Why do most people of "faith" have a problem in believing in Science?

Question

Isn't Science at it's heart, the search for the truth. To observe and understand the natural nature of the Universe. If we discover truths about the Cosmos, then how can that be argued against? That sounds like to me the same arguement along time again, that the Earth was the center of the Universe.

Answer 1

It has the potential to shake their faith.

Answer 2

I am a Christian. I have no problem with science overall, but you have to remember there are literally hundreds of different types of sciences that are practiced throughout the world, such as astronomy, medicine, geology, etc.

The big problem that I suspect most people have is the idea that a small group of scientists practice a dishonest type of science; i.e., they postulate a theory and then go to find the evidence that supports their theory. True science, on the other hand, gathers the evidence, looks at all the possibilities and comes up with an answer that ALL of the evidence supports. This is how true scientific discovery is made.

The THEORY of evolution is a prime example of this. A small group of scientists start with the premise: "I know there is no God, so there must be another explanation for creation." This relatively small science, in comparison with all other sciences, have been looking for evidence to support their theory for more than 150 years but have found none.

In other fields of science where evidence is gathered first, there have been so many true scientific discoveries in the last 150 years that to even sit down and enumerate the scientific discoveries of even the last ten years would take ten years.

I mean, think about it? How does a scientist ask a question and then disclude a viable possibility, such as creation, and totally ignore the evidence that exists to support it, like Entropy, the second law of Thermodynamics?

Why don't you take a look at what some real scientists have to say about evolution and the laws of the universe:

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html

At the very least, it will show you the other side of that coin.

Rebecca

Answer 3

That's a complicated question that requires a long debate to be accurately addressed. I can only offer my opinion as a scientist.

Science and religion have been separated by many factors, not the least of which is the principle of falsifiability--in other words, for something to be considered scientific, it must be possible to prove it false. That's the danger of string theory--there's no way to test it currently, so there's no way to prove it wrong.

Science has an annoying tendency to prove the Bible wrong...and religion has been perhaps the single biggest barrier to scientific progress in the history of humanity. One famous example being Copernicus and Galileo supporting the (very true) heliocentric theory. Evolution is another example--and by the way, no matter what anyone with a Ph.D. from Berkeley, Princeton, Harvard, or any other famous college might try to convince you of, evolution a fact. I hate to say it, I hate to be so absolute (because science is rarely absolute), but evolution is a fact. Anyone who has seen the evidence for evolution and creationism, compared them critically, and talked to the experts knows this. There are few things of which scientists are surer. There are no gaps in the fossil record, no matter how many people might say there are.

People who are religious have a hard time accepting that the bible might be wrong because many believe the bible is inerrant--without error. I think this is really quite sad. If God hadn't wanted humans to question, learn, discover, and grow, he shouldn't have made us capable of such things. That's his fault, not ours.

The truth that science searches for is not a comforting truth; it is not a truth with a happy ending or a safe haven at the end of a long, dark road. It is not encouraging, it is not uplifting. Science shows us how perilous our lives truly are, that we are hurdling through space on a lifeboat with limited resources we are quickly using up. It shows the loneliness of our existence, the extreme heat and cold that, if we were but a little closer or a little further from the sun, would be our fate. In science we have no heaven to comfort the good, no hell to punish the wicked. There is no justice, just probability. And those are difficult things for people to accept under the best of circumstances. People need hope. Religion can give that--science often does not.

Discovering the truth about the universe does not make us the center of the universe at all. Understanding the universe does not mean we own it, or that we are of any consequence. As far as we know, older races in other solar systems or galaxies could have figured everything out long before we will. In fact, as most astronomers will tell you, the further out you look the smaller we appear to be, the least significant blue speck circling a small yellow-dwarf main-sequence star of no importance.

Faith teaches us to believe without question. Science teaches us to question our beliefs. Ultimately that is the difficulty in believing in both.

Answer 4

Because, at heart, faith-based beliefs are not provable by the scientific method.

The scientific method is:
1. Define a hypothesis: Make a statement about the universe.
2. Experiment or observe to prove or disprove your hypothesis.
3. If you prove it, the hypothesis is correct. If it fails, it was incorrect, and you make a new statement based on your observations.

You cannot experiment on matters of faith. Something provable by the scientific method must be repeatable and provable.

Most of the argument against science is bound up in the word "theory", as in "its just a theory". But a theory in the scientific method is a fact that has been tested repeatedly and NEVER failed. Explained mathematically so that it can be predicted and repeated, and its a Law.

Sometimes it takes time. Newton's Law of Gravity withstood until Einstein (well over a century). Failure of a Law or Theory under special circumstances (which relativity is) simply limits the application of the previous step. Newton's laws, although "disproved" by Einstein mathematically, still are taught to generations of mechanical engineers, because for 99% of their work, it's accurate to within the error they can tolerate. Electrical engineers have to use Einstein's equations instead, because everything they do is done at near light speed.

So old "disproved" laws don't just disappear. Scientific knowledge doesn't go just get thrown out or overturned, just flawed hypotheses that don't make the grade, like Lysenkoism, phrenology, and, regrettably to fundamentalists, creationism.

Creationism is where the animosity is at. It's hard to argue against Einstein when GPS and satellite communications don't work without it. But it's easy to argue against Evolution because it's hard to view in the lab and crosses so many disciplines (geology, anthro, archeo, nuclear, biology, etc) and is largely argued for by observational rather than (repeatable) experimental methods

When modern scientists argue that Darwinism was wrong (versus the modern THEORIES), they are laughed at because the fundamentalists think they're proving the whole thing wrong. But science doesn't abandon old theories... it refines, improves, and re-examines.

Answer 5

Personally I feel that depending upon your system of faith, science can compliment your faith quite well. It is typically the more stringent and dogmatic religions that have a problem with anything that even remotely challenges what their divine figure said.

Back when I was an atheist I used to get in to religious debates all the time with people. Most of them ended up expressing to me that the reason they got so aggravated and defensive was because I was making them question their faith and asking questions they didn't have the answers to.

That is in it's self another very valid answer. Most people that claim to be devout followers of a faith have little knowledge of what it is about. I found that the people I could sit down with and argue my points or ask my questions without defensive or just down right rude attitudes were the priests, ministers, etc.

Answer 6

I'm a "person of faith.", indeed I hope that I more than just that in my daily life. I'm also student studying astrophysics in college. And I have never had trouble with the two, or else I'd be doing something else.

I don't see it as believing in Science, I see it as using science and the seems to be plenty of room for both religion and science in my life. Religion means more to me, but that doesn't mean I use it as my science, it just has a more central role in my life.

My guess is misunderstandings, on both parts are the cause of most conflicts.There needs to be better dialog, better education on both sides. This might clear up many problems, not all of them, as for some people both religious and both scientific there remain conflicts between the two in what they believe about each. You have noted what may be the greatest philosophical challenge of our times, and it is something that is going to need to be adressed in the coming years bit by bit.

If science explains the universe as we see it and God made the universe, then there is nothing that we will find that can remove Him from the picture. All we can do is appreciate more what He has done in creating the universe. One way I look at it is that "Wonder is a kind of desire for knowledge," so that if in wondering about the universe we are desiring know more about it by using our gifts to appreciate it, then it must remain at its core an act of love of God who is the source of what we are studying.

Answer 7

Faith by definition is believing in something without proof. So, they don't want proof of anything too brain wracking in their lives. Ignorance is bliss as the saying goes. Guess they like to be ignorant of things. I was brought up Catholic (or as I like to use Robert Heinlein's term: cathoholic, cause we always had to go so much), but then I got an education in science and history. After reading up on the Church's history with people like Bruno and Galileo, I decided to believe more in science than any ideas created on a whim by great businessmen. And, when you stop and think on it, religion is simply the most successful business in history. It's made more total money than any other enterprise ever.
So, personally, I belive there is a "creator". But, I also believe there hasn't been a religion invented on a whim yet that defiens that creator correctly.

Answer 8

Not all people of "faith", as you say, have a problem believing in science. We just have a problem with certain scientists who try to spread a theory that can in no way be logically backed up. Plus, just because you hear something and it relates to science doesn't make it a fact, and we understand that. You must also pay attention to who it is coming from, that makes a big difference, too. Faith can also be scientifically backed up, the two go hand in hand. Therefore, most people with faith believe in it because it is backed up with scientific evidence.

Answer 9

First off, there is no "scientific conspiracy" to disprove the existence of "God." If His purported son showed up tomorrow and started moving mountains around with a wave of his hands, I assure you scientists of every stripe would be keenly interested in such an event. On the flip side, you have religious minded people that really don't want to know, for example, that ever since the Big Bang, there was nothing more for the "Creator" to do. It all works just fine without any help.

Answer 10

Imagine that you had been told something over, and over, and over... repeatedly, for years on end... ever since you were a child.
As people that you knew and trusted told you this, you don't have any reason to question what you are being told because everybody says its true, so it must be. Now someone comes along and says "oh no, that's not true, and here's the historical proof of it". Would you want to pick up that book to find out that all the beliefs you held dear for all those years were based on something that wasn't true at all? The reason people believe what they believe is simply because it is what they want to believe, and for many of them, that is all that matters, so trying to tell them that something they believe is not true is not worth the effort. They can believe anything that they want to believe, but if they are interfering with a reasonable degree of my freedom, then they are religious tyrants and should be dealt with accordingly.

Answer 11

I dont know why for sure, but it seems to me that if you believe in an almighty creator that you would believe it entirely possible that he created every aspect of science, even evolution and we are just the people that find out about it out of curiosity. Why cant people with "faith" just look at science and say "wow now I understand how god did all that stuff! and it makes him even more amazing" I dont believe in god but that doesnt mean that its because of science, and I dont discount the possibility that there is a god, because for all I know all the discoveries science could just end up being creations of god that doesnt make me disbelieve in science, but rather makes me believe it even more. I mean I dont care how all the creatures and flora and fauna of the earth were created, I just enjoy learning as much as I can about the miracles and diversity of the natural world, science is just that...it is learning about everything and how it works and why. We cant prove there is a god or not, but you shouldnt let faith keep you from learning about and believing in science, and you shouldnt let lack of faith keep you from learning about and believing there might be a god who created every aspect of science.