Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: February 26, 2015 05:48PM
A similar opinion about science has been expressed by a number of scientists, and in fact, this article is generally correct in stating that science proceeds initially by "some kind of faith." Science does not get off the ground without "faith" in the application of physical law, and faith that the "scientific method" will reveal information about ultimate reality as applied to a particular research program. Sometimes the starting point is little more than a hunch, or intuition. However, important distinctions are minimized in the article, as revealed in the following paragraph:
“The truth about science,” Steane writes, is that “it flourishes when scientists show faith in their theories: they embrace them because they are beautiful, and they put up some resistance to abandoning them. They take seriously serious counter-evidence, but they require it to prove its credentials.”
COMMENT: Although there are certainly "pet" scientific theories that become entrenched without sufficient supporting evidence, science generally and eventually, modifies or abandons such theories when faced with inconsistent evidence. Religion, on the other hand, does NOT take seriously counter-evidence. It is dominated by faith, whereas science is dominated by reason and evidence, after exercise of "a kind of faith" in their proposed theory, established scientific principles, and the reliability of supporting data.
"Thus, Steane argues, the neat division that some claim to see between reason and science on the one hand and, on the other, religious faith and irrationality, is largely illusion. “Faith of some kind is not optional,” he says. “We only get to choose what we put our faith in.”
COMMENT: I agree that faith "of some kind" is not optional in science. However, what a scientist chooses to put his or her faith in is ultimately based upon data, evidence and reason. Religion is fundamentally a faith in God, without any reliable methodology to determine whether ultimately that faith can be relied upon or is misplaced.
So, although this article was somewhat misleading, the fact that it was written by a Mormon apologist, or that a Christian scientist is acknowledging a role for faith in science, is not sufficient to label it nonsense.