Opinion
God must stay out of science
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Jim Allard:
- Tea parties missing ideological boat (April 15, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative ignores ideological objections (April 7, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative highway robbery (April 1, 2009)
- Climate change lectures suppress relevant debate (March 24, 2009)
- Cheaters graduate from college, go on to craft stimulus package (March 3, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Clashes between science and religion abound. We’ve witnessed religious doctrine in opposition to the science of stem cell research and evolution. We’ve seen parents withhold medical care in favor of mystical “cures.” We’ve seen the Terri Schiavo case, where, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, religious concerns sought to keep this brain-dead woman in a perpetual vegetative state.
None of these cases involve the explicit rejection of science per se; rather they are attempts to combine science and religion. By giving religion a “voice” in scientific matters or making religion the final arbiter of science, the common idea is that science and religion can work together.
This view has been promulgated by UW physicist Marshall Onellion, who offers a physics class on the alleged compatibility of science and religion. He explains his view as follows: “I was aggravated by society talking about science and religion like a football game where you have to pick sides and stick to those sides. I wanted to address the way I saw things — religion and science as complimentary.”
So does one have to pick sides? Are religion and science complimentary or diametrically opposed? To answer this question we first have to understand the essential nature of both science and religion.
Science is a method of discovering truths by experimentation. The root of all science is observation of reality, whether by direct observations, instruments or inferences from previous observations. Isaac Newton, for example, meticulously designed experiments to isolate and observe the phenomena he was trying to study. Only by doing this over a period of time and a wide range of phenomena was he able to abstract from his observations and arrive at a general theory.
Religion, on the other hand, rests on faith. Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. Faith requires no tie to observed facts nor a method of proof. As such, religion is free to make claims detached from nature — i.e., supernatural claims.
Despite a clear distinction between science and religion, many still see science and religion as compatible. But this is impossible.
To uphold science means to uphold it all the time.
Either scientists are committed to the facts, come what may, or they’re not. To abandon facts or entertain ideas for which they have no evidence is to abandon science. Even if a scientist is true to the facts 99 percent of the time and only occasionally throws in a supernatural premise or “conclusion” from the Bible, he or she is thoroughly unscientific. When he or she uses science conditionally on faith or feelings, science no longer determines the outcome. There is simply no way to determine when and if he or she will go by science or go by faith.
The need to choose between science and religion is illustrated in a lecture given last week by T. O. Shanavas, author of “Creation AND/OR Evolution.” Shanavas argued that evolution and Islam could be reconciled and quoted certain passages in the Quran that seemed to support evolution. But such a connection is irrelevant to science. It is of no consequence to science whether the Quran supports or denies evolution. The only standard, according to science, is whether evolution is supported by the facts.
A student was quoted saying that while she agreed with most of the talk, she felt the underlying theme that humans came from apes was unacceptable and that Shanavas should have chosen a “middle ground.”
But again, science isn’t about what people find acceptable; it’s about discovering the truth. Whether or not humans came from apes is a scientific question irrespective of what anyone finds acceptable.
What would it mean to seek a “middle ground” between science and one’s faith or feelings? It would mean going by the facts only when one’s feelings and beliefs allowed it. But science is needed especially when one’s feelings and beliefs seem contrary to the facts. It is at these times when rigorous adherence to scientific method is paramount. To go by science only when one feels like it is to undermine the very essence of science.
Science is not whatever scientists happen to do; it is a specific method of ensuring knowledge adheres to reality. Whereas science holds that truth is gained by observation and methodological diligence, religion holds that truth is gained by faith, revelation and supernatural intervention. And with players like these it’s imperative not only to pick sides, but to pick the right side and stick with it.
Jim Allard (jeallard@wisc.edu) is a graduate student in the biological sciences.
20 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Dear Diary:
I never dreamed I would say this but I agree with Jim.
“God must stay out of science”
Oh yeah? You wanna come up here and make me, chump? I put you into this world and I can take you out of it! COME ONE, BAD-ASS!! THINK YOUR ARM’S LONG ENOUGH TO BOX WITH ME?! DO YA?!! -God
Sounds great for a Brave New World. Some sort of value system must govern scientific ethics, otherwise eugenics, cloning, human harvests, and the like are inevitable.
Unlike last week when the title had absolutely nothing to do with the article, at least this weeks title was absolutely on target. However,the title selected tries to make it more controversial rather than educational. Science vs religion is a much better title than the one selected. No place in the article do you mention the word God.
Nice article, but I don’t think the examples you give in the opener relate to the gist of your argument. You argue that scientific findings should not be compromised by religious belief, which is totally different from being opposed to a certain procedure based on morals or creed.
Some of the scientific facts in the Terry Schiavo case. Doctors, nurses, and other people testified in court that Terry Schiavo communicated with them. It is a scientific fact that patients that can communicate with other people are not brain dead or in a perpetual vegetative state. It is a scientific fact that patients have been misdiagnose wrongly as being in a perpetual vegetative state 40% of the time when they where in fact not in a perpetual vegetative state. It is unfortunate that many of the above scientific facts in the Terry Schiavo case was not reported by the major news media. They where too busy presenting their religious beliefs (right to die) that they left out the very important scientific facts in the case. Randy
This article over-simplifies the entire issue, and seems to totally disregard religion by implying that it is the “wrong side.” While I do agree that science and religion seem to butt heads on many issues, it is possible to have religious beliefs without disregarding science.
Personally, I would agree that facts are facts, but also believe in the role that God has played and is playing making things the way they are.
Believe it of not Science and Religion can be friends if they learn to play nicely.
The problem with science is that it erodes ideas that were previously endorsed by the church; that’s why there’s religious opposition to “knowledge.”
If your understanding of “truth” is centered in faith rather than fact, then science is slowly destroying your religion. However, if your faith is centered in love rather than judgement, then you have no conflict with science.
Good points regarding the need for an ethical system governing science. I agree.
Although my focus was on science, my argument can be extended to ethics as well.
Ethics, like science, must be focused on reason and reality, not faith and the supernatural. Indeed, science cannot survive if faith and mystics are allowed to determine what “good” science is.
Science is only compatible with an ethics that is pro-reason and pro-reality.
“Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence.”
Another word that fits this definition, a hypothesis, which is where science starts with exploring something we seek to understand. Faith can be studied just the same and just because different religions incorporate supernatural or as yet unexplained phenonmenon doesn’t mean that with time we will never be able to explain them.
For once, by the grace of God (pun intended), I agree wholeheartedly with Jim Allard….God save me.
9:50 -
You don’t need religion to be moral, you fundie shithole. Nor do you know much about being moral.
Props, Jim.
human harvests. mmmmm. i’m gonna make me a good stick-to-your-ribs winter stew.
“Another word that fits [faith’s] definition, a hypothesis, which is where science starts with exploring something we seek to understand. Faith can be studied just the same and just because different religions incorporate supernatural or as yet unexplained phenonmenon doesn’t mean that with time we will never be able to explain them.”
A hypothesis is NOT without evidence or reason or logic or any of the other things that faith, by pure virtue of being faith, does not have. Religions can be studied, yes, and people have made attempts to study the affects of faith (like on your brain), but if anyone decided to accurately study your faith they would not get far.
When I say I believe in evolution or gravity or other tenets of science it’s because I know that they have been researched, tested, and provide accurate descriptions of how our world functions. If I said that I believe in God, it’s because I simply believe in Him, not because of any external factors.
Mr. Allard
You provide some strong arguments on behalf of defending science. Your one phrase, “To uphold science means to uphold it all the time,” to me seems to be very generic and cannot be applied in every situation. I am curious to which situations religion has upheld science. I am eager to defend the religious perspective, just as you are to defend the scientific perspective.
If you could also answer my second question, it would be much appreciated. What specific supernatural interventions did you have in mind that “give people faith”.
Thank you for all of your insights.
I won’t question Allard’s scientific credentials, but he has grossly mischaracterized religion and its understanding of science. He’s done this either deliberately for the convenience of his argument, or accidentially out of his profound ignorance of religion (something which, if he does not understand, he should not write about).
He remarks that “Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. Faith requires no tie to observed facts nor a method of proof.” Yet how can Allard’s view be reconciled with the teaching of the oldest and largest Christian Church in the world? The Catechism of the Catholic Church maintains the following: “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC, 159). Gregor Mendel (perhaps you’ve heard of him Allard — both famous scientist AND Catholic priest) is one excellent example of this harmony of faith and science.
Only the most arrogant of scientists think their method is the only avenue to truth.
Regarding the idea that Mr. Allard’s claim, “To uphold science is to uphold it all the time,” seems “generic,” a more proper term would be: principled.
“Either scientists are committed to the facts, come what may, or they’re not. To abandon facts or entertain ideas for which they have no evidence is to abandon science.”
The rejection and invention of facts (and the derivation of ideas from these) are anti-reason, and reason is the source of science.
Man uses his mind to acquire and apply knowledge. Science is how we gain knowledge about the natural world - through a process beginning always with observation, then induction and verification. By definition, the “super-natural,” is unknowable. Faith is not an alternative means of knowing, it is a license to ignore the knowledge reason ascertains, and to uphold as true what it does not.
With regard to another inquiry made by the same person: Mr. Allard clearly rejects the very notion of the supernatural. He says nothing of faith being inspired by “supernatural interventions,” only that science cares not for the rationalized support of its opposite.
i dont give a f what you think about science, so i didn’t read the article. but what i do know is that the endless ladder that we ascend in our self-copulating endeavor to decode everything in life is f’ing stupid, void of soul, but ultimately does nothing to aid the human condition except give us something to do (and rape the earth [then figure out ways to unrape it once we realized how we raped it in the ascension of a couple rungs (that we did in a self-copulating manner in the first place)]). So there. That’s what i think about your science.
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. -1Corinthians 1:18
I am an engineering major AND a Catholic. I KNOW that I can be a person of strong faith and guided by the principles I have obtained through faith yet still be an unbiased scientist. I suggest that any comment this columnist has made is erroneous. You, sir, are obviously a scientist but not a Christian. How can you even form an opinion (you claim to be reasonable and have a superior thought process to us religious folk)without having once thought of this from the Christian view? You immediately discredit religion and have obviously never read the Bible. That should be a good source of information for your next offensive column.
Also, a past comment is correct. You don’t mention God at all in this article. And what is this about “supernatural” and “mystics”? That’s certainly not the Christianity I know…