- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,914
- 1,529
- 18
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I think a lot of friction is caused by the fact that the word "belief" denotes many different kinds of beliefs, some of which are faith, in the sense the Bible speaks of faith, and some of which are nothing like it.
Most generally, a belief is simply the opinion that a given thing is true.
Beliefs vary both in the degree to which they are held, and the kinds of reasons that support them. When someone says he believes that his coworker is embezzling, he's probably talking about an accumulation of evidence suggesting a conclusion, and subject to verification by other data. When someone says he believes in God, he's probably talking about a judgement of what the world is like, but it's probably not subject to verification or reproduction.
Most religious faith is not subject to verification or reproduction. This makes it poor science, but is not necessarily a particular flaw, as long as the implications are understood. One of the implications is that, in general, there's very little compelling evidence you can show people to persuade them by the same kind of formal process that works for science. Another is that there's really no counterarguments to faith.
By contrast, most beliefs about mundane things *are* subject to verification and reproduction. If I come to the conclusion that my cat weighs around fifteen pounds, you can get a scale, persuade the cat to sit on it, and confirm *or deny* my conclusions. As a result, these beliefs are both easier to "support" - and easier to *refute*. A belief which could not possibly be refuted is not, generally, considered a scientific one. A scientific hypothesis must be one which can be *tested*, and for the test to be meaningful, we have to be able to describe a way for it to fail.
Independant of the *type* of belief, there's a question of the *strength* of the belief. For instance, my belief that atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, is fairly firmly fixed; I do not expect to ever see this belief seriously challenged, and I will not believe a counter-assertion unless I see substantial evidence for it. On the other hand, my belief that a new release of the web browser I'm using will probably not happen for a while is not firmly fixed at all; if I noticed a new version tomorrow, I'd be a bit surprised, but not much.
Finally, there's the question of *importance* of belief. This is one of the most significant differences, in general, between religion and science. In religion, conviction is strongly tied to emotional attachment. It is assumed that anyone who really believes something will consider it an important issue. By contrast, in science, it is generally assumed that it's a flaw to attach too much weight to a given current theory; scientists are expected to be willing to revise or simply drop a theory if it can't hold up to study.
This is very important for understanding creation/evolution debates. Most creationists have *faith*, not evidence, for creation; evidence is brought in only as a counterargument, because it appears to be the way that scientists think. However, creationism isn't a result of science and evidence; it's a result of faith in a specific reading of the Bible. It is generally considered very important that one's beliefs be *true*, not merely reasonable.
Most scientists have a belief based on accumulated observation in the theory of evolution. They may not be very concerned with it, although it seems strange to them when people argue it based on such strange criteria. However, the theory has been revised in the past, and is quite likely to be revised in the future; no one pays this any mind. It's not something that's particularly important, because the scientific process is about learning and revising, not about happening to be right today.
I think the best way to try to show the scientific perspective here is to compare it with some of the laughable attempts in the past to "prove" that there is no God. For instance, imagine that someone came into a thread on this forum, and posted "If God exists, he can stop me from posting this!!!!!!".
Would that persuade you? No. It's a very bad example of an argument about faith. If he kept insisting that he'd disproved God's existance, you'd probably think he was a kook.
However, there's another important point: A lot of people say things like "evolution is an evil religion!". Evolution isn't a religion; it's a theory. It's a way of explaining the world. It's not a big deal. It doesn't answer moral questions, *NOR DOES IT CLAIM TO*. Evolution doesn't change the answer to questions like "Is it morally wrong to kill someone because he insulted me?", and it doesn't change the answer to questions like "Does God love me?". It's not *about* that.
It is occasionally pointed out that not very many biologists are Christian. I think this is as much because people are driving them away as anything else.
Evolution, to people who believe in it (in the sense in which one "believes" in a well-tested scientific theory), is just a likely explanation for observed qualities of the physical world, and a way to better understand that world. It's not a "replacement" for God. It's not an alternative to salvation, nor is it offered as an alternative *path* to salvation. Jews who believe in evolution still keep the Law, and still wait for the Messiah. Christians who believe in evolution still accept Jesus as their savior and lord, and seek forgiveness for their sins. People who believe in evolution are just as likely as other people to love their children, take good care of their pets, and have souls.
Most generally, a belief is simply the opinion that a given thing is true.
Beliefs vary both in the degree to which they are held, and the kinds of reasons that support them. When someone says he believes that his coworker is embezzling, he's probably talking about an accumulation of evidence suggesting a conclusion, and subject to verification by other data. When someone says he believes in God, he's probably talking about a judgement of what the world is like, but it's probably not subject to verification or reproduction.
Most religious faith is not subject to verification or reproduction. This makes it poor science, but is not necessarily a particular flaw, as long as the implications are understood. One of the implications is that, in general, there's very little compelling evidence you can show people to persuade them by the same kind of formal process that works for science. Another is that there's really no counterarguments to faith.
By contrast, most beliefs about mundane things *are* subject to verification and reproduction. If I come to the conclusion that my cat weighs around fifteen pounds, you can get a scale, persuade the cat to sit on it, and confirm *or deny* my conclusions. As a result, these beliefs are both easier to "support" - and easier to *refute*. A belief which could not possibly be refuted is not, generally, considered a scientific one. A scientific hypothesis must be one which can be *tested*, and for the test to be meaningful, we have to be able to describe a way for it to fail.
Independant of the *type* of belief, there's a question of the *strength* of the belief. For instance, my belief that atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, is fairly firmly fixed; I do not expect to ever see this belief seriously challenged, and I will not believe a counter-assertion unless I see substantial evidence for it. On the other hand, my belief that a new release of the web browser I'm using will probably not happen for a while is not firmly fixed at all; if I noticed a new version tomorrow, I'd be a bit surprised, but not much.
Finally, there's the question of *importance* of belief. This is one of the most significant differences, in general, between religion and science. In religion, conviction is strongly tied to emotional attachment. It is assumed that anyone who really believes something will consider it an important issue. By contrast, in science, it is generally assumed that it's a flaw to attach too much weight to a given current theory; scientists are expected to be willing to revise or simply drop a theory if it can't hold up to study.
This is very important for understanding creation/evolution debates. Most creationists have *faith*, not evidence, for creation; evidence is brought in only as a counterargument, because it appears to be the way that scientists think. However, creationism isn't a result of science and evidence; it's a result of faith in a specific reading of the Bible. It is generally considered very important that one's beliefs be *true*, not merely reasonable.
Most scientists have a belief based on accumulated observation in the theory of evolution. They may not be very concerned with it, although it seems strange to them when people argue it based on such strange criteria. However, the theory has been revised in the past, and is quite likely to be revised in the future; no one pays this any mind. It's not something that's particularly important, because the scientific process is about learning and revising, not about happening to be right today.
I think the best way to try to show the scientific perspective here is to compare it with some of the laughable attempts in the past to "prove" that there is no God. For instance, imagine that someone came into a thread on this forum, and posted "If God exists, he can stop me from posting this!!!!!!".
Would that persuade you? No. It's a very bad example of an argument about faith. If he kept insisting that he'd disproved God's existance, you'd probably think he was a kook.
However, there's another important point: A lot of people say things like "evolution is an evil religion!". Evolution isn't a religion; it's a theory. It's a way of explaining the world. It's not a big deal. It doesn't answer moral questions, *NOR DOES IT CLAIM TO*. Evolution doesn't change the answer to questions like "Is it morally wrong to kill someone because he insulted me?", and it doesn't change the answer to questions like "Does God love me?". It's not *about* that.
It is occasionally pointed out that not very many biologists are Christian. I think this is as much because people are driving them away as anything else.
Evolution, to people who believe in it (in the sense in which one "believes" in a well-tested scientific theory), is just a likely explanation for observed qualities of the physical world, and a way to better understand that world. It's not a "replacement" for God. It's not an alternative to salvation, nor is it offered as an alternative *path* to salvation. Jews who believe in evolution still keep the Law, and still wait for the Messiah. Christians who believe in evolution still accept Jesus as their savior and lord, and seek forgiveness for their sins. People who believe in evolution are just as likely as other people to love their children, take good care of their pets, and have souls.
