I keep on being confronted with the argument that my expectation that a scientific theory will work on any given day is actually an act of faith. Equivalent to the faith that keeps religion on the go. So, for all those that do see a similarity, read on.
Most people trust artefacts whose inner workings elude them utterly. A mobile phone, for instance. If you do not have a scientific background, a mobile phone is indeed a piece of magic. You could argue that its use constitutes an act of faith. Follow the little ceremony described in the manual, and it will perform. Again and again. Miracle indeed. So why not equate the faith of a religion with the faith in the “theories” of science used to make a phone? Well, it is because the mobile phone just works. Predictably. Reliably. No faith needed. Solid, repeatable science translated by solid engineering into a solid artefact. All based on reason. And on the odd day when this little miracle stops working, don’t assume that the science has stopped working. Just pick up another phone and hey, presto! Science calls this proof.
The science of electromagnetic radiation, quantum physics, chemistry and other disciplines used to create the mobile phone is no different from the science of cosmology, palaeontology, biochemistry and the rest. Each of these disciplines produces scientific theories in which the considerable “faith” in them is not misplaced. This is because of a very profound difference between a belief in a scientific theory and the belief in a religion. If a scientific theory is proven wrong or inadequate, then the scientific community simply updates or replaces the theory and moves on. Wrong means it does not work, or cannot be repeated by another scientist or has been superseded by a more accurate theory. Right means we can build mobile phones using the theory. Millions of them. And these “theories” are not vindictive. Or given to changing on a whim. Or granted only to believers. They really are utterly impartial and they deliver reliably. Delivery gives rise to the faith we have in them. Without faith, we still have delivery.
This is just not the same as the unquestioning faith prescribed by many religions. Here, faith gives rise to “delivery” rather than the other way around. No proof needed. The delivery is also not all that reliable. Just ask these guys. A faith is only seen as “wrong” by adherents to different faiths, so there is little opportunity for incremental correction. And worst of all, religions do not inherently accommodate questioning of their central beliefs. In religion, the non-believer is expected to provide the dis-proof, where the scientific theory must be proven by its apologist. Not at all the same thing.
So, if you feel the urge ever to equate the two, just pick up a mobile phone
Great post Dave. Have you read any of Sam Harris’s books? I’m currently busy with “The End of Faith”, a great read indeed.
“The End of Faith” is next on my purchase list. I have read and greatly enjoyed “The God Delusion” and “Climbing Mount Improbable” so “The End of Faith” is a logical next read. Thanks for reminding me!
Nice explanation of scientific theory and the adaptability (dare I mention ‘evolution’?) of the theory and scientists in general. Next time I have to explain the difference between religious faith and scientific (temporal) trust/acceptance, I’ll just point the sheeple here.
I have now read Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith”. I was really fascinated by what he has to say, particularly his take on mysticism given his outright rejection of faith. It complements Dawkin’s book in that it focusses more on moral and ethical considerations as well as meditation and associated philosophical implications, something Dawkins avoids completely. He is rather rough on even the moderate proponents of faith (I think moderates may be a stepping stone to break humanity of its faith fetish), but I buy his basic premise. We can get everything we need without resorting to faith, and we loose a great deal if we allow faith anywhere near our daily doings. Just take a look at George Bush or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both lobotomised by faith.
Hi! Great post! This is kinda me saying I discovered your blog.
Yea, the moderates… I have an extended family that I could label “fundamentalists”. My parents might be labelled “moderates”? And the church they attend, is a “good” one (if one assumes there exists “good” churches - “good” churches believe you should doubt, you should ask questions…?)
I also think that “good religion” (again, assuming there exists a “good” religion, else just call it “moderate” religion?), might possibly be one of the best or most successful ways out of fundamentalism, for the fundamentalists. I’m just not convinced that hard-hitting “militant/extreme” atheism is an effective strategy - then again, it differs from person to person, and hard-hitting atheism might just “save” some people. It won’t influence my extended family though… which is why I’ve been pondering what “good religion” would have to be.
On another front, I just cannot decide whether “belief in a higher power” should be considered harmful or not. Some people do derive great benefits from such a belief, it can be a good influence in their lives. OTOH, it can also be dangerous… sigh
Hi Hugo
Congratulations on having moved into the light (not this blog!) but away from religion. I have recently become more of the opinion that religion is actually harmful because it really builds an artificial wall in peoples heads that prevents the rather profound and majestic reality of our existence from entering ones conciousness. Denying this majesty is actually evil.
Thanks! It was an interesting and weird journey. For a very long time I was on the edge of the shadow, not really certain which side of the line I “should be”, or something stupid. This year I was still flirting with the shadow, wondering what lurks there, maybe due to caring about friends and family? The last step was to stop being intrigued, to “stop caring”, to turn my back on shadow, and run free in the sun.
Once I have developed a nice tan, am in good shape, I can still grab a flashlight every now and then, and go for brief excusions in the dark, looking for people that are keen to stretch their legs and run across the sun-lit fields.
Of course, flashlight selection is important. Too bright a light will only scare people away. Sometimes a candle works best, sometimes you need to work in the moonlight…
Hmm, I might be over-extending this metaphor…
(Of course, some people are simply happier in the shadow. I suppose that’s fine, as long as they don’t spread darkness, and allow other people, including their kids, the freedom to go play in the sun…)