Response to:
"Faith hinders the search for truth."
Some contend that faith hinders the search for truth because it gets in the way of reasoning. Objective scientific discovery has proven to be very valuable. Superstitions and magical potions that once held people in fear and ill-health have been replaced by effective medical solutions. Releasing the study of nature from the grip of superstition has allowed mankind to discover the hidden treasures in nature from the tiniest of subatomic particles to giant galaxies to the expansion of the universe. Technological solutions help us fight hunger, disease and drought. Scientific methodologies can also be applied to the study of history, and even the so called "soft sciences" of psychology, sociology and economics. So successful has been the use of scientific methodology in every field that any claim to knowledge obtained any other way is dismissed as superstition. Religious faith has so often been at odds with and hindered scientific progress that it is seen as an enemy.
There are at least two ways to respond to this challenge. We can show that even scientific knowledge is based ultimately on faith and therefore the challenge is self refuting. In addition, we can show that it is not really faith that hinders the search for truth; rather, it is poor reasoning from problems such as bias and logical fallacies that hinders us from being able to place our faith in the right object.
Response 1: Even scientific knowledge is based ultimately on faith.
In response to this challenge we must remember that: (1) it is a myth that scientific knowledge is not based on faith, (2) we must understand the limitations and appropriate uses of scientific inquiry and (3) it is a myth that religious faith somehow poisons the process of finding the truth.
It is a myth that scientific knowledge is not based on faith.
On an almost daily basis one can read in the scientific literature about a long standing scientific theory being demolished by new research. Scientists spend lifetimes disproving the theories that other scientists propose. Science progresses the most when scientists humbly admit they were wrong and then adopt a new theory based on the new evidence. But how do they know for sure that the new theory is the right one? After all, that theory might soon be proved wrong, too. They must take it on faith that it is the best theory, at least until disproved. In this way, all knowledge about the physical universe is tentative and must be taken on faith.
Fortunately, over the centuries research methods have been developed that reduce the amount of faith required to believe a theory is probably the right one. But a decision to act on that theory is still, at least a small matter of faith. For example, you wouldn’t go to a witch doctor who mixes a potion out of ingredients he collected in a forest but you would go to a doctor wearing a white lab coat in a modern office building and take a medicine made out of other ingredients collected from the same forest. What’s the difference? The difference is the pharmaceutical company used carefully conducted methods to pick the most effective ingredients, mix them together the right way and then try it on large groups of people to prove that in most cases the medication works. But will it work on you? No one knows until you try it, not even the researchers who developed the medicine. In other words, you, the doctor and the drug company have to exercise faith that it will probably work on you, as well. The scientists who develop the medicine have faith in their reasoning and methods and we, in turn, put our faith in their scientific integrity.
The difference between a scientifically based culture and non-scientifically based culture really boils down to having faith that nature acts consistently at all times and in all places and believing that if everything remains the same there is a high probability of the phenomenon occurring again. A culture that believes nature is guided by fickle gods and spirits can not progress very far scientifically.
We must understand the limitations and appropriate uses of scientific inquiry.
We must keep in mind that scientific inquiry has limitations that govern its appropriate use. The philosopher Martin Heidegger asked, "Why is there anything rather than nothing at all?" A scientist using scientific methods is limited to answering the question in terms of natural processes. The scientist can produce theories about the origin of the universe. The Big Bang Theory is currently the most favored view. It is truly amazing how scientists can use what they know about the elements, forces and natural laws to calculate what the universe would probably be like at every step of its expansion from a very small compressed ball of matter and energy to its final state of rest. But while science can be used to answer the question in terms of natural causes and processes, that is not what Heidegger had in mind. He was asking a philosophical and religious question. Science can not be used to explain the philosophical or religious purpose for the existence of the universe. His question is not about how the universe came to be but why it should exist at all. Nor can science be used to obtain truthful answers to the ultimate questions of life.
Another limit is how much certainty is possible. Thomas Kuhn wrote a book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions which has become required reading for many science students in their doctoral programs. He wrote,
“Few philosophers of science still seek absolute criteria for the verification of scientific theories. Noting that no theory can ever be exposed to all possible relevant tests, they ask not whether a theory has been verified but rather about its probability in the light of the evidence that actually exists.”
It is a myth that religious faith somehow poisons the process of finding the truth.
Often when people use the term "faith," they are really talking about organized religion, such as the medieval church’s opposition to Galileo. However, if we look closely at these lessons of history, we can realize that it wasn't a belief in God that caused the problem. Rather, it was corrupt and power-hungry political leadership. Even atheistic communist leaders have stifled scientific progress. Again, the problem is the bias that people, religious, nonreligious and antireligious bring to inquiry.
Now that we?ve gotten that out of the way let?s answer the questions: can a religious person be trusted to do good science? And is there an appropriate place for religious faith in science? The history of science answers both these questions with a resounding yes! There have been many great scientists whose contributions were grounded in their belief in God and how He created and structured the universe. Did their faith in God hinder their scientific reasoning? Many great scientists have had a belief in God and they were consciously looking at the universe from that perspective. It is clear that their religious faith did not interfere with the process of finding truth. The history of science demonstrates they were able to make their discoveries because of how they viewed nature as being created and ordered by God who is the ultimate Intelligent Designer.
Response 2: It is not faith that hinders the search for truth but poor reasoning that hinders faith.
If religious faith does not poison the process of finding the truth then what does? What poisons the process of finding the truth is faulty reasoning. One's reasoning can be faulty because of any number or combination of factors. A scientist, whether theist or atheist, can be so biased as to design an experiment that will yield only the conclusion the researcher wants to find. There are other potential problems in the scientific endeavor, as well. One can be using faulty data. One can fail to control all the outside influences that might affect the outcome of the experiment. In addition, there are many logical fallacies one can fall into unwittingly. You see, faith is like a tool. It is neutral. If it is applied to good data, good methodology and good logic it yields the right results. But if it is applied to bad data, bad methodology and bad logic it yields bad results.
Since ultimately we have to take all knowledge by faith, reasoning becomes very important. People get into trouble when they believe something that is not reasonable. For example, a girl believes her boyfriend would make a good husband even though he is abusive and cheats on her. Is her faith a reasonable faith? A guy looses his car in a gambling bet because he really believed luck would be on his side. People consult horoscopes and psychics even though they have been debunked over and over. Unfortunately this happens to religious people as well. Some well meaning people take what their spiritual leader says purely on faith without thinking about it. Some people just go by what "feels right." Well, they might be lucky in that what they believe or feel is right. But others aren't so lucky and wind up in self-destructive cults. The point is faith is not the problem. The problem is lack of careful reasoning.
We must use careful reasoning to conclude whether or not the object of our faith is trustworthy. Now obviously we would go crazy examining every little physical object or idea we put our faith in. So how much effort we put into checking out the trustworthiness of something depends on its priority or importance. We get in our car, turn the key and drive to school or work without doing a thorough analysis of every part of the car to make sure it has a high probability of not failing. If it is a reliable car we probably don't give it a thought. Even if the car breaks down, it won't be the end of the world.
Conclusion
Does all this apply to answering the ultimate questions of life? It is very appropriate to put a lot of thought and reasoning into what will happen when we die. Will we be reincarnated as a bug? Will we go to paradise or will we go to hell? Which religious leader got it right: Buddha, Mohamed, Gandhi or Jesus? Which God is worthy of our trust: Krishna, the Great White Spirit, Allah, the Force or Yahweh? Is it reasonable to believe that we can earn our salvation through good works? We must use careful reasoning because faith in the wrong god or leader will keep you from the truth about salvation, so it is the most important reasoning you’ll ever do.
Is it reasonable to trust Jesus Christ and trust that His claims and teachings were true? Let's start with the resurrection. All of Christianity stands or falls with the resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity self-destructs. Many people say, “If something can’t be proven scientifically, it can’t be proven at all.” By now, I hope you realize the fallacies involved in that kind of thinking. Science can not be used to prove or disprove the resurrection any more than the skeptic can use it to prove or disprove that his car was stolen. But you can be sure that the skeptic believes that a legal-historical proof can be just as trustworthy as a scientific proof when he is trying to prove his case in a court of law.
Using careful historical research methods many scholars conclude there is enough historical evidence to make it reasonable to believe that Jesus really did rise from the dead. His resurrection would prove that His claim to be God and the only way to heaven is true. After Jesus rose from the dead, He appeared to His disciples in a room with the door and windows locked. One of the disciples, Thomas, was not in the room at the time. When the other disciples told him about it he was skeptical, like you or I would be. Later when the disciples, including Thomas were gathered in the room Jesus appeared again. Thomas touched Jesus and felt the holes in His hands and feet and side then acknowledged it was true by saying, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John goes on to say, “These (miracles) are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20:24-31.
References
Budziszewski, J. How to Stay Christian in College. Colorado Springs: NavPress. 1999. p. 70
Geisler, Norman and Bocchino, Peter. Unshakable Foundations: contemporary Cnswers to Crucial Questions about the Christian Faith. Minneapolis: Bethany House. 2001. p. 80-85.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edition Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1996. p. 145.
Copyright 2005. Gary C. Burger and New Media Ministries. This article may be reproduced and distributed freely as long as it is done so in its entirety. If quoted it must be properly cited as a reference.
