Recently, Dr. Isis had a post up about how she feels her religion (Catholicism) and science mix. As I do, when reading one of Dr. Isis’s posts, I looked through the comments. I was dismayed by how many commenters seemed upset (outraged in some cases) that Dr. Isis had the audacity to have faith in God and believe in the Scientific Method, simultaneously. Much of the concern is centered on (and I’m paraphrasing a bunch of people here): That the Bible has some pretty strange things in it (Noah’s Ark, Parting of the Sea, etc.). So, how can you reconcile that with Science?
I’ve written before on how I found that my religion and my science are mutually inclusive. So, this conversation on her blog hit close to home and I had some thoughts on it. Rather than taking up lots of space in Dr. Isis’s comments, I figured I’d talk about my thoughts on my own blog.
The [Christian Denomination] I grew up in did not advocate that the Bible is entirely true as written. What [Christian Denomination] told me was that the Bible was written by men and men are fallible, just like [Christian Denomination]. God is the only one who is infallible. Therefore, maybe things didn’t happen like they did in the bible. And it is our duty to question the faults of men. So, there could be a physical reason behind every miracle in the Bible. And I’m ok with that. I have faith because of completely subjective experiences and feelings (these are not logical, as I’m not Data).
In fact, I’d be more than ok if all miracles in the bible could be explained by natural phenomenon. There’s this quote that I heard somewhere about how science is the how and god is the why. That’s how I think of everything around me. Science explains how we evolved into the beings we are today, how plants utilize the sun to make energy, and how we can build tall buildings. God explains why we are here today, why we should appreciate our environment, and why we should be good to our neighbors in those tall buildings.
Beyond seeing some of the cool things that nature does as somewhat wondrous, I keep my faith out of the lab. I do not predicate my scientific hypothesis upon the Bible, as besides being an ethical guide it doesn’t have much to do with the laboratory. Also, I do not explain my results by, “Then a miracle occurred and data appeared from on high.” So, until the day that I start allowing my religion to dictate my science or vice versa, it shouldn’t matter to other people what I believe.* For if I’m right and there is a God, well then, good for that and, maybe, on that day I’ll finally get some answers (like why do bad things happen to good people? And wtf is up with the playtpus?). And if I’m wrong we can all go out and laugh at me over a beer (or other beverage of choice).
*I’m completely unwilling to get into the fact that Christianity can be the source of a lot of bad things (like the unexpected Spanish Inquisition). Christianity can be the source of good things, too (like Catholic Relief Services, among others). People can be capable of both good and bad, despite what they believe and I don’t think one can use that as an argument for or against religion.
see, that is partly like my own upbringing and my pwn belief.
Most of all though, I loathe the people (or their comments rather) who state “you can’t be both a religious person and a good scientist” and I have surprisingly heard it from all camps (religious and atheists and scientist).
Great post Amanda – you and I have had a lot of similar experiences with respect to religion, religious, upbringing, how science and faith relate, and of course the idea that the two are mutually exclusive.
While I would not at this juncture in my life classify myself as a religious person, I understand your perspective because it was mine. And I continue to appreciate it too. Science tries to answer questions about how, and (I always struggle with this word choice) faith/spirituality(?) tries to answer questions about why. They are two different approaches to two very important questions. I think that we can say that their methods of inquiry might be mutually exclusive, I fail to see why one should restrict themselves to only asking how questions or why questions.
Great post.
An excellent and interesting post. I personally do not believe in God or at least not in God as the concept is commonly described in western religions. However I also don’t believe The Scientific Method is the only valid approach to knowledge acquisition (to explaining either the how or the why). I guess what bothers me most is when people see all of the above as mutually exclusive, that is religion vs science; one religion vs another religion; one scientific paradigm vs another scientific paradigm. Obviously people can hold multiple perspectives and contribute to the world through both knowledge promotion and good deeds. It seems we shouldn’t try to thwart either.
This is a beautiful post. Thank you for sharing it with the rest of us.
Very nice post – and thank God you aren’t Data!
very nice post!
Although many, many data sets of mine in grad school could ONLY have come from divine intervention— or perhaps the Science Gods– because the good results certainly weren’t always my doing!!! 🙂
Thanks for this thoughtful post. This sums up most of my feelings on the topic more eloquently than I could have written them myself.
I echo everyone else – great post. This is my view exactly, and I’ve never really had much difficulty reconciling my faith with science, although it’s definitely a subject I find taboo in academia, even psychology.
I had an interesting conversation the a few days ago with someone who indicated that for the last 100-200-ish years, science and religion have “struck a deal” to stay out of each other’s business. This agreement forces a false polarization between the two views, placing scientists who are also people of faith in a rough spot. Moreover, I find it quite difficult the number of scientists who characterize people of faith using things at the extreme fringe and vice versa. Every epistemological system has its good, bad, and ugly parts.
Great post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
Chall: Me too. I was very surprised to hear it at college. I always figured that it was just endogenous to the place where I grew up.
AA: I’ll agree that the methods may not always mesh and that one shouldn’t restrict the types of question one asks. It just never occurred to me that the two methods weren’t compatible.
Brigindo: With your last two sentences you very eloquently summed up my feelings on the contention between the two.
Dr. Isis: Thanks! I figured that my blog was a more appropriate outlet for my own thoughts.
Silver Fox: I just saw an older episode of Star Trek:TNG and thought the same thing!
UR: I do have friends of mine that pray to the Crystallography Gods… and it seems to work 🙂
Jenn, PhD: Thank you very much!
Psycgirl: Even in psychology? That surprises me, a little bit. I’d think that religion would be a bit more allowable subject. Still, it does make sense.
Academic: Well, I have allowed my religion to stay out of my science (and vice versa). Still, I’ll agree with you on the polarization of the two views. I whole-heartedly agree with “Every epistemological system has its good, bad, and ugly parts.”
Heather J.: Thanks! I wasn’t quite sure how this post would go down. I’m quite happy that I don’t have the traffic that Dr. Isis does (at least in this particular case)!