So just to be clear, there are two axioms we’re talking about here:
A mind-independent world exists that can be explored using our senses and reason.
The only form of knowledge is that which is obtained by investigation of the mind-independent world with our senses and reason.
I agree that axiom 1) is necessary for science. We both agree that it is untestable (which is why it is an axiom). However, I’m talking about 2) now. How do you know that 2) is true? How do you test that there is no other knowledge other than “that obtained by investigation of the mind-independent world with our senses and reason”?
EDIT: I would also like to add that theology, strictly speaking, doesn’t necessarily violate 2), as 2) applies to much more than just the natural sciences and the strict, quantitative scientific method. Many theologians believe that natural theology is possible - i.e. it is possible to deduce the existence of God based on observations of nature, logic, and basic metaphysical principles. In today’s language, we wouldn’t call this “scientific evidence”, but they are not purely intuitive or subjective or vague ways to reason about God - more like “philosophical evidence”.
I don’t think there is an axiom 2. If you would like to propose another sort of knowledge (or, more correctly, another way of gaining knowledge), we could consider it. But why is that other way, whatever it is, apparently not usable in science?
On the other hand, if natural theology is possible using only the methods of science, I’d like to see that done. I would agree that it’s possible, but the results would not be positive for God.
I’ve been thinking about this for a bit. I think I disagree with the “acting as” part of the question.
When I’m working in the lab, I’m doing science, and when I’m at church I’m practicing my faith, but I think of myself as being both a scientist and a Christian 24/7. Sometimes different questions (how? vs why?) lend themselves to different methods and different language. Sometimes it’s the same question (what does it mean to be human?), but different types of answers (genetics vs. relationships). But, going off of Alister McGrath, I feel like being both a Christian and a scientist gives an enriched view of reality compared to either science or faith alone. I don’t feel like, at least for me, it’s all that compartmentalized in terms of having significantly different belief systems or axioms or assumptions.
Replace “acting as” by whatever you like. The process of doing science and the process of doing religion (doing theology? gaining religious beliefs?) appear to use quite different and incompatible assumptions. That’s what I’m saying.
How? And how are the axioms similar? Science credits neither revelation nor faith.
Different, probably. Incompatible, I hope not, otherwise all the great scientists throughout history and today who happen to be Christians are in quite a pickle. I’m not really sure what assumptions are involved, do you? I think people are probably pretty bad at assessing their own assumptions, it kind of defeats the purpose (you know, assuming).
I think science certainly has its own versions of revelation and faith, maybe that’s a starting point for compatibility.
Science seems to rely on the idea that nature has something to reveal. Of course in theology the revelation is different, but I think the central features of discovery, intelligibility, and reponse are found in both the scientific and Christian versions of revelation.
As to faith, as a grad student I sure had to have a lot of faith too. I had to have faith that if I followed the “rules of science”, I’d get something reliable out. That meant I had to have faith in my data, that it was correct and that I understood it. I had to have faith in my professors, that what they were teaching was correct and useful.
So, of course there are (significant) differences between “processes”, but there are also similarities which I think help keep each other in check and help support each other – which is why I call them “enriching”.
I’m not sure I could exactly list the axioms of science and Christian faith, at least explicit or intentional ones. I suppose for science I might say the intelligibility, coherence, and constancy of the universe might be a good start. Those don’t seem incompatible with Christianity at all, quite the contrary. I suppose for Christian faith the existence of God, his sovereignty and power, and his desire to reveal himself to humanity would maybe be examples. None of those seem incompatible with science, though they don’t seem to be necessary for science.
So I feel at least, that science is great, but it’s even better from a Christian perspective. I don’t think that takes anything away from science at all, but it should excite the Christian to learn more.
No problem: compartmentalization. Render unto Newton the things that are Newton’s.
You can say that only by radically changing the meanings of those words from those used in religion, and I object to that.
Go on. What do you mean?
OK, but how? Why?
Of axioms? They don’t seem necessary and unnecessary axioms are the sort of thing one should avoid. These “axioms” seem like something one could test empirically, and thus shouldn’t be axioms but hypotheses.
It would seem to me that the way to solve this is to not use religious assumptions in science and to not use scientific assumptions in religion. Even as an atheist, I still use non-scientific assumptions in my relationships with other people, and in parts of my worldview. I also embrace the subjective and emotional nature of those assumptions and understand them for what they are. I think it is entirely human to have subjective and objective pieces within our worldviews since we are both a rational and emotional species.
These ideas seem to strain the concept of faith to the breaking point, IMHO. At least for me, I don’t trust any of my results. Doubting your methods and data is part and parcel of the process, and I don’t have confidence in my results until those doubts have been quelled by testing and controls. I don’t view the process of science as having parallels in religious faith, but this is my opinion and others are free to disagree.
At the same time, I can see how christian scientists can view the wonder of nature through the lens of their christian faith.
The Nicene Creed comes to mind. It is the only list of beliefs I know of that encapsulates the shared beliefs of christians.
I’m sure it varies from person to person, but a couple examples:
I think the value placed on ethics, serving the common good, and humility found in Christianity are useful to doing science.
I think the value placed on persistence, skepticism (especially of yourself), shared knowledge, and egalitarianism in science are useful for the Church.
To me it’s wonderful to spend a day in the lab or classroom obsessing over details and then to just pause, sit back, and marvel at it all. It can be a very worshipful experience and I think Christianity’s ability to tie things together, the good and the bad, and to give hope, is a wonderful thing. People should love science and part of why I think that is because it reveals more about the Creator and it can give hope that things can be different in our world.
I think you’re misunderstanding me, as @swamidass said. That’s my bad, I wasn’t very clear. What I was getting as was very similar to what you described. Faith, to me, is trust based on experience over time.
So, as a 1st year grad student, I had little faith or confidence in my work. I once read a description of science as “starting off stupid, and getting yourself un-stupid” and I felt it. But if we only worked with already well-studied and throughly vetted hypotheses/theories, then well, we’re not doing science. We have to build a body of knowledge that we’re confident in, and reach out, trusting our training and previous experience to lead us on. Certainly we verify and play devil’s advocate with our own data and interpretations, but I don’t see that as much different than the Christian walk, to be honest.
I know that I do things differently in the lab than in my faith-life, but I see more differences in the goals and methods than I do in the assumptions. I think part of that is that nobody really thinks about their assumptions much. I don’t rehearse “the scientific method” before I go to the lab, and I don’t write down all my philosophical assumptions in my lab notebook at the start of each experiment. I just go in and do what I was trained to do. But, as in science and theology, I could also just be wrong I hope I’m doing that less the more I go through life.
And I didn’t claim it was particular to Christianity. To be clear, I never claimed that Christianity was necessary for science or was the only way science could be “enriched” by interaction with faith. I do think Christianity is the best framework to understand the context and purpose of science, but that’s opinion.
Again, I don’t doubt that atheists can marvel, but I think Christianity gives additional contexts, not accessible to atheists. That was my point.
To me, science reveals a creator who is patient, creative, and relational. He also seems maddeningly subtle and distant at times but then incredibly faithful too. I would guess that’s not super helpful for you but that’s what comes to my mind.
You seem to use definitions of these terms that us as religious scientists don’t.
If you work off of these definitions as you are, I think it is no wonder we would end up thinking there are fundamentally different assumptions in science vs religion.
It depends on the definitions being used. I don’t think the definition you are using is actually very charitable to the beliefs of religious scientists. I suspect that these definitions would restrict us from respecting why scientists have any confidence in the scientific method in the first place; no doubt, not all of us are comfortable taking the reliability of the scientific method as an untestable axiom
I think many of us here would say that faith, intuition and revelation are routinely used in science. However, it seems that you have disagreed with us on the basis that they are incompatible by definition. So far your argument just seems to be saying that we are being inconsistent by definition. But, so long as we reject your definitions, we have no reason to accept your argument that we are being inconsistent and dealing with psychological tension.
Again, you’re the one making the charge here. This entire thread is about you making claims about our psychological states.
What arguments do you have, if any, that your definitions for terms relating to our religious commitments are the ones we should be embracing?
Sure. Here’s my rudimentary understanding - criticisms welcomed:
How did mathematics and statistics come to be?
They were reasoned from intuitions about how the world works. For example, Set theory, which does not contain any reference to the properties of physical objects, explains why sums such as 2 + 2 are equal to 4. This knowledge was derived from certain assumptions about the relation between objects (in general), that themselves came from our intuitions about how the world works.
Why think that the results of our statistical models are valid?
Because we have faith in the models underlying assumptions’. Specifically, we trust (a component of faith) that they are a rough match of the variability in the data for the observed phenomena, and also that the variability in the data of the observed phenomena will be a true reflection of the actual nature for the phenomena of interest (the other component of faith here, is that we are confident our trust in the assumption is warranted in that it corresponds to the actual state of the world).
I would say that Faith in this respect is equally applied to the kinds of axioms you have been discussing with @dga471. If we don’t have faith in our axioms (trust that they are valid, and true of the world, and have some seemingly good reasons for thinking it to be both valid and true of the world), then anything that follows from them can’t be used in the pursuit of knowledge - scientific, or not.
With respect to revelation, my understand has been that this broadly refers to gaining true information from other minds. For a proposition to be considered revelation is for it to have been revealed to us by another person. For revelation to be considered knowledge, we need to have good reasons for thinking that the source is reliable at giving us true information.
In this respect, science relies on revelation insofar as it relies on scientific journals as a means to communicate the results of scientific investigations.
@John_Harshman I don’t actually understand faith, intuition or revelation according to what you seem to understand about them. But based on what I have spelled out here, are you able to explain how there are irreconcilable differences when using these things in science versus religion?
The doubt here is measured, though. It’s not just a raw scepticism towards our data. To gain confidence, we need to make sure that the assumptions of our models aren’t being violated, and that we are acknowledging any limitations in any comparisons we are making.
From what I can tell, the faith that @Jordan is referring to here has to do with the reasons that underlie this entire process of collecting and analyzing data. Specifically, it would include faith in the validity of our chosen models, but more broadly, the canons of science itself (e.g. determinism and causality). Violation of any of these things would be problematic for our scientific conclusions, and as individuals we can’t test many of these things with science. Even for many of the things we could test in some way (e.g. using reason), most of us probably don’t have the skills or time to do so (e.g. we might not have enough training in mathematics or philosophy of science to make these assessments).
The question is whether science can be enriched by interaction with faith in any way it can’t be enriched by interaction with non-faith. Do you have a reason for thinking that Christianity is a better framework than any other (including no religion at all)?
What contexts? How are such contexts useful in a way not accessible to atheists?
I don’t claim that intuition is useless in science. I claim that it’s not a way of determining truth. Intuition is fine as a source of hypotheses, but those hypotheses need to be rigorously tested, and intuition has no part in that. It has been claimed, on the other hand, that intuition is a way of determining truth in religion.
No, because we have ways of testing the underlying assumptions as applied to data. People apply invalid tests all the time, and they get dinged for it in review.
Perhaps. Intuition is a tool used in science but it isn’t a way of determining truth, as it’s claimed to be in religion. I don’t think faith is nothing more than trust; it’s a leap into the dark, trust in the absence of evidence. Science of course doesn’t work without trust, but it also doesn’t work without verification. I take revelation to refer not just to communication from anyone but to communication specifically from God. As that communication can’t be tested (God won’t give us his data; we have in fact no assurance that he exists at all), it’s not relevant to determining truth.
Exactly. Which means that we don’t need faith in those models. Confidence and faith are distinct.
Probably not many. I don’t think it is surprising that an atheist would have differences of opinion with theists when it comes to the subjective nature of religion.
All I am saying is that even atheists (including atheist scientists) have subjectivity in their worldview, and there is nothing wrong with that.
I hope I’m doing that less the more I go through life.