybe some religious texts were never meant to be taken literally, but were meant more as a metaphorical teaching tool. If you can accept God is possible and you can accept that your religious text may not be the literal word of God, Faith and science are perfectly compatible.
Works Cited: Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy a Text with Integrated Readings. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. Print
Martin, Suzanne. Philosophy 101. Dept.of Philosophy, Gateway Community College,March 2009.Web.2 March 2009.
Having faith or belief in God does not necessarily determine if a person is incapable of using reason, science, or critical thinking. However, this does not mean that every believer does. From my own experiences, I have only met one Lutheran minister who was able to give a good interpretation of how God and science intermix. This gentlemen was also a guest speaker on evolution in my Physical Anthropology class. As he explained it, and if I remember what he said correctly, God did create the heavens and the earth, but he did it in a way where we would have to evolve to be the intelligent creatures we are today. I can accept that as a suitable response to science, but I have a hard time understanding is if God is the almighty then why would we have to go through that process in the first place? Why not create us where we need to be. Yet, the answers I have always gotten from religious people are the same. In the case where they don’t know the answer to my questions, I am told that there are some things that we don’t need to know and that is why we have faith. What I get from that response is, “I don’t know, and we aren’t supposed to ask questions.” Secondly, if an answer that is given to me and it makes no sense and I try to have them explain it to me, I won’t understand it because I’m not saved. Regardless of ones beliefs they have to believe in science. Science controls much of our lives, such as understanding the weather, seeing and following doctors orders, etc. To say that you can believe in some forms of science and not others is contradictory. I feel that if people of faith could connect their beliefs with what we know today, it doesn’t have to be separated. If God put us here for whatever reason, he has left mankind on earth for a long time for some purpose. Maybe he expected us as people in his image to grow more intelligent and learn how he made such a wonderful and complicated world. Most of the time I feel that God is looking down upon everyone shaking his head while thinking, “they’ve got it all wrong.”
These are the foundations of the never-ending debate of God vs. Science. Can they really be compatible? I would say no. For a true religious person there is no doubt that there is a creator: an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient higher deity. One being that in return for immortality demands loyalty and obedience without questioning. For a believer of Science there is no empirical evidence that can prove that, as it requires conclusive proof to make such claims. For a religious person it works differently: faith is enough. Science has managed to solve many of the mysteries of life. This is why I think that God and science are incompatible, as science has proven religion wrong many times. Earth, for example, is 6,000 years old according to James Ussher and his chronology of the Bible. According to reliable radiometric dating techniques used by geologists, the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Could Ussher have been a couple thousand years wrong? There is still a colossal time-lapse between the two. To reconcile God and science is very difficult. Science might explain how humans are created but fails to explain our purpose in life, as religion does. I believe that there must be equilibrium on both parts: critical thinking and faith.
Are faith in God and reason, science and critical thinking incompatible? My religious leaders teach me to ‘think, ponder and pray’, not a blanket acceptance of what I am taught. In fact, a blanket acceptance of Bible and church teachings suggests a lazy believer, one who has not diligently sought answers to questions, and who may, when faced with life’s storms, be unable to weather them, and remain strong in his convictions. Therefore, I believe that faith in God requires reasoning and critical thinking, and I believe that science is compatible with my faith, or at least the two different belief systems can co-exist. Additionally, if one has asked the questions, studied and pondered, then one is more likely to be prepared with answers when asked about apparent contradictions. Many atheists and scientists claim that God does not exist. Scientists state that His existence cannot be proven conclusively, therefore, He does not exist. This is a fallacy, since not proving His existence is not the same as proving that He does not exist. Let’s examine Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. He called it a theory, having no way to prove his thoughts in a scientific way. Today, many scientists ignore the word theory, and try to present it as fact. In spite of having many tools available to them today, scientists still cannot provide absolute proof that what Darwin theorized is correct. I, therefore, conclude that it is possible that God or a Supreme Being does exist, and had in hand in the creation of our world and all in it. Consider the scientific communities’ claim that our world developed over many millennia. With the use of carbon dating, this conclusion seems valid. This idea presents a problem for those who believe that the world was created in six days, as stated in the Bible. As I ponder this apparent contradiction, I conclude that both beliefs are possible, as we have no way of knowing what the Bible means by a day. It is generally believed that what is meant is the 24 hour period humans have established. However, it is also possible that God’s definition of a day is a much longer time span. Let’s examine Darwin’s belief that humans evolved from a ‘primordial pond’. When I think about this, I have to ask myself how it could be possible that two distinct sexes of so many species could have evolved simultaneously. How could the sexes of each species fit together so precisely? The odds against such a development seem to me to be astronomical, so I would conclude that the ‘seeds’ for such a development would have to exist in the ‘pond’, and I reach the conclusion that a higher ‘Power’ seems to be at work here, planting those ‘seeds’. What I am saying, basically, is that God and science are not mutually exclusive. There are questions still to be thought of and conclusive answers to be found to questions already asked.
I do not think faith is incompatible with the ideas of reason/science/critical thinking. I do believe however that belief in god may be incompatible with these concepts. By definition, faith and belief in god are the same, but I interpret faith as more related to trust and not necessarily the trust of god. I think you can have faith of varying levels about a many number of things. You can have faith about anything, whether it relates to religion and god or to the 28 flaming automobiles you are about to fly over on your motorcycle. Belief in god is endorsed by pure faith and belief while science and critical thinking are upheld by reason and factual evidence. To my knowledge, many events and/or “facts” of the Bible are either demonstrably false or mirror other earlier stories from previous lands and cultures. To me, this would bring up “reasonable doubt” in the story of God. Or scientifically, held notions (once hypotheses) would warrant further analysis and study. In religion, when inconsistencies in scripture or teachings arise, usually the reaction of the church leadership is denial or some sort of deflection. If long held theorems were proven inaccurate, many would lose the very faith that binds the institutions of church and religion. In the coverage I’ve seen on the issue of creationism vs. evolution, it seems as though a good deal of the religious faithful try to reconcile these two theories, two conclusions that contradict each other. It also seems that this reconciliation is made without any substantiation. When pressed for details on the fantastic concept of reconciliation of these two ideas, a common phrase uttered by those who would defend this accord is “it’s in God’s hands”. This is pronounced with hands up in a ‘no answers here’ sort of fashion. I think for these people, the idea of their dearly held belief in religion and god being refuted with conclusive proof is probably too much to accept. I am not aware of any media that provides a clear explanation of how creationism and evolution could have both occurred. My own personal interpretation of god is not clearly formulated (even growing up frequently going to Christian church and having recurrent debates and discussions on the issue), but one idea I’ve thought about seriously is the idea of god as an energy or force, rather than an actual man or flesh. I’ve often thought it might be a dormant power that each of us possess, waiting to be tapped into, unbeknownst or not. More and more, I tend to think it is those who utilize that life force that are more successful, balanced and happy in life. I also find it quite interesting that it is repeatedly held that 93% of scientists consider themselves either Atheist or Agnostic. This suggests to me that with so much scientific and reasonable data available to man that science is indeed incompatible with belief in god.
I think that religion is incompatible with science because they have different ideas. Religion has no evidence except the bible, but many people belief that God made us and that’s all they need to accept the way of how the world is known. Meanwhile, science has numerous amounts of evidence of how earth was started and its’ evolution; when people discuss these two ways they make fun of the people with belief because they don’t have real evidence, except their belief.
Its weird how people get frustrated at others because either they believe in the religious or science theory; when really if only one of them existed people would get bored of life. If there were no science theory people, wouldn’t be researching evidence to contradict others with their faith. And vice versa, if there weren’t the religious theory, we wouldn’t have as many more believers than before. The science belief makes people either doubt or makes their faith stronger in what they believed before.
There isn’t much that people can do to reconcile these two different ways of knowing the world. People have to stop being stubborn and begin to listen to why others believe in what they do and accept it. It is difficult for people who have strong religious views to accept that we evolved from apes, but they also have to be more opened-minded and know that people believe in that. I believe that faith and science are incompatible with each other because they have different ideas of how the world was begun. Also, people love to contradict other people when they belief the opposite of what they do.
Posts
12 comments:
Position Paper #5
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” 1 This is a famous quote from the Jewish born scientist Albert Einstein. Although he did not adhere to a “personal God”, he was opposed to atheism. He stated; “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in this spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”2 Albert Einstein, as well as Galileo, Isaac Newton, Gregory Mendel and many other scientist throughout world history found that faith, or a belief in God, is compatible with reason, science and critical thinking.
Isaac Newton, an innovative genius in optics, mechanics and mathematics was deeply religious; “His system of physics was where God was considered essential to the nature and absoluteness of space.”3 “In his work, Principia he stated; ‘The most beautiful system of the sun, planet, and comets could only proceed from the counsel of dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.”4
Gregory Mendel (1822-1884), the great pioneer in genetics, was an Austrian priest that “did not accept many of Darwin’s theories, believing that God had created the world and blind chance could not be responsible for the outcome”.5
A contemporary of Gregory Mendel, James Clerk Maxwell (1831- 1879), known as the father of modern physics, stated to his wife in a letter: “The scientist in union with Christ has an obligation to do such work as will benefit the body of Christ”.6 Some of these scientists, while holding to a faith in God developed their disciplines, using reason and critical thinking in their perspective fields of science, and are known today for their great contributions.
In the post Darwinian age is it possible to reconcile the two different ways of viewing the world? Clinton Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion, says: “God almost certainly does not exist.”7 His argument is based on the assumption that since God does not exist, the design hypothesis must be false, therefore begging the question; “who designed the designer?”.8
In opposition of Dawkin’s theory, is the great botanist, inventor and educator, George Washington Carver (1864- 1943). His work was inspired by his faith in the “Great Creator”, he wrote; “I indulge in very little lip service but ask the Great Creator silently, daily, and often many time a day to permit me to speak to Him through the three great kingdoms of the world which He created – the animal, mineral, and vegetable kingdoms – to understand their relations to each other and our relations to them and to the Great God who made all of us.”9 Carver admired the complexity of God and it inspired him in his work. Dawkins cannot reconcile the complexity of God in contrast to the theories held by his worldview. Dawkins stated; “however little we know about God, the one thing we can be sure of is that he would have to be very complex and presumably irreducibly so.” 10
Nobel prize recipient in Chemistry (1996) and the ‘Father of Nanotechnology’, Dr. Richard Smalley, is another example that great disciplines in science and deeply held faith in God is reconciled by humbly realizing that God’s creation is a reflection of His vastness and we have the privilege of daily discovering His greatness. Through Smalley’s research he came to the conclusion that; “The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose…”11
Sources:
1), I. Paul, Science and Theology in Einstein's Perspective (1986), J. Goldernstein, Albert Einstein: Physicist and Genius http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html; viewed 5 October 2005
2) Ibid
3) From: Rich Deem, "Famous Scientists Who Believed in God", last modified 19 May 2005, on "Evidence for God from Science" website (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html; viewed 5 October 2005):
4) Ibid
5) Dan Graves, Scientists of Faith (Kregel Resources: Grand Rapids, MI; 1996)
6) http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html#Christian
7) http://www.allaboutscience.org/Richard-dawkins.htm
8) Ibid 9) Rosa Parks by Douglas Brinkley, New York: Lipper – Viking, 2000
10) http://www.allaboutscience.org/Richard-dawkins.htm
11) Chapter 27 of Tihomir Dimitrov's book 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God (2007), (http://nobelists.net/; viewed 19 April 2007):
IS FAITH (OR BELIEF IN GOD) INCOMPATIBLE WITH REASON/SCIENCE/CRITICAL THINKING? WHY OR WHY NOT?
It is interesting to see how the theorists were in some way being politically correct by making sure that they gave a theory and included God in some way so that their theory could still be considered and they would not be considered heathens.
Spinoza was interesting as he went into his theory of how he had a belief in God and believed that all things existed because of God. His theory goes into how all things exist because of God which I take to mean that he believes that science was created because of God not in spite of him.
Even in religion such as Christianity it is said that “God transcends the universe.” In other words God is bigger than all things. I believe the definition of God transcending the universe as meaning that God is also the creator of the universe which incorporates all things in the universe to include Man.
Intelligent Design I believe was created to find a “happy medium” between people that believed in God and those that didn’t. This is part of the Immanuel Kant’s teleological argument that things could not be what they are without some great designer making them what they are. This great designer could be God.
My thought is that because there have been so many different theories that incorporate God and science that they can exist together.
Is it reasonable to say that they can exist together? I think this is a personal judgment call. In truth these different belief systems have operated together for hundreds of years. They have not been in harmony but they have both existed together. Each person and their beliefs really do believe that what their faith is is what is most important to them.
With each change in theory and arguments to each theory some thought of criticism has also existed.
My thought of reconciliation to the two, faith and science, I believe is being rectified through “intelligent design.” So as in what is quoted by William James “better risk loss of truth than a chance of error.” My thought is that intelligent design is doing exactly that, coming up with a theory that satisfies both sides of the argument.
I think that religion is incompatible with reasonable science. As stated by Richard Dawksin in his documentary there is no evidence to support religion. Religion is about faith and believing even if there is no support or even if there is evidence against it. For example some religious people believe that the world was created in seven days, which to a scientist that would seem ridiculous. As stated by John William Draper in his conflict thesis “… relationship between religion and science according to which interaction between religion and science almost inevitably leads to open hostility, usually as a result of religion's aggressive challenges against new scientific ideas.” The strongly religious people will disagree with how the world was created even with empirical evidence. In my opinion religion and reasonable science are not compatible. The conflict between the two has been going on for very long time. The each person must decide what parts of each side they want to believe.
The only way in which a person can reconcile the two is by picking and choosing which parts of the bible and science they want to believe. They may believe that God is the creator of world and do not agree with evolution. I think it is mostly up to the individual and their level of commitment to that religion. People can have both appreciation for the world and all the scientific facts put forward and even agree with some of it like evolution, but still believe in a higher being. Many scientist today believe in god and state that "In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God." I think like anything in this world, it can be interpreted differently by each individual. So although the two are still not in agreement with each other people try to find a medium between what they know and what they have faith in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_sciencehttp://news.
nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html
Position Paper #5
God and Reason
Can Faith or belief in God and science/reason be compatible theories with one another? I have to say yes, I think they can. Many of our world’s great scientists have been faithful, religious, yet reasonable critical thinking people. One of those scientists includes Charles Darwin, who postulated the theory of evolution by natural selection. He was not trying to disprove the existence of God as many believe, instead it was more to get a better understanding of why there would be so many similar species with the slightest variations between them. These slight differences he found to be natural adaptations and modifications provided to help a species survive in various habitats. Darwin‘s advances in science did not cause him to abandon his Faith in God and religion. He was trying to see how God helped the world progress through evolution, or natural selection. He believed that God gave us the tools needed to change WITH the changing world in order for us to thrive in it. Charles Darwin was trying to find a way to combine Faith, Science, the Creation of animals and man, through the process of evolution. 1
Another man, John Polkinghorne (former professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University), has found a way to blend his faith with his scientific beliefs of how the universe came to be and why it still exists today. He feels that one of the greatest achievements of science today has been the ability to peer back in time to the creation of the world through the Big Bang theory, which he feels to be a “mostly correct” explanation for how the universe was created. Polkinghorne states that, “if God is related to the world, he is related to it at all times and all places. I don’t look for a God who keeps popping up to fill the holes that science hasn’t yet found an explanation for.” Polkinghorne also implies that he sees God as not only the causation of the Big Bang, but also the sustainer of the world we live in today. He also feels that the world only exists because of God’s will and this is how he is able to reconcile his devoted faith with his unwavering scientific beliefs. 2
Personally, I believe in Intelligent Design which incorporates both evolution theory and the hand of God in bringing us into being. I admit that I don’t know much about the religious beliefs and/or the different rules imposed by various denominations out there, but I do have faith that there is a higher power that guides our existence. I don’t think that one can exist without the other, as I have expressed before, I feel that the human animal is way to complex a creature to have shown up on this great Earth completely by accident!
Sources:
1. Lecture: Stones, Bones, and Human Evolution. Instructor Vince Huffman. Video: Evolution and the Tree of Life.
2.Documentary: The Creation: Science vs. Religion Part 2, 5:20
Belief in GOD is incompatible with reason, science, and critical thinking. According to wikipedia, "incompatible argument is the idea that no description of GOD is consistent with reality." We tend to know reality through intuition. Believing in GOD explains itself. Science and Critical thinking have nothing to do with believing in a GOD. Everything that happens is because of GOD. In the other hand, science has its own explanation of why things happen.
Many people think that belief in God is incompatible with science and critical thinking. Recently I watched the documentaries, The Root of All Evil parts 1 and 2. Richard Dawkins from the University of Oxford is quite confident and compelling in the programs as he tries to convince the audience that there is, “a profound contradiction between science and Faith.” He calls Faith, “a process of non-thinking.” I believe Faith is different from critical thinking but that they are not exclusive. I believe that one can be rational and accept science and still believe in a higher power or God. There are many mysteries in the world and I think that some scientists are being arrogant and closed-minded when they deny the existence of anything that cannot be tested with the scientific method. I think everyone that has Faith would agree that God transcends our everyday lives and that makes God scientifically unverifiable.
Richard Dawkins not only believes that science and Faith are not compatible he also believes religious belief is dangerous. He says religious belief leads to religious extremism. I believe that an inability to except anything outside of ones belief system as acceptable or possible is what leads to extremism. Scientists like Richard Dawkins are involved in a sort of scientific extremism. They cannot conceive that it is possible that anything exists that is not scientifically testable. At one point in the documentary they talk about the placebo effect yet they never discuss the power of belief. Some people feel better just because they believe they should feel better. To deny the spiritual is to deny the power of hope to help someone win his or her fight against cancer, the power of meditation to alleviate stress or the power of prayer to comfort.
In order to reconcile these two belief systems one must first believe that God is possible. Then one must realize that men wrote all the religious texts in the world not God. Since men are not perfect, religious texts written by men may not be perfect. Maybe some religious texts were never meant to be taken literally, but were meant more as a metaphorical teaching tool. If you can accept God is possible and you can accept that your religious text may not be the literal word of God, Faith and science are perfectly compatible.
Works Cited:
Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy a Text with Integrated Readings. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. Print
Martin, Suzanne. Philosophy 101. Dept.of Philosophy, Gateway Community College,March 2009.Web.2 March 2009.
Having faith or belief in God does not necessarily determine if a person is incapable of using reason, science, or critical thinking. However, this does not mean that every believer does. From my own experiences, I have only met one Lutheran minister who was able to give a good interpretation of how God and science intermix. This gentlemen was also a guest speaker on evolution in my Physical Anthropology class. As he explained it, and if I remember what he said correctly, God did create the heavens and the earth, but he did it in a way where we would have to evolve to be the intelligent creatures we are today. I can accept that as a suitable response to science, but I have a hard time understanding is if God is the almighty then why would we have to go through that process in the first place? Why not create us where we need to be. Yet, the answers I have always gotten from religious people are the same. In the case where they don’t know the answer to my questions, I am told that there are some things that we don’t need to know and that is why we have faith. What I get from that response is, “I don’t know, and we aren’t supposed to ask questions.” Secondly, if an answer that is given to me and it makes no sense and I try to have them explain it to me, I won’t understand it because I’m not saved. Regardless of ones beliefs they have to believe in science. Science controls much of our lives, such as understanding the weather, seeing and following doctors orders, etc. To say that you can believe in some forms of science and not others is contradictory.
I feel that if people of faith could connect their beliefs with what we know today, it doesn’t have to be separated. If God put us here for whatever reason, he has left mankind on earth for a long time for some purpose. Maybe he expected us as people in his image to grow more intelligent and learn how he made such a wonderful and complicated world. Most of the time I feel that God is looking down upon everyone shaking his head while thinking, “they’ve got it all wrong.”
These are the foundations of the never-ending debate of God vs. Science. Can they really be compatible? I would say no. For a true religious person there is no doubt that there is a creator: an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient higher deity. One being that in return for immortality demands loyalty and obedience without questioning. For a believer of Science there is no empirical evidence that can prove that, as it requires conclusive proof to make such claims. For a religious person it works differently: faith is enough.
Science has managed to solve many of the mysteries of life. This is why I think that God and science are incompatible, as science has proven religion wrong many times. Earth, for example, is 6,000 years old according to James Ussher and his chronology of the Bible. According to reliable radiometric dating techniques used by geologists, the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Could Ussher have been a couple thousand years wrong? There is still a colossal time-lapse between the two. To reconcile God and science is very difficult. Science might explain how humans are created but fails to explain our purpose in life, as religion does. I believe that there must be equilibrium on both parts: critical thinking and faith.
Are faith in God and reason, science and critical thinking incompatible?
My religious leaders teach me to ‘think, ponder and pray’, not a blanket acceptance of what I am taught. In fact, a blanket acceptance of Bible and church teachings suggests a lazy believer, one who has not diligently sought answers to questions, and who may, when faced with life’s storms, be unable to weather them, and remain strong in his convictions. Therefore, I believe that faith in God requires reasoning and critical thinking, and I believe that science is compatible with my faith, or at least the two different belief systems can co-exist. Additionally, if one has asked the questions, studied and pondered, then one is more likely to be prepared with answers when asked about apparent contradictions.
Many atheists and scientists claim that God does not exist. Scientists state that His existence cannot be proven conclusively, therefore, He does not exist. This is a fallacy, since not proving His existence is not the same as proving that He does not exist. Let’s examine Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. He called it a theory, having no way to prove his thoughts in a scientific way. Today, many scientists ignore the word theory, and try to present it as fact. In spite of having many tools available to them today, scientists still cannot provide absolute proof that what Darwin theorized is correct. I, therefore, conclude that it is possible that God or a Supreme Being does exist, and had in hand in the creation of our world and all in it.
Consider the scientific communities’ claim that our world developed over many millennia. With the use of carbon dating, this conclusion seems valid. This idea presents a problem for those who believe that the world was created in six days, as stated in the Bible. As I ponder this apparent contradiction, I conclude that both beliefs are possible, as we have no way of knowing what the Bible means by a day. It is generally believed that what is meant is the 24 hour period humans have established. However, it is also possible that God’s definition of a day is a much longer time span.
Let’s examine Darwin’s belief that humans evolved from a ‘primordial pond’. When I think about this, I have to ask myself how it could be possible that two distinct sexes of so many species could have evolved simultaneously. How could the sexes of each species fit together so precisely? The odds against such a development seem to me to be astronomical, so I would conclude that the ‘seeds’ for such a development would have to exist in the ‘pond’, and I reach the conclusion that a higher ‘Power’ seems to be at work here, planting those ‘seeds’.
What I am saying, basically, is that God and science are not mutually exclusive. There are questions still to be thought of and conclusive answers to be found to questions already asked.
I do not think faith is incompatible with the ideas of reason/science/critical thinking. I do believe however that belief in god may be incompatible with these concepts.
By definition, faith and belief in god are the same, but I interpret faith as more related to trust and not necessarily the trust of god. I think you can have faith of varying levels about a many number of things. You can have faith about anything, whether it relates to religion and god or to the 28 flaming automobiles you are about to fly over on your motorcycle.
Belief in god is endorsed by pure faith and belief while science and critical thinking are upheld by reason and factual evidence. To my knowledge, many events and/or “facts” of the Bible are either demonstrably false or mirror other earlier stories from previous lands and cultures. To me, this would bring up “reasonable doubt” in the story of God. Or scientifically, held notions (once hypotheses) would warrant further analysis and study. In religion, when inconsistencies in scripture or teachings arise, usually the reaction of the church leadership is denial or some sort of deflection. If long held theorems were proven inaccurate, many would lose the very faith that binds the institutions of church and religion.
In the coverage I’ve seen on the issue of creationism vs. evolution, it seems as though a good deal of the religious faithful try to reconcile these two theories, two conclusions that contradict each other. It also seems that this reconciliation is made without any substantiation. When pressed for details on the fantastic concept of reconciliation of these two ideas, a common phrase uttered by those who would defend this accord is “it’s in God’s hands”. This is pronounced with hands up in a ‘no answers here’ sort of fashion. I think for these people, the idea of their dearly held belief in religion and god being refuted with conclusive proof is probably too much to accept. I am not aware of any media that provides a clear explanation of how creationism and evolution could have both occurred.
My own personal interpretation of god is not clearly formulated (even growing up frequently going to Christian church and having recurrent debates and discussions on the issue), but one idea I’ve thought about seriously is the idea of god as an energy or force, rather than an actual man or flesh. I’ve often thought it might be a dormant power that each of us possess, waiting to be tapped into, unbeknownst or not. More and more, I tend to think it is those who utilize that life force that are more successful, balanced and happy in life.
I also find it quite interesting that it is repeatedly held that 93% of scientists consider themselves either Atheist or Agnostic. This suggests to me that with so much scientific and reasonable data available to man that science is indeed incompatible with belief in god.
I think that religion is incompatible with science because they have different ideas. Religion has no evidence except the bible, but many people belief that God made us and that’s all they need to accept the way of how the world is known. Meanwhile, science has numerous amounts of evidence of how earth was started and its’ evolution; when people discuss these two ways they make fun of the people with belief because they don’t have real evidence, except their belief.
Its weird how people get frustrated at others because either they believe in the religious or science theory; when really if only one of them existed people would get bored of life. If there were no science theory people, wouldn’t be researching evidence to contradict others with their faith. And vice versa, if there weren’t the religious theory, we wouldn’t have as many more believers than before. The science belief makes people either doubt or makes their faith stronger in what they believed before.
There isn’t much that people can do to reconcile these two different ways of knowing the world. People have to stop being stubborn and begin to listen to why others believe in what they do and accept it. It is difficult for people who have strong religious views to accept that we evolved from apes, but they also have to be more opened-minded and know that people believe in that. I believe that faith and science are incompatible with each other because they have different ideas of how the world was begun. Also, people love to contradict other people when they belief the opposite of what they do.
Post a Comment