I'm A Believer
This research is a few years old, but I think it still applies:
When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll.
Many would shake their heads at this, but, in some ways, I admire the respondents' honesty. Deeply held beliefs (and not just religious ones) are fairly resistant to fact-based arguments.
On the other hand, I wonder if these people truly understood the question. I think many of them have already heard of scientific claims that go against their beliefs, and have accepted the (often atrocious) arguments against these claims. I think a follow-up is in order for those who say they'd hold on to their religious views. Something like "this isn't a claim that a scientist is making that you believe can be disproved, this is evidence so compelling that you are convinced it's correct."
posted by LAGuy @ 12:11 AM
10 Comments:
I'm not sure what kind of scientific proof you are talking about. Are you suggesting a proof that disproves a side belief (say like that the earth is only 6000 years old) or a proof debunking the central tenant of a belief system (God created the universe)?
The former, of course, already exists. And to discount the scientific proof, one has to assume God (or maybe Satan) created the scientific evidence that contradicts the belief (for what purpose remains a mystery).
But I can't imagine what scientific proof could ever disprove the fundamental belief of religion. Science can never answer the ultimate question of "why" things are the way they are, science answers the question "how" they got the way they are. Even if aliens arrived and said (with some proof - a video I guess) "we planted life on earth 1 Billion years ago," this would not answer questions like who created the aliens (and why). Or some religions might decide the aliens are the God (gods) they always believed in, and accept their explanation of why everything is. At this point religion and science would merge, because the creator would be available to study and ask questions of.
I like the movie "Contact." I haven't read the book by Carl Sagan, but from what I've read, the book is more attuned to Sagan's atheist stance. The film, which was produced under the control of his widow, seems to me to come to an opposite conclusion from the book. Yes, there is other life out there, but it doesn't explain everything (in fact it barely explains anything). Science does not provide all the answers, and life is better when you are prepared to believe there's more out there than anyone can know (Jodie Foster is happier at the end of the film).
Throughout history, religion has answered a lot of "what" and "how" questions. In fact, I'd say it's common that cultures have religions so that they can answer these questions (which, at the time, they have no other way of answering). Furthermore, in getting to a lot of the "why" questions, they offer a lot of "what" and "how" answers.
Are these "side beliefs"? I guess they are today, now that we have better methods of discovering these answers, and religion can retreat to the "why" questions, rather than testable claims.
"What We Believe But Cannot Prove" ed. by John Brockman is an interesting book from a couple years asking 100 intellectuals (but mainly scientists) what they believed on faith or without asking. Interesting responses in that most stay away from religion and many assert certain scientific beliefs (i.e. that haven't been proven yet)
Believing something based on the best evidence available, even though the evidence is incomplete, is not the same thing as having religious faith regarding miraculous stories for which there's no good evidence.
LA Guy wrote: On the other hand, I wonder if these people truly understood the question. I think many of them have already heard of scientific claims that go against their beliefs, and have accepted the (often atrocious) arguments against these claims. I think a follow-up is in order for those who say they'd hold on to their religious views. Something like "this isn't a claim that a scientist is making that you believe can be disproved, this is evidence so compelling that you are convinced it's correct."
I interpreted the question like you did, but an alternate interpretation is possible. To be unambiguous, the word "scientists" needs to be eliminated. As a Christian, I think the question "What would you do if it were proven to you -- or you were somehow convinced -- that your beliefs were wrong?" That's a profound question. On the other hand, 98% of scientists have repeatedly asserted that the purview of science does not extend to the areas in which my religious beliefs exist. (Dawkins is in the 2%, of course.) If the 98% are right, then the question makes no sense with the word "scientists" included.
Analogously, asking someone "What would you do if you learned with certainty that your spouse doesn't love you?" is a powerful question. Asking "What would you do if scientists proved that your spouse doesn't love you?" makes it silly.
New England Guy wrote: "What We Believe But Cannot Prove" ed. by John Brockman is an interesting book from a couple years asking 100 intellectuals (but mainly scientists) what they believed on faith or without asking.
Sadly, most scientists have never taken a course on the philosophy of science. There are several unproven (and very likely unprovable) axioms that all scientists hold. Faced with an explanation of these axioms, scientists generally admit this, but they don't realize it on their own.
For example, "Unobserved things are (generally) similar to observed things." This is not only unproven, but actually unprovable. Test a million leaves for chlorophyll and you find chlorophyll in every one of them. Then this axiom lets you conclude by a very strong inductive argument that there is chlorophyll in all the other leaves that look like the ones you tested. If this axiom were false, you couldn't make any such induction. And you can't prove the axiom by observing more leaves: because no matter how many you observe, the category of "unobserved things" remains.
Scientists who understand such philosophical issues concede that their worldview makes a number of such assumptions. They are all reasonable and sensible, and Kant would say our brains are hardwired to believe them. But that doesn't change the fact that they are accepting things without proof.
I question if studying the philosophy of science would help scientists. I suppose they'd learn a few things and then just go back to doing science.
A lot of people who get into the philosophy of science, and epistemology in general, may be asking interesting questions, but don't really get especially useful results. In fact, it's hard not to suspect some of those who go on quite a bit about how some things are unknowable have a case of science-envy. Hard sciences seem to be the one branch of the academy that gives solid answers, answers that can be tested and that can be trusted. Meanwhile, everyone else is theorizing and joining the latest school, without coming to any conclusions (and not getting the admiration of the public for their research). The same goes for religious people who worry about how uncertain their beliefs are, and so love to say "[fill in the blank] requires just as much faith" as whatever religion they believe. Maybe, but people everywhere are willing to put their lives on the line by flying in an airplane, or taking medicine, or doing all others sorts of things based on technological applications of science, while they're not usually so willing to pray something will work out and leave it at that.
I recall hearing a story--it might be from Richard Feynman--about a scientist who, whenever someone brought up the philosophy a science would bring out a paper from his doctor excusing him from discussing the subject for health reasons.
People's religious beliefs regularly push up against actual facts. The most obvious example is evolution, but there are plenty of others. Therefore, it's perfetly rational to discuss scientists disproving religious beliefs.
I wasn't saying that studying philosophy of science would help scientists. And I don't deny that planes and bridges work, and that from this we can conclude that science and engineering really work.
My point was that if you examine why they work -- which is what philosophers of science do -- you will discover that it works precisely because scientists hold, with absolute certitude, certain specific beliefs that have never been proven.
Therefore, scientists are free to argue that they are superior to religious believers on the grounds that airplane travel is reliable and travel by levitation is not. But they cannot critize them on the grounds that religion is based on faith while science is based on logic and proof without faith -- because that's simply not true.
Of course, the scientist may say, "Fine, I do hold certain things on faith, but those are things that have been shown time and time again to be reliable and to make sense to my deepest instincts." That's completely reasonable. And it's exactly what reasonable religious believers say as well.
Anonymous wrote: People's religious beliefs regularly push up against actual facts. The most obvious example is evolution, but there are plenty of others. Therefore, it's perfetly rational to discuss scientists disproving religious beliefs.
That's correct, with respect to those things that fall in the overlap of science and certain religions. For example, certain denominations of Christianity and many groups of Orthodox Jews assert, on religious grounds, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. That's a claim that falls within the sphere of science (and which science has virtually disproved).
On the other hand, many religions make other claims, such as "The creator of the entire universe loves us and wants us to love each other". The vast majority of scientists agree that the truth or falsity of this statement does not lie within the purview of science.
Post a Comment
<< Home