Faith Vs. Science
Blogger, scientist and militant atheist PZ Myers recently wrote about an ongoing argument between fellow atheist Christopher Hitchins and a Christian pastor named Douglas Wilson. He quotes Wilson as saying:"It's not a question of whether we have faith, it's what we have faith in. Christopher has faith in the role of scientific inquiry, rational inquiry. He has faith in that process. Christopher is as much a man of faith as I am."
Myers goes on to rant (rightfully so) that science does not equal faith, but commenter "Dr. I. Needtob Athe" hits the nail on the head with this:
"Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, but one believes in scientific, rational inquiry due to the overwhelming evidence that consists of the tremendous and still growing body of scientific knowledge that brought us from the stone age to where we are today."
This is the key to the debate of religion versus science. Religion starts with a supposition (creation, the great flood, etc.) and then selectively applies or discards rational observations in order to support itself. Science starts with a hypothesis and then applies tests in an attempt to disprove it, at which point a new hypothesis may be formed, or support it, at which point it becomes an accepted theory.
The Difference
The difference becomes all too clear when you compare how negative observations are handled. Scientists have no problem admitting when they are wrong, even if a long accepted theory is eventually dis-proven. Once a predictable model stops working, science looks for a new model. But never have we seen modern Christian, Judaic or Islamic (et. al.) beliefs challenged, adapted or discarded based on a negative rational observation. These are simply ignored, or worse, challenged with pseudo-science in order to preserve specific, often literal, interpretations of religious writings. When an observation disproves a religious model, religion goes looking for a new observation.What's most unfortunate in this argument is that try as one might, rational argument will always fail in the face of religious dogma. Faith is a circular argument and no amount of evidence can shake it. The most entrenched religious believers will always claim that the rational evidence is flawed, biased or conspiratorial. A challenge to their faith is seen as a challenge directly from god, which is answered by yet more faith.
Question Everything
It is for this very reason that rational parenting is so important. We must teach our children as early as possible to question, test, discover and observe. No tenent should be accepted at face value, and every theory, be it scientific or religious in nature, is meant to be poked and prodded in an attempt to disprove it.Tips
Children are naturally curious, and we do a great disservice to them by denying them the right to disagree or challenge what we, as adults, think we know.- Don't be afraid to admit that you don't know the answer to something. There is more to be gained by showing your child how to find out about something. Take them to the library or help them research a topic on the Internet.
- Try to refrain from saying "Because I said so," or "Because I'm the adult." Explain your reasons whenever possible. Accept challenges by your child, even if you ultimately stand your ground.
- Teach your child that's it's OK to be wrong about things. Help them understand that failing a task is still a lesson learned. Encourage them to try a different approach to a task using what they just learned.
- Help your child understand the difference between debating and arguing.
- Make sure they understand that authority/governance doesn't necessarily equal authority/mastery, but both should be treated with respect.
Posts
